HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:30:47 CDT
Reply-To:     mcnamara@mgi.com
From:         mcnamara@VIXVAX.MGI.COM
Subject:      RE: You got it... but there's more to get

> From Greg Williams (920909 [really!])
>
> There are four kinds of manipulation (I claim): those which, if
> successful (from the manipulator's point of view) result in the manipulee's
> (after completion of the manipulation) judging them (to him/her) harmful
> ["exploitation"], neutral ["?"], good ["facilitation"], or mixed/who
> knows/can't say ["?"].
>

	This reminds me of a "General Theory of Stupidity" that I saw
in Whole Earth Review some time ago.  The basic concept was that
intelligence had nothing to do with IQ (whatever that is), but rather
was a function of an individuals' interactions with other humans.
There were four types of exchanges, classified on whether or not
they resulted in a gain for the participants.  The highest level
was where both parties benefitted (genius), the next where one benefitted
to the extent that the other lost (thief), the third where neither
benefitted (neutral), and the fourth where both lost (stupid).  The idea
was that the first three interactions don't increase the entropy of
the universe, but the fourth one does.  It was couched in terms of
information gain or loss, but could be recast in control terms.
I'll provide the reference in a few days.

						Curt

****************************************************************************
Curt McNamara	(mcnamara@mgi.com)	|"The present would be full of all
Mgmt. Graphics, Inc.			|possible futures, if the past had
1401 E. 79th St.			|not already projected a pattern
Mpls., MN    55425			|upon it."  Andre Gide
****************************************************************************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sun, 13 Sep 1992 08:08:40 EDT
From:         Eileen Prince <eprince@DS5000.DAC.NORTHEASTERN.EDU>
Subject:      one or two texts

I am a generally non-contributing member of this list.  This is because
my area of specialization is language (ESL) teaching and my academic
background is in linguistics (though also psycholinguistics).  I am
writing this to request suggestions on one or two texts.  That is, the
old question of if you could only read oner or two books about ..., what
would you choose.

Thanks in advance.

Eileen Prince
Northeastern University
From: POWERS_W%FLC@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU (William T. Powers)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: turing; perception of model structures
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:20:41 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CSG-L@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu
X-VMS-To: @CSG
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

[From Bill Powers (920915.1200)]

Cliff Joslyn (920915) --

Right on the button, as usual. Your second point, about defining
intelligence, is the most fundamental in my opinion. If I were
constructing an intelligence test, I would make sure that everything I
know know to do well would score high, and the things I've never
mastered would contribute nothing. Intelligence, of course, means
understanding control theory, so Dizzy Gillespie would score low,
allowing me to get even for being a lousy jazz musician.

You'll notice that when I discussed the Turing test, I expressed it as
trying to find out whether the entity at the other end was a human
being or a program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Eric Harnden (920915.1230) --

A lot of the things I've written about the slipperiness of words,
about trying to see beneath the words to the perceptions that they
mean, were attempts to express what you say so well:

>frankly, i don't think it matters where one puts the 'behavior'
label. >my own approach has always been a cybernetic one, and the
shifting of a >label doesn't change any of my (mental or experimental)
model >structures.

The model itself is the perception that matters, isn't it? I've always
claimed that the way to prove you understand control theory is to
explain it to three different people without using any of the same
words for what the system does. When you have a picture of the
_organization_ in your mind, it really doesn't matter how you describe
it.

For convenience, I think it's worthwhile differentiating actions from
consequences, because there are some phenomena relating them that are
interesting. When the controlled consequence is disturbed, assuming
the reference level remains the same, the action HAS to change in just
the way required to counteract the disturbance. It's in that sense
that the disturbance determines the action. But this is very much an
AS IF situation; you can't explain this relationship without grasping
the way the whole loop behaves. The appearance is that the disturbance
causes the action; that's what led to S-R theory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Best,


Bill P.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:50:14 -0500
From:         "Gary A. Cziko" <g-cziko@UIUC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Language-learning manipulation

 Bill Powers (920911.1200) says:

>It wasn't purposeful manipulation, but an open-loop attempt to have an
>effect. It also depended on your having greater physical resources
>than your children, so they couldn't object. You made an arbitrary
>change in their environments, but had no means of adjusting that
>change until the result you wanted -- learning French -- matched your
>reference level for it. If the children had been so miserable, or the
>teachers so unsympathetic and xenophobic, that your children just
>clammed up and gave up, you would have felt sorry that you used that
>method.

If I knew nothing about what it takes to learn a language and just expected
their presence in France to do the trick, then I guess you could call this
open loop.  But I was controlling for my perception that they were in fact
doing the things that would lead to acquisition of the language.  In fact,
I spent part of the first couple of days of school with my daughter in her
classroom,  until I felt she had developed some basic understanding of what
was going on.  I would have hired a tutor if I had to, but didn't need to.
We invited their schoolmates over for meals and sleepovers, etc.  So it was
anything but open loop.  Very purposeful in fact.  Very manipulative, in
Greg's sense.

>Perhaps you had experience that told you your bet was a good
>one. But it was still an open-loop method, not control. Perhaps we
>could call this the "sink or swim" method of manipulation.

Not really.  They could have sunk, I supposed, but not without first
getting a lot of lifesavers thrown at them by my wife and me.  We were
controlling for their NOT sinking.

>This method is necessarily statistical and imprecise. It can't be used
>reliably to produce a wanted effect, although sometimes it may work as
>you wish.

I think such manipulations can be quite reliable if one has an idea of what
the stages of reorganization look like and then control for those stages.
A math teacher controls for his students to be able to do addition before
requiring multiplication, etc.--Gary
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary A. Cziko                    Telephone: (217) 333-8527
Educational Psychology           FAX: (217) 333-5847
University of Illinois           E-mail: g-cziko@uiuc.edu
1310 S. Sixth Street             Radio: N9MJZ
210 Education Building
Champaign, Illinois 61820-6990
USA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Marist College
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:39:54 EDT
From:         "A. Harry Williams" <HARRY@VM.MARIST.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Anyone using "Send= Owners" or the like?

On Sat, 12 Sep 1992 00:33:30 +0200 Eric Thomas said:
>The current  version of  LISTSERV implemented  "Send= Owner"  through the
>equivalent of  an OTHERWISE  clause -  anything unrecognized  allowed the
>list owners, and only them, to post. This made it possible to code "Send=
>Owners" with the desired effect, even  though this was never a documented
>possibility. The new 1.7d code works differently, so this fails.
>
>If there  are enough people with  good reasons to want  "Send= Owners" to
>work, I might change the code to make it work under 1.7d as well.

I just checked, and I have 2 lists with Send= Owner.  I imagine that
I can set them to Send= Editor, though I could imagine a information
publishing list, where you wanted to get things to subscribers, and
only from select people, and you would rather return things not from
the owner, than to forward it to the owner, like the Editor does.
(ie, I think it would be a good idea to support Send=Owner)
>
>  Eric
/ahw
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 22:22:50 EST
From:         Jim Jones <JIMJ@JHUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: autodelete?

On Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:30:13 PDT <RIEHL@USCVM> said:
> ...                                                               Is
>there a way to autodelete userids with mail errors?

 Some setting of the "renewal" keyword must be the default in LISTEARN
 servers.  I believe that's the source of the "automagically delete
 addresses upon receipt of mail errors" myth.  If so it has nothing
 at all to do with mail errors, but rather requires that after some
 configurable time interval, each subscriber is required to explicitly
 tell LISTSERV that they want to remain on the list.  It's quite a
 handy tool for keeping mailing lists "clean", but it won't help you
 deal with mail bounces.

> ...                                                 (Is there some
>pfm switch that exists on listserv?)

 What's a 'pfm' switch?  (Phool prooF Method maybe?)

> ...                                  Is this a listearn feature that
>doesnt exist on listserv?

 Not if I'm correct.  The "RENEWAL" keyword is available to you.  I
 refer you to the list archives for details (mostly cause I don't know
 the syntax without looking it up in said archives.) :)

> ...                      Is the listowner pulling my leg?

 Again, if I'm right... the answer here is "yes and no".  There is
 a facility for managing lists that you aren't using, but it doesn't
 have anything to do with mail delivery errors.  Someone mentioned
 getting an AI grad student to develop a package to remove people from
 mailing list in response to mail delivery errors (was it the renowned
 Mr. Williams perhaps?).  But as the suggestion was made in jest to
 point out the horrific difficulty in actually creating something like
 that, I don't think there's such a beast already in LISTEARN.

>jr
>(john riehl)
>the answer to one of my first four questions should be yes.

 I personally hope the answer to your fifth question is "yes they
 will cease". :)

 -jj
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 18:00:24 CDT
From:         Darren Evans-Young <DARREN@UA1VM.UA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: My experiences with LISTEARN
              4 Sep 1992 08:27:51 EDT from <HARRY@VM.MARIST.EDU>

I just realized that Cristina had posted her response to the list
in addition to me.  I feel that I must also post my response to
the list to help clear things up.  The following is the personal
note I sent to Cristina.

Darren
=========================================================================
Cristina,

I'm sorry if you took my mail as a personal attack. It wasn't
intended to be. Let me explain my position a little more clearly.
I am listed as the List Owner for IBM-MAIN. I did not receive any
notification that EB0UB011 was going away. This was no problem though
because I am on several lists and I did manage to hear about it.
I have not had any problems with EB0UB011 in the past. Things were
stable. If it's not broke, don't fix it.  When time came to move
the list was when I started having problems.  This was NOT the
fault of EB0UB011, but due to the inconsistencies between
LISTSERV and LISTEARN. There was nothing you, the postmaster,
could have done to help me. This was why you were not contacted
during the move of IBM-MAIN.  When I finally managed to get my
subscribers moved and IBM-MAIN working again, I contacted the
LISTSERV postmaster (you) and informed you that userid was no
longer needed.  I never heard anything back.  Below is a copy
of the mail I sent you.  Note the date and the userid I sent to.
I did NOT stupidly do more work than was necessary as you said
in your letter.  I did what I had to do to get things working
again. I hope this note has cleared things up.

Darren
===================================================================
*ate:         Tue, 02 Jun 92 19:35:05 CDT
*rom:         Darren Evans-Young <DARREN@ua1vm.ua.edu>
*rganization: The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa
*ubject:      IBM-MAIN
*o:           Listserv Postmaster <serveman@eb0ub011>

The list IBM-MAIN@EB0UB011 is no longer needed.
You may remove the list from your LISTSERV and
delete that userid.

Darren

Darren Evans-Young                                  darren@ua1vm.ua.edu
Seebeck Computer Center                             70651.2605@CompuServe.COM
The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa               (205)348-3988
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Marist College
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Mon, 7 Sep 1992 09:58:01 EDT
From:         "A. Harry Williams" <HARRY@VM.MARIST.EDU>
Subject:      Re: autodelete?

On Fri, 4 Sep 1992 22:22:50 EST Jim Jones said:
>
> Again, if I'm right... the answer here is "yes and no".  There is
> a facility for managing lists that you aren't using, but it doesn't
> have anything to do with mail delivery errors.  Someone mentioned
> getting an AI grad student to develop a package to remove people from
> mailing list in response to mail delivery errors (was it the renowned
> Mr. Williams perhaps?).  But as the suggestion was made in jest to
> point out the horrific difficulty in actually creating something like
> that, I don't think there's such a beast already in LISTEARN.

The suggestion was by the honorable Mr Pritchett of Ga.  Having
done the code for LISTDEL, I can tell you that this is no easy task.
In some cases, I have just given up, and manually search the list.
Some of the gateways just throw too much junk in to identify
the address in error.  In some sense, given that the facility
would have access to the subscribers, it would be an interesting
AI experiment in almost natural language support.

/ahw
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 01:20:36 +0200
From:         Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Professional???
              4 Sep 1992 10:56:18 CST from "Forum on LISTSERV release 1.7"
              <LSTSRV-L@SEARN>

Well, well. Let's see if I can pour some water on the fire.

>    I  find this  a little  disturbing, is  this the  expected reply  or
>attitude  that I  am going  to get  from the  postmaster when  a problem
>arises.

Please bear in mind that not everyone is a native speaker of English, and
that different  countries have  different cultures  and social  norms. In
some  countries it  is normal  to expect  everyone else  to abide  by the
national canons of  accepted social behaviour, in others it  is normal to
express one's displeasure in no unclear terms. The previous sentence is a
snide remark  by Anglo-Saxon standards,  it is everyday practice  where I
come from,  some sort  of sport  if you want.  Some measure  of tolerance
clearly helps in international contexts.

>|  Let me tell you that you work stupidly more than you needed. It shows
>|that you don't have much work to do otherwise, you would have thougt
>|f a way of getting in contact with the postmaster of listserv, who
>|s SERVEMAN@EB0UB011, where i got nothing from you.

Here is  what *I*  understood: "Let  me tell  you that  you unnecessarily
worked more than you  would have needed. You must not  have had much work
to do on that  day, otherwise you would have thought  of getting in touch
with the  postmaster", etc. See,  it doesn't  take more than  a misplaced
comma to change the meaning of a whole sentence.

>|I hope I  don't have never more  to work together, because  it's a real
>|pain in the ***.

Cristina  regrets  having  put  so  much work  into  improving  a  rotten
situation she is  not responsible for, and then getting  all that flak on
public lists.  Darren may not have  known that she isn't  responsible for
the EB0UB011  problems, but Cristina  may have understood  it differently
and thought he was blaming her personally for that, hence the reply.

Now can we please get back to our everyday question about the location of
the LISTSERV documentation that is listed  in appendix A but doesn't seem
to be anywhere? :-)

  Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Mon, 7 Sep 1992 13:40:27 +0200
From:         Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: autodelete?
              7 Sep 1992 10:01:32 EDT from "Forum on LISTSERV release 1.7"
              <LSTSRV-L@SEARN>

On Mon, 7 Sep 1992 10:01:32 EDT Turgut Kalfaoglu <TURGUT@FRORS12> said:

>jj: I see - yes, Renewal=Yearly is the default for listEARN servers
>since release (hmm) 1.1. R. listserv has the same feature, but it's
>not the default - you need to specify Renewal= <period> in the
>list header of your "unwatched" lists. Note that the <period> values
>are a slightly different too: Basically, I had added a few more things
>like BIMONTHLY,TRIMONTHY,SIXMONTHLY  (sounds awful, but oh well) some
>time ago.  Regards, -turgut

2-monthly, 3-monthly,  6-monthly, n-monthly  have always worked  (ie from
before the split) if I am not mistaken.

  Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Mon, 7 Sep 1992 09:56:22 EDT
From:         Turgut Kalfaoglu <TURGUT@FRORS12.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: autodelete?

John: Yes.

(I thought I would answer positively :)

No, in reality, there is no such feature as autodelete, as far as I can
think on a Monday morning. There are just so many different replies
from mailers that it would be almost impossible to write something
that would catch all cases, and not to have to update the code
every few months. The danger of removing someone "innocent" in the process
is real, and that would be my worry about a such autodelete.

Btw, thanks to Eric for letting me blabber on this list too.
Regards, -turgut
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:49:28 +0200
Reply-To:     ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE
From:         Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.BITNET>
Subject:      Question to sites with large amounts of files

Warning: the 'Reply-To:' is set to point to me.

This is  a question  to sites  which make  heavy use  of the  file server
functions, be it for local or network/public purposes. Please answer only
if your server is managing at  least 200-300 files. Things like the LISTS
database do not count - only files available via GET.

I would like to  have a rough idea of the amount  of files, filelists and
minidisks you are using for this  purpose. A console log with a 'LISTFILE
* FILELIST (DATE' would  be fine if you don't know  the answer. Thanks in
advance.

  Eric
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
From: schafer@is.rice.edu (Richard Alan Schafer)
Subject: Cost of leaving BITNET?
Organization: Rice University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:37:29 GMT

The LISTSERV license agreement grants a free license to CREN, EARN, etc.,
members, and mentions that a paid license would be required for anyone else.
I know Eric has asked sites who left BITNET to stop running LISTSERV, since
they're no longer CREN members.  If such a site wanted to continue running
LISTSERV, what would be the charge for doing so?  Could that site still
communicate with other LISTSERVs if the only connectivity was non-NJE?

-- 
Richard
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 09:53:56 EST
From:         "Scott (nmi) Mattes" <COTRSSM@SEA04VM.NAVSEA.NAVY.MIL>
Subject:      Fairwell to network, for now

  Today I will be losing my Internet access, for an unknown length of
time.  This is due to the downsizing of our IBM mainframe and
consolidation of certain applications to another IBM data center.

  So, for the time being at least, I bid farewell to the net. I wish
to thank all those who have helped to enlighten me on various things
(work, religion, eating, etc) while I have had access.

  If anyone needs to contact me, my 'home' and voice addresses will still
work.

  Needless to say (I will anyway) the ANONYMOUS FTP account
(144.11.100.1) is going away also.

--------------------------------------+----------------------------------------
Scott (nmi) Mattes                    | No success can compensate for failure
Work: COTRSSM@SEA04VM.NAVSEA.Navy.Mil | in the home.  David O. McKay, Prophet
Home: 73027.3270@CompuServe.COM       | and President of the Church of Jesus
Voice: (703) 769-2917                 | Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1951-70
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Mon, 7 Sep 1992 10:01:32 EDT
From:         Turgut Kalfaoglu <TURGUT@FRORS12.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: autodelete?

jj: I see - yes, Renewal=Yearly is the default for listEARN servers
since release (hmm) 1.1. R. listserv has the same feature, but it's
not the default - you need to specify Renewal= <period> in the
list header of your "unwatched" lists. Note that the <period> values
are a slightly different too: Basically, I had added a few more things
like BIMONTHLY,TRIMONTHY,SIXMONTHLY  (sounds awful, but oh well) some
time ago.  Regards, -turgut
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Marist College
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 09:55:07 EDT
From:         "A. Harry Williams" <HARRY@VM.MARIST.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Changes from release 1.7c to 1.7d

Release 1.7d will require a change to LSVMAINT.  I will send the change
out once 1.7d is released.  One of functions of LSVMAINT is not
incorporated into LISTSERV, the deletion of deleted nodes from SIGNUP FILE
and PWLIST FILE(now both in the SIGNUP2 FILE).  The deletion of
deleted nodes from LIST files will still be a useful exercise of LSVMAINT.

LISTDEL does not correctly handle the new rejection notices.  I am
working on an update.

Both facilities will be sent to users of record when appropriate.

/ahw
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Mon, 7 Sep 1992 11:47:01 CET
From:         Cristina Blanxer <ZCOCBF01@EBCESCA1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Professional???

  I apologize for such a strong reply, that maybe was out of place.
 Thank you, Eric, for your interpretation. I must learn a lot from
your English writing first, and your way of reply to lists when
your are anoyed for a particular situation.
  And thank you Joyce. You are right, not all BITNET people are
the same and my attitude has been unfair.

      Cristina.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU