From: ap.358@layout.Berkeley.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.personals
Subject: A Reply to Scott's "Supporters"
Followup-To: poster
Date: 10 Apr 1992 09:50:30 GMT
Organization: Anonymous Contact Service @ layout.Berkeley.EDU
Distribution: world
Reply-To: ap.358@layout.Berkeley.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: layout.berkeley.edu
X-ACS2-Version: 2.1 mmt-PL2
Originator: daemon@layout.Berkeley.EDU

In article <s043eINNol0@agate.berkeley.edu> ap.2558@layout.Berkeley.EDU writes:
>In article <rmf06INNp2o@agate.berkeley.edu>, ap.358@layout.Berkeley.EDU writes:
>>>I think I might be able to distinguish, if we shared the same definition of
>>>-use- and -waste-.  Apparently we don't.  I think passing hundreds of
>>>megs of GIF pictures around the world as part of the newsfeed is a waste,
>>
>>If you think it is a waste, you should post to alt.binaries.pictures and
>>tell them your opinion!! But the truth is, there are a sufficient number of
>>people in the net who think there is a need for establishing the
>>alt.binaries.picture.* newsgroups. And there are a number of people
>>reading the group. But I think if someone posts the *same GIF file* every
>>single day, it is a waste!! From my observation, I have never seen anyone
>>doing that in those groups. I have voiced my opinion about what I think is
>>someone wasting bandwidth. Are you going to tell the people in alt.binaries.
>>picture.* that you think what they are doing is a waste? If you think it
>>is a waste, are you doing anything about it?
>
>It seems that the definition of "waste" comes down to whether the use of
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the bandwidth has any beneficial result.  For example, posting a GIF file
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I do not agree. It is not necessarily true that as long as you get the
beneficial result you want, you "expenditure" will be justified. There may
be alternative means that will achieve the *same* result, but will cost
less. I am sure most people can think of many examples. The same example
about GIF files I gave my my previous article is a good example. You have
in fact quoted it above. If you post the *same GIF* file everyday, someone
will get the "benefit" of having access to it. But is that a waste of
bandwidth? Is that benefit justified?

>has the result of making it available to people who like such things;
>posting it a second time has no effect, the assumption being that everyone
>who wanted it got it the first time, ergo it's a waste.  Agreed.
>
>Now, in Scott's case, if he ever actually encounters the sought-after
>Tight Little Nympho [tm], then all the bandwidth will have been spent to
>good purpose, and he won't have wasted anything.  If not, it's waste, sure
>enough.  Will we ever know?  Probably not.  My guess, for what it's worth,
>is that he's going about this in an entirely wrongheaded way and will have
>no luck whatsoever; of course, I thought the same thing about a former
>roommate of mine, who operated on the theory that one woman in a thousand
>is actually crazy enough to go for a line like "Wanna fuck?", so all you
>have to do is be prepared for 999 rejections.  Not my style, but it
>actually seemed to work for him.
>
>Consider a more typical a.p posting: "Sensitive caring SWM, 23, 5-4,
>165#, MS candidate in Computer Science, but not a nerd, really, honest,
>I'd tell you if I were, seeks slim, athletic, sympathetic SWF, 21-23, to
>ease the pain of being dumped by former girlfriend."  I truly believe that
>even Scott has a better chance of success than this (hypothetical) guy.
>Does he get flamed for wasting bandwidth?  Not that I've ever noticed.
>Does he get results?  I doubt it.
No, he probably does not get flamed for wasting bandwidth if he does not
post his (same identical ad) every single day.

>Folks, Scott has stated definitively for the record that he won't stop
>posting no matter what anybody says.  The barrage of postings insisting
>that he stop are _guaranteed_ to be ineffective; Scott said so, and I see
>no reason to doubt him.  So who's wasting what, exactly?
Scott can state *anything* he likes. Does that mean what he states will
100% become truth? Besides, you have missed another point which I mentioned
in my earlier post. The point is, anyone who is *thinking of* abusing the
system will now reconsider the implication of doing so.

>I think that the vociferous anti-Scott clamorers ought to take a moment to
>wonder what it is they find so offensive.  It's news to you that there are
>jerks in the world?  One more post per day out of a hundred or so is such
>a big deal?  You can't be bothered to figure out how to use a kill file?
One post per day per person can be a big deal. If everyone starts following
him, we will be reading nearly the same set of posts every single day!!
We have to do something when someone is starting this trend. Do you want
to wait until things get out of hand?

>(Hint: /NYMPH/h:j)  Or is it just that you think he's making all the rest
Your "hint" will not work for two reasons. Firstly, all other posts with
the same keyword will be killed. Why do readers have to lose the chance of
reading certains posts just because this person is using these words in
the same identical posting everyday? Secondly, in an earlier posting,
Scott made it clear that he will on purposely use different words in the
subject line of his post (thus making sure that this strategy will not work).

>of us look bad?  If that's the problem, try thinking about it from the
>other perspective: do you think that a couple of "Attractive SWF seeks
>sugar daddy" postings would make all women look bad?
 It is *not* because he makes anyone look bad.

>I think Scott is an idiot, and I'm quite sure I'd dislike him intensely in
>the unfortunate circumstance that I ever met him in person.  On the other
>hand, if everybody I felt that way about stopped posting on Usenet in
>general, or a.p in particular, there'd be virtually nothing left to read,
>and I'd have to spend my time doing honest work.  I find Scott amusing, in
>a vulgar sort of way akin to Krystyne Kryttre comix or Saturday Night Live
>sketches about barfing; as far as I'm concerned, he can post as much as he
>damn pleases.
Yes, he can. And I can still express my opinion about him. But this post is
not about him, it is to answer some of your questions. You may think I am
wasting bandwidth answering your post here. Well, if you have sent this to
me directly (instead of posting it), I would have answered you directly.
Since you have posted these comments of yours in reference to my earlier post,
I can't help but supply my answers to your questions to the public.

Elf.(ap.)

 
 

--
To use this service, send EMAIL to:
Anonymous posting:		ap.post@layout.Berkeley.EDU
Anonymous reply:		<user's alias>@layout.Berkeley.EDU
Test path/get alias:		ap.ping@layout.Berkeley.EDU
ACS administrator:		ap.admin@layout.Berkeley.EDU