s.i.p vs. c.a.v, INET names, FAQ's, moderation, flames.
Edward J. Huff
huff at mcclb0.med.nyu.edu
Thu Jun 25 10:37:02 EST 1992
I can't believe I flamed the moderator.
There was a fortunately short skirmish regarding the opinions of Phil Kahn,
the moderator of comp.ai.vision, which appeared in comp.ai.vision. Some of
the postings also appeared in news.groups, bionet.announce, and
Well, I read Emily Postnews and Writing Style. I read about flame wars and
even saw a few. Somehow I didn't connect this with what I was writing.
Otherwise I wouldn't have SHOUTED so much and would have avoided repeating
myself and saying a few stupid things. Sorry.
There was one article (not by Phil Kahn) in Vision-list digest 11.22 which
upset me somewhat. This is not :-) in reply to that article, which I
regard as a flame that perhaps I asked for. There were only one or two
words in there which were really painful ("amazing" and "Unbelievable") and
I will pretend that those were removed (change "amazing" to "surprising")
before posting, as they should have been. Other than those two words, the
article was completely proper, and without them, I would not regard it as a
(Well, maybe this does reply to some of the points :-). Maybe I should
have left most of the above out. If so, pretend I did. I don't have any
more time to write this. I think flames wars arise precisely because
people don't have time to be careful with their wording.
I stand by the importance of FAQ files to the future of Usenet as a medium
for serious scientific work. This is my personal opinion and I am prepared
to spend some time working on FAQ files to back it up. FAQ files do not
waste bandwidth on the internet. Look at the network usage statistics. On
lower bandwidth UUCP connections, the presence of weekly postings might
cause some sites to avoid carrying s.i.p.
My present plan is to post a "Welcome to s.i.p" weekly, and post most other
FAQ's only when they are revised, listing the period as "irregular" in the
list of periodic postings. I will not regard the FAQ's as "mine". The
will be posted to s.i.p and news.answers, so that they will be available in
the Usenet archive at pit-manager.
Second, I stand by the need for very clear newsgroup names. I am sorry,
but comp.ai.vision is not well named. New users do not find it. If I
couldn't find it after spending several hours looking, many new users who
are doing some image processing and could use the group will also not find
it. How long are they supposed to spend looking for a newsgroup? The name
I only recently joined the IMAGE-L BITNET list. It is inconvient, and the
listserver software is broken. (I do not receive files it says it sent to
me). s.i.p will be a better solution. New users do not find out about
BITNET mailing lists without much effort.
By the way, c.a.v is one of those "inet" groups which were named by fiat
and not by discussion and vote. (You can recognize a moderated inet group
by the "distribution: inet" line in every posting). The digests posted to
comp.ai.vision apparently are not supposed to propagate to many of the
non-internet Usenet sites, because of the distribution line. All I know
about "inet" groups I read in news.groups recently, there doesn't seem to
be any periodic posting about them.
And finally, during the discussion, not one person wanted to create a
moderated group. What is so unusual about having a moderated and an
unmoderated group on the same subject? Many groups have a .research
subgroup. Maybe comp.ai.vision should be renamed sci.image.research? :-)
I guess all of this is soon to be moot, when the vote ends. The deadline
is 11:59:59 PM Tue 30-Jun-1992. Please vote. If you voted NO, please
change your vote. Thank you.
I'm not the vote taker and I have no inside information. :-)
Edward J. Huff huff at mcclb0.med.nyu.edu (212)998-8465
Keck Laboratory for Biomolecular Imaging
NYU Chemistry Deptartment, 31 Washington Place, New York NY 10003
Posted using the new Mac NewsWatcher v1.3d2
More information about the Bioforum