On Monday, in article
     <qSgPc.7956$N77.397992@news.xtra.co.nz>
     misfit61nz@yahoo-mung.co.nz "~misfit~" wrote:

Raj Rijhwani wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 11:49:07 +1200, in article
     <97BOc.7283$N77.377316@news.xtra.co.nz>
     misfit61nz@yahoo-mung.co.nz "~misfit~" wrote:

Yes. However most interest in "SETI" in newsgroups is about the DC client.

Thus swamping any other discussion that the prior participants in the 
newsgroup set it up to discuss.  If one particular project comes to 
dominate the discussion, any new initiatives are going to be stifled.

No, they want to go back to discussing SETI as a topic (which was its
original purpose), and not be overwhelmed by the masses chattering
about one particular aspect of the processing of one particular data
set.

"The masses chattering" huh? And yet you say to me:

Do try to see beyond the ego.

If you want to, you can feel free to ignore the "chattering" about the
Berkeley SETI project and just read posts about other methods of Searching
for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Please, don't feel compelled to be
dragged down to our level. Both groups that this is posted to have 'seti' in
their names. That means *searching* for ET, not just navel-gazing and
philosophizing about ET. Feel free to wander around your back yard searching
for ET and come back here and tell us about your experience. These NG's
cater for all those interested in the SETI and, as much as you don't like
it, 99% of the people who are likely to inhabit these groups are going to be
wanting to talk about, or be involved in the Berkeley initiative.

As you say 99% of the discussion (probably more) is about this one tool.  
For the majority of those participants it is probably the only exposure 
they have to any kind of SETI search.  It certainly is in my case.  But 
there's also the other 1% implicit in your statement.  Mistaking one's own 
experience for the most valuable experience is exactly what I was getting 
at.  Sure Berkeley is doing something, but as with any project it started 
with theoretical discussion.  How much discussion do we see these days 
genuinely exploring the feasiblity of other projects?  Most of the 
discussion these days is chatter.  (I don't see what you find so offensive 
about the term, but you clearly do.)  It's largely superficial discussion 
of network service quality, repetitive in nature, and establishing very 
little (if anything) which is new or lasting.  That doesn't invalidate it 
but it does suggest that, from a perspective of good organisation (of the 
sort which keeps the newsgroups functioning), perhaps there is an argument 
for segregating it out.  It wasn't an unreasonable suggestion on the part 
of the initial poster, although his suggested target may not be ideal 
either, for the exact same reasons.  S@h is only one topic of discussion, 
albeit the majority topic, and any other discussion is being overwhelmed 
to the point of near total suppression.  Hence the comment about trying to 
see beyond the ego - one's own immediate experience and values are not the 
only valid measures.

These NG's *are* serving their initial and intended purpose.

Surely the only people who can make that statement with any certainty are 
the ones who initiated the newsgroups in question, with reference to the 
purpose they had in mind at the time of inception?

Sorry if it
doesn't suit you. Maybe you should go to the Mensa NG and get away from all
these distaseful "masses". Or just post around us disgusting plebs, I'm sure
a man with a superiority complex as big as the one you exhibit is capable of
that.

That's a hell of a powerful response to a simple throwaway phrase.  You'd 
think I'd launched into some tirade about the damned unwashed peasants 
beating at the gates.  And you still completely miss the point I was 
making.  I wasn't using the word "masses" in any perjorative context.  
That's just an inference you are projecting onto it yourself.  Perhaps you 
would be happier to substitute the word "majority"?  

Try to lose the chip on your shoulder, not colouring it with your own 
prejudices, and reading what was written it *as* it was written - as a 
practical argument and not as an intellectual or social value judgement.  
Or not, as you prefer.
-- 
Raj Rijhwani                    |  This is the voice of the Mysterons...
raj@rijhwani.org                |  ... We know that you can hear us Earthmen
http://www.rijhwani.org/raj/    |  "Lieutenant Green:  Launch all Angels!"