Re: Is this waste of bandwidth really necessary?? (was Re: Imaging floppies on a Mac?)

[shack@southwind.net (Randy Shackelford)]

In article <7td1lu$lmq@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>,
Byron Desnoyers Winmill <wbdesnoy@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>Jeff Jungblut (jeff@port-charles.com) wrote:
>: In article <19991003161927.10259.00000252@ng-fz1.aol.com>,
>: supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer) wrote:
>
>: > Since you are new to the IIGS, please allow me to give
>: > you a tour of the system.
>
>: [300+ lines of FAQish stuff snipped]
>
>: Wouldn't a simple URL to this info or to the FAQ be more appropriate? 
>: There are four copies of this on my news server in separate threads, three
>: of them posted in about an hour on Sunday.
>
>One could argue that a few users in csa2 do not have any/good web or
>FTP access.  There are a great many of us that access usenet via our Apple
>II computers.  Some of us (we lucky ones) have shell accounts that will
>do it all.  Others have to take what they can get.
>
>Supertimer has meerly created a timely way of getting that information out
>to people -- so that they are not left awaiting the posting of FAQs.

I once suggested that sending the 300 lines in a mail reply would be at
least as useful while conserving bandwidth, but you see how far that went.
If I were still running my proline system and had to download all those
copies of the same thing, I'd be pretty peeved. But I don't so the easiest
thing is to just hit N when I see one coming. Ditto all the pointless posts
when someone strays into this group with a Mac question and 40 dozen people 
post bellyaching followups which that person will never see.

>Besides, I have seen bandwidth being wasted over much more frivilous
>things.

Rarely in such big chunks though.
--
Offsite mail to this host gets nuked.