From: baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CFV? What's a CFV??
Date: 16 Nov 92 23:54:10 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dep't., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
In-reply-to: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov's message of 15 Nov 92 09:08:03 -0400

In article <1992Nov15.130803.12664@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes), quoting rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu
(Rich Kulawiec), writes:
>>However, there are also consequences which ensue from holding
>>*that* point of view, and Usenet users who adhere to it must also
>>be prepared to deal with those consequences.  One's opinion
>>that something is unimportant does not necessarily make it so.
>
>So there IS a standard of importance that is deemed to be "more
>important" than others...

I'm sure you can find counterexamples (maybe you *are* a
counterexample), but it seems to me that there is a pretty broad
USENET consensus (among the knowledgeable) that one should read the
appropriate documents and take a little time familiarizing oneself
with the conventions and procedures of USENET before posting,
particularly to administrative groups concerned with the net's
configuration.

Does the opinion of this consensus group count for more than the
collective opinion of all those freshmen and BBS "hackers" [used in
its semi-deleterious sense] who think it's OK to just post messages
with trivial and basic questions to a worldwide audience that is
trying to read the details of the aforesaid network configuration?  My
opinion is Yes, it does.

A great deal of effort has gone into providing the swiftest and most
concise possible introduction to the conventions of this network.
This thread was started when someone responded tersely and annoyed-ly
to some dolt who decided it was easier for him to post the question
"What does CFV stand for?" and sit back and wait for replies than to
do an extremely minimal amount of research on his own and educate
himself.  The difference of opinion here seems to be whether said
dolt's sense of what is important is selfish and irresponsible.  I
weigh in on what I believe to be Rich's side in saying that it was.

I am the sysadmin of this site.  If we had a significant number of
news users here, I would do the following:

1) chown the news-reading software to group "newsuser"

2) Maintain a hardcopy notebook of the most recent versions of all
   the basic introductory network documents

3) Give every user desiring net access a quiz (and a damn hard one)
   about basic "netiquette" and proper procedures for getting
   questions answered, as well as the basics of the newsreading 
   software

4) Add users to group "newsuser" ONLY when they pass 3) to my
   satisfaction

Call me a fascist, if you must (it won't be my first time).  This
network is fun and, sometimes, quite useful.  Its utility could be
increased, I believe, by something like an order of magnitude if every
sysadmin at every site did something like the above.

Well, you got what you asked for, in spades:  a "random" USENET user
weighing in on the question of whether one view of what is important
in USENET use is more valid than another.  And, if you disagree, then
please explain to me within this "situational" context why I should
not have crossposted this article to sci.physics and
rec.autos.driving.
--
 From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /   baldwin@usna.navy.mil   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~