From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: DAVE HAYES MAY BE RIGHT!
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:14:59 GMT

jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>>When? 
>>Real Soon Now. ;-)
>...kinda like Windows NT, then.

Stop picking nits...:-)

>>>>>>How about posting the articles more frequently?
>>>>>How frequently?
>>>>Once every three days.
>>>Hm. How did you arrive at that number? 
>>Gut feeling. 
>Hm. I was hoping you had a rationale there...it's hard to balance one gut
>feeling against another. Personally, I think weekly should suffice, but I
>can't really back that up either. The concern is that the articles not
>completely dominate discussion in the group to be affected, as that has been
>shown not to work. (See the rec.arts.sf-lovers reorg for an example.)

If a group needs a rename due to large traffic flow, it stands to reason
that (flameguments not withstanding) once per three days is hardly a drop 
in the bucket. In fact, it may not be enough. 

>>>Your response to a rape (your analogy, not mine) is to unzip your pants?
>>My response (to extend the analogy to this case) was to scream for help.
>>It's the people in the apartments above who call the cops on ME that are
>>inappropriate.
>When the folks in the apartment above hear the screams, then come downstairs
>to find someone standing over the victim unzipping his pants, then calling the
>cops on that person is a natural thing to do.

I wasn't unzipping my pants...in this case.

>>>Nevertheless, that does not mean the rest of the net will go along with you.
>>As much as I'd like that...I don't expect them to.
>Then what, exactly, do you hope to accomplish with your revote demand? 

I meant that it appears that the rest of the net won't even let me have 
a revote. 

>>>You must convince the admins of the net that the vote was unfair and invalid
>>>in order to justify a revote. 
>>That's a purely subejctive process, isn't it? 
>No more so than any other decision news admins make when doing their jobs.
>That, too, is a subjective process.

Well then. All this argument about "logic" and "rationality" and "intellectual
honesty" can be thrown right out the window, huh? 

>>>Not even when the article has no acronyms at all in it?
>>Not unless it's posted several times in a manner in which you cannot help but
>>be aware that something is going on.
>See the rec.arts.sf-lovers reorg for an example where a protracted flamewar
>produces a thousand or so votes...and that has been called (though not by you
>- how many votes do you think constitute adequate participation?) inadequate.

I don't think a protracted flamewar is necessary to get that effect. Of the
two votes I've run, I've noticed a marked correlation between the posting
of a CFV and the incoming daily total of votes. Thus, it stands to reason
that posting more often will increase the total number of votes. 
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

Nobody wants constructive criticism.  It's all we can do to put up with
constructive praise.
Newsgroups: news.groups