From: markm@ogicse.ogi.edu (Mark Morrissey)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Soc.Motss.*
Date: 18 Dec 92 01:26:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.47467
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR

In article <1gpj8kINNp1q@alice.cs.purdue.edu> berninge@cs.purdue.edu (James Berninger) writes:
>nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar) writes:
>>berninge@cs.purdue.edu (James Berninger) writes:
>>>I guess what I'm taking offense at is the use of the newsgroup as a
>>>tool of the "regulars" (dare I say "elite") -- there are quite a few
>>>messages I see posted that seem appropriate for a "chat" between
>>>them, and there's no real reason I should have to read these things.
>>So why do you read them?
>Did I say I read them?  No.  But, in order to determine if a new

but you did say that you felt that you *had* to read them?

>thread is worth my time, I have to at least read the first one (or
>two, or three, whatever).

My, my!  I can certainly see your problem.  Perhaps your mother could
screen the articles for you?  I feel so sorry for you, having to actually
read a thread before deciding that you don't like it.  Why don't you
just post a list of what you are willing to tolerate on here and
we can preface all other types of postings with "Jimmy won't like this."
It will make things sooooooo much easier for you.  After all, we are
here for you.

btw: this thread is starting to sound like a chat between you and Nelson
and I don't think I should have to read it.

>My KILL file, on the average, gets rid of somewhere between 40-50%
>of new articles.  That alone probably saves me 20 minutes -- that's
>worth it to me.  But, having to read motss only on a local fast
>terminal is inconvenient.

Yes, I know.  I read it over 2400 baud.  However, I don't whine about
the "wasted bandwidth" as I really can't find that much that an 
intelligent person can't deal with efficiently.  I often read 200
messages in less that 10 minutes.  That leaves me with time to
read posting which waste bandwidth - like yours.

>Cute.  And actually, pretty accurate.  Not that every article has
>this kind of chit-chat, but it's there, and seems to cause almost as
>many followups as the stuff that *belongs* here.

Please, kind sir, tell us all - please, please, *please* tell us all -
exactly what *stuff* actually *belongs* here.  We are all waiting
with baited breath.  NOT!

Nelson and I have discussed this a little bit, but what you want,
James, will never come to pass.  Even if you managed to create a
group called soc.motss.wool.scarves, someone is bound to mention
wool gloves and then you would have yet another fit as that clearly
would not *belong* there.  If the traffic here irritates you too
much and clearly becomes not worth your while, you will unsubscribe.
Not reading a newsgroup can be done very fast over slow dialup
links, you know.  If reading is still worth your while, you will
learn to cope and hopefully learn to quit whining.

Life will get far worse, trust me.

--mark
--
Mark Morrissey           One Hatred to rule them all.  One Hatred to find them.
markm@cse.ogi.edu        One Hatred to bring them all and in the darkness bind
                         them.  In the land of Bigotry where the Shadows lie.

Newsgroups: soc.motss