From: cuz@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Cousin It)
Subject: Re: rec.music.makers.*: chronology and comments from the vote-taker.
Organization: Metal Monsters Inc.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:03:57 GMT

gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:
|In article <cuz.721290453@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> cuz@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu  
|(Cousin It) writes:
|> gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:
|> 
|> |Send seperate articles with different subject lines to the affected  
|group.  
|> |Even a small message which is a pointer to the one with your exiting  
|> |subject line would have been a help.
|> 
|> 	That sounds really good. Think off all the fragmented
|> discussions we can have then. The reason why we don't do that now is
|> so we can have a logical place and headers for discussion/all
|> discussion will be under "one roof". If you take your method, in this
|> case, without taking in any of the usual fragmentation that happens
|> anyway (*sigh*), there would have been a high probability of having 5
|> seperate discussions. On the same proposal. This is not good.
|> 
|If the separate pointers refer to a common message which contains the  
|content of the proposal and indicates where follow-ups should go I don't  
|think it would splinter any more than it would via the cross-postings that  
|are already mandatory.

	If the body of the message said,"check out article blah blah
blah, you might be interested in it," then I might agree with you.
But, someone will say that is too vague, and pretty soon you'll have
to say what the proposal is that affects the group is, and then you
get the split. 

|> |I don't doubt for a moment that you had the best of intentions. I also  
|> |agree that the existing subject line is logically correct even if it  
|> |doesn't tell the whole story. I just think there should have been a  
|better  
|> |attempt to make the impact clear and the affected existing groups aware  
|of  
|> |it.
|> 	Fine, end of discussion. If you find the subject logically
|> correct, and people don't read it, that's thier problem. We can't, nor
|> should we hand proposals to "the ignorant horde" on a silver platter.
|> If they don't realize that a CFV/RFD, which was posted into "thier"
|> group might be important to said group, then they aren't responsible.
|> And they deserve the fate they get. 

|Logically correct doesn't mean 'clear'. And the more I think about it, it  
|wasn't even logically correct. "Ignorant horde"? Nice elitist term. Many  
|people have expressed confusion over this process and have questioned it.  
|Are they all "ignorant" in your eyes? Are people that mistype "their"  
|ignorant?

	a) The subject line was logically correct.
	b) "Ignorant horde" isn't elitist, it's just a nice term to
use instead of "all those usenet readers who are ignorant of some of
the most important things with regard to the net." Much more succint,
if you ask me.
	c) Yes, these people are ignorant. However, they are trying to
learn. This should be incouraged. It shouldn't change the process.
	d) People who mistype their consistently are ignorant of at
least one of two things.
		1) the correct spelling
		2) proper usenet guidelines which say you should
proofread your article.

	I fall into category b. Willfully at that.
  
|> Besides, the subject line is not
|> there to make impact clear, that is what the message body is for.

|Is this in the guidelines or is this your opinion?

	My opinion.

|> |This is a VERY good point. I hadn't seen the original article. I wish  
|> |someone that had would have said something about it. I don't know as  
|that  
|> |would remove your responsibilty however for an unclear subject line.
|> 
|> 	Wait. You just above said the subject line was logically
|> correct. If it's logically correct, it really can't be all that
|> unclear. Not to mention the fact that the only group that the subject
|> line was unclear in was r.m.synth.

|Logically correct does not equal clear. Do you know it was clear to other  
|groups? Do you have any evidence of that? People keep asking *me* for  
|evidence. Where's yours? The lack of messages from other groups? Are they  
|cross-posted on these articles?

	Yes, that is my evidence. I feel it is good evidence. And,
even if this thread never hits that group, you would have expected
someone from those groups to post as well. They didn't. We can assume
two things, they are either ignorant or did not have a problem with
the subject. I will go with the latter, but the former is just as
valid.

|> |> I should also point out that I received no correspondence from anyone
|> |> objecting to the "Subject" line while the vote was taking place.
|> 
|> |That's because most people affected didn't know it was taking place.  
|> |(Circular argument).
|> 
|> 	Oh well, tough noogies.

|What a thoughtful response.

	Thanks. However, it still stands.

Cousin It                           cuz@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu
"Forgive and Forget, Fuck No, I'm talking about a revolution"
                  COC "Vote With A Bullet"
Newsgroups: news.groups