Why is this thread still here? (meta)
F. Frank LeFever
flefever at ix.netcom.com
Sun Oct 4 12:00:16 EST 1998
"Structurally", one reason why the thread is still "here" (= many
odddly assorted newsgroups) is that the system allows unlimited
cross-posting. If those who maintain newsgroups (i.e. in their
technical aspects) were to set up an automated limit, these
wildfires/epidemics/etc. could be better contained. My personal
preferance would be for NO cross-posting, but a case could be made for
some small, arbitrary number--e.g. 2 groups besides the primary group?
Mentifex did his mischief deliberately (having abused
bionet.neuroscience for a LONG time) and then fled---or perhaps even HE
has been crowded out! Those continuing to post may have no intent of
polluting bionet.neuroscience (or Amiga; v. infra) but do so
carelessly, i.e. just by hitting the "share" button.
I have urged others to reply to individuals directly, asking them to
delete bionet.neuroscience in further posts. In some previous plagues,
people have responded courteoously, apologized, and vowed not to
pollute bionet.neuroscience further. This recent thread may attract a
less responsible bunch--at least two return addresses were false.
However, I urge all to continue attempting personal replies asking
restriction of the address list (deleting neuroscienc, Amiga, or
whatever), pending the structural change I advocate.
F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.
New York Neuropsychology Group
In <3615BB4C.FA7EB4DB at hotmail.com> Drox <drox at hotmail.com> writes:
>Alan L.M. Buxey wrote:
>> i just want to know what the **** this has to do with the Amiga
>> computing system......or looking at the cross-post line,
>> neuroscience, artificial intelligence etc
>Nothing, really. But the thread was begun by Mentifex, and he/she/it
>seems to post to this cluster of groups a lot. This particular thread
>has spread like wildfire (or like a really successful meme, as I try
>desperately to make this thread relevant to at least ONE of the
>participating groups), probably due to an early introduction of
>ccontroversy, in this case centering on whether male European-derived
>humans are more influential, over millenial time scales, than other
>types of humans. Dogmatic sorts (guilty!) can't bear to let their
>opposition get the last word in, so the thread grows and expands
>unchecked. Amiga advocates (and other readers) can ordinarily let it
>slide, but when it swells huge and glaringly off-topic some are
>compelled to ask why it's encroaching on their turf. Their requests
>that the thread not be posted to their group may be one of the few
>things that eventually limits the expansion of the MUTANT MESSAGE
>OF DOOM. Either that or the zealots run out of arguments and/or find
>new battles to engage in. Oh well. This too shall pass.
More information about the Neur-sci