From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: Hasan B Mutlu
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:46:28 GMT

c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) writes:

>The Litmus Test would be whether the net is used to exchange information,
>opinions, ideas, methods, jokes, etc (all acceptable methods) or whether
>it is used as a media to (to use one of my favorite phrases here)
>'further one's cause'. 

This is really an unclear standard. What is the *real* difference between 
"exchanging opinions" and "furthering one's cause"? The following:

>Here's the difference. The exchange of information, etc is and has been 
>the foundation of the net. Nobody has complained about the posting of
>volumes and volumes of data in, say, alt.fractals, comp.binaries.*, or
>rec.jokes. 

is not quite sound logic to me. A posting in comp.binaries of shareware is
furthering the cause of the shareware author. A posting in rec.jokes is
furthering the cause of humor. 

>races, etc. Information exchange on the net involves LISTENING skills
>as well as POSTING skills. And, above all, it assumes a two way street
>in communications. How can anyone two-way-communicate with someone who
>ridicules anyone disagreeing with him, refuses personal mail, and on top
>of all that, posts from non-existing hosts thru UC Berkeley's posting
>service? 

You can't. But it seems that this goes on with many more people then 
Mutlu. I see *lots* of postings which fits the above criteria. Sean Eric
Fagen comes to mind...he ridicules anyone disagreeing with him and refuses
personal mail. On top of which, my using him as an example will probably
get a scathing response from him. Do you see *me* clamoring for his 
removal from the net? 

(Actually I welcome such spirit. Makes life more interesting.)

>It is this lack of two way communication in good faith that essentially
>distinguishes Mr. Mutlu from the rest of, ah, let's say, spirited

Really? I see no such distinction. You have to give me better grounds
for a distinction than that. 

>It's that simple. $20 a month buys less than a hundrend postage stamps
>for a direct mail campaign, and virtually no time in radio/TV/print.
>$20 a month buys 2,000,000 readers world wide also. It's THAT simple.

2,000,000 readers to be sure, but not everybody reads his posts. His
name may be taking up lots of disk space in the collective KILL file
aggregate, but I'm sure less and less people read his posts. 

>If that is the case, I am sure all the pro-[life|choice], [pro|anti]-gun,
>[pro|anti]-everything people would all line up to pay their $20/month
>to newsfeeds and flood the net, all 'furthering their causes'. I bet

Seen talk.abortion and talk.politics.guns ever? Should we kick all
those "activists" off the net?

>if the political parties did the same it would all be fine with you too.

>it.  But 600 KB of messages filled with personal insults a week, along
>with posts to irrelevant groups, and coupled with little
>accountability and lack of two way communications are the things we
>(I) object to. Not the individual, whom I find entertaining at times
>and annoying at best.

So put him in your kill file, IGNORE him, and don't give him any more 
power than you have already given him. If he wants to waste his energy,
that's his business. 

>Thank you for your comments. 

You're welcome. Anytime. Just ask. 
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

      A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance 
                when the need for illusion is deep
Xref: sparky news.admin:7274 comp.org.eff.talk:5536 misc.legal.computing:2024