I'm in trouble

[Pierre A Plauzoles]

In a previous article, triocomp at dial.pipex.com (Chris Raper) says:

>On 16 Sep 1998 23:19:20 -0700, kendrick at hkusua.hku.hk (Roger C.
>KENDRICK) wrote:
>
>Hi Roger,
>
>>SBEL is supposed to be a dedicated science newsgroup. Most scientists 
>>have access to newsgroup (i.e. news:xxxxx) boards (please correct me if 
>>this assumption is wrong). Most other leps people want one board 
>>(LEPS-L) for everything. If the gating between these two groups were 
>>stopped, then all the science stuff goes via SBEL (using its existing 
>>charter) and anything else via LEPS-L (using an amended charter to 
>>cater for the current advertising), could a merry compromise be reached?
>>(are the Yale guys reading these discussions, and if so how easy is this to
>>organise?)

Someone said some time back that there are already forums that cater to 
this aspect of entomology.  Perhaps all they need is to become better known.

>Well, personally, I would like things to remain the same. [...] I think 
>the whole discussion is getting a little out of hand.

No kidding.

>SBEL is a great group - as it stands. You get a nice mixture of
>amatuers and professionals sharing their knowledge - both on
>scientific and conservation matters.

Precisely what is needed - and we are getting it just the way we need 
it.  Isn't that situation what always prompts the comment "just what the 
doctor ordered"?

>Adverts are sometimes a pain in the rear-end but, at their current 
>level, they are no more than a slight nuisance. 

I think you will agree that the obscenity- and gambling-oriented stuff, 
along with the chain letters, can go to Bin 13.  Those posts, with very 
rare exceptions, certainly have nothing to do with entomology, after all.

>A while back someone suggested that all subscribers be sent a copy of
>the charter when they first join - I think that is a good idea.
>Another might be to regularly post (every other week?) a
>mini-charter/FAQ to the group which just outlines what the group is
>about and directing people to other listservers or web pages of
>interest, should they want to post adverts. 

That might get rid of most of the (admittedly occasional) posts about 
"joining" s.b.e.l or unsubscribing s.b.e.l, but at what price?  It would 
use up more bandwidth than the "bothersome" or "nuisance" posts 
themselves.  The real solution is for the ISPs to get a life and realize 
that people don't like to pay for the length of the message that someone 
else has sent.  It isn't my fault Joe Blow sent a windbag message, so why 
should I pay for what he did?  Alternatively, those of us who do have 
that problem should just plain pull up our roots and switch providers.

I have heard it said that some ISPs collect a fee for incoming email 
according to volume (isn't AOL one of them?).  If those of you who are 
with AOL or whoever are offended by my comments, I apologize; on the 
other hand, the fact is that I find those negative comments about fees 
for incoming mail offensive because, unless I am grossly mistaken, noone 
coerced you into choosing to subscribe to those particular service 
providers - noone here on s.b.e.l or leps-l anyway - and noone is making 
you stay put either.  There are plenty of alternatives out there.
-- 
Pierre Plauzoles   ae779 at lafn.org
Canoga Park, California