Talk: Net Cops :P

In article mt...@gagme.wwa.com, fle...@cse.psu.edu (Felix Lee) writes:

[my original post snipped to conserve bandwidth]

>umm, have you actually measured this?  if not, then please excuse me
>for being a little skeptical.  useless reposts are one-shot deals.
>signatures are a _systematic_ use of bandwidth.  your sig is 556 chars
>in a 2408 char article, about 25% of your article.

[some of your post snipped for the same reason]

No, I am not usually involved in admin work.  I have no way to check 
out our news server, nor do I really want to.  I'm not a net.cop. 

I see lots of long posts repeated in its entirety by many posters 
during long threads.

The point I was attempting make was that if you take a daily count of
the text on your server vs the text used just for the .sigs, I *think* 
you will see that the average for the .sigs is very low.  I agree with 
you that my post had a long .sig for the amount I posted.  But it is 
not always the same anyway.  I have many .sigs that I use.

Any post that does not contribute something you personally consider to
be useful may be construed by you to be "wasted bandwidth" - if you 
have a net cop mentality.  Others would not necessarily agree with 
your position.  Some would consider certain usenet groups a complete
waste of resources.  To each her/his/its own.  I just think .sigs are 
a minor issue compared to drive-by flamebaiters and people who crosspost
the same posts to ten or twelve groups.  No insult or flames intended
in this opinion.  My last post on the subject.  Back to lurking for
info.

signed - no .sig this time