Why Tolerate this Newsgroup?

Doink wrote
I agree. I have asked "newbie" questions only to have this snob, J.O., jump
all over me. He can be extemely rude. The snobbery of this board is far
more annoying than silly posts from Dr. Min!

Doink

Now here's a problem. I'm not entirely happy with you agreeing with me,
because I don't think Jan Owen is a snob, and I don't disagree with what
I interpret as his protective feelings towards SAA, I just wanted to
comment on the strategy for that protection.
Seeing as you call the above thread as evidence, I'll just say this; Rod
Mollise already gave you the answer. You asked for more. Jan Owen added
detail. You shouted for more. Jan Owen got a little acidic but added yet
more detail.
I would have said thanks and walked away before the acid bath. ;-)

Denis
--
DT
change nospam: n o s p a m
v a l l e ys

I, for one at least, enjoy the wide variety of subject matter in this
newsgroup because those that post here, your's truly exempted, are
intelligent

All hail Georgito Busholini, our beloved El Douche`, and his brave
Oilshirts----Today Iraq, Tomorrow Ethiopia, Corsica, Tunis!!!

Look, it's not like I called him at home and interrupted his TV watching.
Why can't people like Jan just skip over posts that are apparently beneath
their lofty levels? You could boil this whole BOARD down to a couple pages
of useful information and the rest of it is mostly ego masturbation.

It can be fun and educational to interract with people with more
experience---but this NG is only marginally worth it. As a matter of fact,
this whole HOBBY, and it is a HOBBY, is full of would-be know-it-alls that
think some over-corrected bloomed out picture of M42 means anything to
anyone. What a joke.

It's very hard to get good information. The reviews of telescopes are 90%
BS because these egos can't admit they bought some hunk of junk from Meade
or Celestron or Orion....ETC. Read the reviews for the cheap achros on
Cloudy Nights. Another joke. You could sell a $10 refractor with a Meade
sticker on it---God forbid it would say Tasco---and most of these idiots
would review with the usual "very little false color on extremely bright
object". HA! How many times have I read that!!!!!!! OK, big deal, half of
these clowns have memorized the focal ratios of every telescope made---so
the hell what?! Can they actually hold a conversation with actual
people?????

Bottom line: Post a question here and you'll get 15 responses within a day.
9 will be useless. 3-4 will be insulted that they had to "bother" to read
the question...2-3 will really take the time to contribute something. To
them I say, "Thank You"--- To the rest, "Get laid".

Doink

"DT" wrote in message
news
Doink wrote
I agree. I have asked "newbie" questions only to have this snob, J.O.,
jump
all over me. He can be extemely rude. The snobbery of this board is far
more annoying than silly posts from Dr. Min!

Doink

Now here's a problem. I'm not entirely happy with you agreeing with me,
because I don't think Jan Owen is a snob, and I don't disagree with what
I interpret as his protective feelings towards SAA, I just wanted to
comment on the strategy for that protection.
Seeing as you call the above thread as evidence, I'll just say this; Rod
Mollise already gave you the answer. You asked for more. Jan Owen added
detail. You shouted for more. Jan Owen got a little acidic but added yet
more detail.
I would have said thanks and walked away before the acid bath. ;-)

Denis
--
DT
change nospam: n o s p a m
v a l l e ys

Doink wrote
Look, it's not like I called him at home and interrupted his TV watching.
Why can't people like Jan just skip over posts that are apparently beneath
their lofty levels? You could boil this whole BOARD down to a couple pages
of useful information and the rest of it is mostly ego masturbation.

It can be fun and educational to interract with people with more
experience---but this NG is only marginally worth it. As a matter of fact,
this whole HOBBY, and it is a HOBBY, is full of would-be know-it-alls that
think some over-corrected bloomed out picture of M42 means anything to
anyone. What a joke.

It's very hard to get good information. The reviews of telescopes are 90%
BS because these egos can't admit they bought some hunk of junk from Meade
or Celestron or Orion....ETC. Read the reviews for the cheap achros on
Cloudy Nights. Another joke. You could sell a $10 refractor with a Meade
sticker on it---God forbid it would say Tasco---and most of these idiots
would review with the usual "very little false color on extremely bright
object". HA! How many times have I read that!!!!!!! OK, big deal, half of
these clowns have memorized the focal ratios of every telescope made---so
the hell what?! Can they actually hold a conversation with actual
people?????

Bottom line: Post a question here and you'll get 15 responses within a day.
9 will be useless. 3-4 will be insulted that they had to "bother" to read
the question...2-3 will really take the time to contribute something. To
them I say, "Thank You"--- To the rest, "Get laid".

Doink

Hey, some of what you say I agree with, but everyone can say what the
hell they like. That's the whole point. Maybe some egos do need
massaging to get the best out of them, maybe mainstream telescope
reviews are too mindful of the advertising revenue. Maybe the
bloomed-out pic of M42 is some kid's pride and joy.
'It's very hard to get good information' is very true, so take your
time, go at it quietly and carefully.
Say you go to a great club, have such a good time that you want to go
back, but a couple of people annoy you. Do you trash the place, **** all
over the furniture and tell everyone to get laid, or do you ignore the
two annoyances and carry on having a good time with others? Which
strategy will get you welcomed back?
More importantly, what makes a good club, the people or the building?
We each make a choice on how we relate to others. Stay mellow, this is
all just text on a screen. My greatest pleasure from the hobby comes
from observing, using the kit, planning sessions, building kit, etc. In
the end, astronomy groups can be interesting, informative and sometimes
entertaining to me, but they're of no significance in my enjoyment of
the hobby. YMMV of course :-)

Denis
--
DT
change nospam: n o s p a m
v a l l e ys

Some of us like to teach, and some of us like to be spoon-fed. The two
often don't mix.

Howard Lester wrote
Some of us like to teach, and some of us like to be spoon-fed. The two
often don't mix.

I'm going back to my stool at the far end of the bar ;-)

Denis
--
DT
change nospam: n o s p a m
v a l l e ys

"DT" wrote

Some of us like to teach, and some of us like to be spoon-fed. The two
often don't mix.

I'm going back to my stool at the far end of the bar ;-)

Pour you a tall one, mate? ;-)

Howard Lester wrote
"DT" wrote

Some of us like to teach, and some of us like to be spoon-fed. The two
often don't mix.

I'm going back to my stool at the far end of the bar ;-)

Pour you a tall one, mate? ;-)

So long as you checked your gun at the door, thanks.
I've just seen the security tapes of the Laughlin(sp?) casino shoot-out
on TV, and I'm still a bit twitchy...it seems safer here.
--
DT
change nospam: n o s p a m
v a l l e ys

I've just seen the security tapes of the
Laughlin(sp?) casino shoot-out on TV,
and I'm still a bit twitchy...it seems safer
here.

I had to do a google search to find out what that was... evidently a
shootout between Hell's Angels and Mongols motorcycle gangs three years
ago. Don't worry, if you're a biker, just don't wear your colors, and
you oughta be OK. Las Vegas is a lousy place to stargaze anyway.
Marty

Mij Adyaw wrote:
I would like to respectfully ask why so many of you tolerate this
newsgroup.

Precisely because we get all kinds here. Stuff that i enjoy. Stuff
that i don't enjoy, but other people do. A chance to read about things
i never thought of, but might enjoy. Stuff that strokes my ego, which
is enjoyable. Stuff that busts my ego, which is necessary.

The unfettered marketplace of ideas in SAA is regulated only by the
"invisible hand" of an exceptionally intelligent population. Without
enforced moderation, all ideas--the good, the bad, and the absurd--get
put on the table without prejudice. Because, moreso than in some other
newsgroups, SAA participants know how to think and know what they're
talking about, our invisible hand is unusually efficient at unbiased
winnowing of unworthy ideas.

In addition, the quality of the material here makes it obvious which
contributors don't measure up. This even applies to the trolls! The
difference between the high-quality troublemakers (e.g., Shawn) and the
truly worthless (e.g., Min) is starkly evident.

The openness SAA offers the opportunity to learn without being taught,
and to teach without intimidating. The marketplace of SAA gives me a
chance to post what i think, and be reasonably confident that if i am
wrong, i will be corrected; that if someone challenges my article with
bad information, then *he* will be corrected; and that when i ask a
question, the gestalt of the response will make it evident which of the
diverse replies are rational or worthy of consideration.

It seems to be full of trolls and other types of folks that get their
jollies by antagonizing other members of the group.

This is an illusion. There are *very* few trollers in SAA, but one in
particular is exceptionally prolific. The bulk of the noise comes from
regular, benign folks who foolishly respond to the trolls with good
intentions and drained tempers.

Have you ever considered moving this forum (essentially all of the
good
folks in this forum) to another location such as groups on Astromart
or some
other location where folks will have to post using their real names
and real
email addresses? It seems that this solution would eliminate all of
the
trolls and other annoyances and we could have astronomy discussions
without
all of the flame wars.

The compulsion to educate, set straight, or berate the trolls means
that the population with the worst impact on SAA's SN ratio consists
legitimate SAA participants themselves! However, in the context of
trolls, bad posts by good people can be killfiled at the thread level,
without killfiling the good people themselves. Given this, i'm not
convinced that a new home would be all that different, or necessarily
better, than a properly filtered SAA.

It seems that if a new home could be found, the group
could be vacated rather quickly.

This presumes that we would *want* the group to be vacated. As
moderated fora have their place, so do unmoderated fora such as SAA.
Even with the advantages of a moderated group, the group must be
actively maintained and paid for. If the moderator's time or the
host's budget dries up, so does the group. In such an unfortunate
event, SAA would still exist to fall back on, but could it be made
functional again? Usenet is not kind to abandoned real estate.


Clear skies!

--
------------------- Richard Callwood III --------------------
~ U.S. Virgin Islands ~ USDA zone 11 ~ 18.3N, 64.9W ~
~ eastern Massachusetts ~ USDA zone 6 (1992-95) ~
--------------- http://cac.uvi.edu/staff/rc3/ ---------------