Raj Rijhwani wrote:

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.

How are they going to be stifled? This is a 'threaded' environment, start
whatever thread you like, a whole bunch of S@H'ers aren't going to jump in
and tell you it isn't relevant. That's the beauty of usenet, you can say
what you like and have like-minded individuals (if you can find any) join
in.

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.

You say you don't see what I find offensive in the term, then procede to
further belittle our conversations by calling them "superficial" and
"repetitive". Are you just plain insensitive or do you enjoy deriding
others?

From dictionary.com:

Chatter:

1. To talk rapidly, incessantly, and on trivial subjects; jabber.
2. To utter a rapid series of short, inarticulate, speechlike sounds.

That's why I found it offensive. I understand the English language.

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?

Exactly. Isn't it fortunate that Stratcat kindly supplied us with a link to
the charter for the newsgroup alt.sci.seti? (Where I am reading/posting
from, I didn't start the crossposting and I don't subscribe to
sci.astro.seti).

Here is the link again in case you missed it or ignored it because it came
from one of the masses:

http://setifaq.org/charter-alt-sci-seti.html

Note that the newsgroup alt.sci.seti was started just two weeks or so after
the SETI@home program started. *Not* a coincidence.

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 need to either put more thought into your "simple throwaway phrases" or
just admit that you are being insulting.

Again from dictionary.com:

Search: masses

Mass:

9. masses: The body of common people or people of low socioeconomic status.

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.

No, sorry, that is the accepted usage of the word.

Perhaps you would be happier to substitute the word
"majority"?

It's not my place to put words into your mouth.

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

I neither coloured it with my own prejudices or mis-read it. You *were*
being insulting and now you're trying to back out. There is no chip on my
shoulder, I just don't like being talked down to.
--
~misfit~