IMPORTANT - BLATANT INTERFERENCE (AGAIN) WITH BIONET NEWS PROPAGATION!!!

Stephen Modena ab4el at jabba.cybernetics.net
Fri Aug 19 04:30:51 EST 1994


In article <CMM.0.90.2.777283842.kristoff at net.bio.net>,
BIOSCI Administrator <biosci-help at net.bio.net> wrote:
>....
>What is the big issue over the prof-society groups???  The
>prof-society newsgroup policy was adopted to give large professional
>societies access to the network to distribute their announcements via
>moderated USENET newsgroups without having to subject the societies to
>the usual USENET drivel that often goes on during the discussion and
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    the USENET drivel???  drivel???

>voting procedures.  This initiative came about after I met last
>November with several FASEB society executive directors who expressed
>interest in using the net.  I thought that if we create groups after
>getting just 80 YES votes, it seemed reasonable to allow a
>professional society with >= 500 members to create a newsgroup without
>going through the voting process each time.  The BIOSCI readership
>also agreed to this by 120 YES votes to 16 NO votes.

Of course, this is another way of stating that by rushing in with
tailored easy access, downstream you will secure your salary when
Intelligenetics becomes the recipient of outside grants to
"continue" your service to the greater biological community.  

>
>In light of these recent voting violations I am thinking increasingly
>about proposing to the readers that we change the way that newsgroups
>are created.  We are under no obligation to adhere to the standard
>holy "USENET way," and, if this incident is a reflection of its
>merits, then it leaves something to be desired.  

Yes, indeed.  A single person, Una, becomes the pretext for *you*
to continually modify "biosci procedures" to the point of rule-by-decree.
Here, rubber stamp this and rubber stamp that: we've got an enemy within 
that must be crushed.

>...
>.....  In this method the list users would "vote" in
>essence through their participation and all of this political nonsense
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>would be over.  I will probably put out a proposal to this effect
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>sometime in the near future after discussing its implications more
                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>with the other BIOSCI staffers.


Care to expand on the meaning of "implications?"


>
>Everywhere that I have spoken about the network I have always had to
>counter the negative image that USENET has among many serious
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                            ^^^^^^^
>scientists - how can we win this battle and get established scientific
>groups like the professional societies to take this seriously if they
>have to submit to the scrutiny of every student on the net before they
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>get access to a resource that was fully intended to be used for
>research and education purposes??  


rec.cooking probably does rile most *serious* scientists.  Do you
think serious scientists gravitate to "blood-boilers" like 
alt.abuse.recovery and get turned off to Internet...or has it got
more to do with the *local* struggle (especially financial) of getting
hooked up, since in many places this is synonymous with "building
the network, learning the arcane, and stretching budgets farther?"

--
Steve Modena    ab4el at Cybernetics.NET



More information about the Bioforum mailing list