Time to set something straight... [warning: substantive!]
Thomas Cox
An open letter to the masses debating, either vocally or internally, the
implications of Spaf-et-al's removal of net.bizarre and net.internat:
(hit 'q' if you don't care about this)
Dear people:
One of the many letters we've seen about the removal of net.bizarre
and net.internat raged on about the collective desires of the USENET
community -- this quasi-democratic, semi-anarchic blob of more-or-less
sibling nodes all connected up, plus all their readers [and writers]. That
is, the raging was about how our collective desires hadn't been taken into
account by Spaf et al when they decided to rmgroup certain newsgroups that
hadn't been created according to Procedure. I must point out a small
historical analogy.
The United States revolted from colonial rule in the late 1700's in
large part because tax-payers were not being represented in the houses of
the tax-assessors. [Parliament, guys.] Hence the phrase 'taxation without
representation.' The situation on the Usenet today seems at first glance to
be similar -- decisions were made that affected the entire group, but which
were made by a small subgroup who are not answerable to the majority. As
in, "Who elected Spaf to be God?" The answer is, No One.
BUT.
The similarity I just constructed is misleading. The money in
question is not community money. It is Spaf's boss's money. And Spaf has
been sharing that money with all of us. In fact, all of the 'backbone
cabal' have been blatantly and irresponsibly spending money on the entire
Usenet community without our approval.
Does anyone doubt that there is a significant and growing amount of
money at stake? Let me put it this way: I have minor connections with
CompuServe, who in turn own a large and cheap packet-switching (data comm)
net that covers most of the continental United States. I suggested to Spaf
that the newsnet could be sent over this network for a lot less money than
it now costs, and would he like to find out? He said that there was a
problem: by directly addressing cost-cutting for the newsnet, his bosses
were going to see just how much money they've been spending on all of us
guys. And Spaf's bosses might take it into their heads to cut us all out
[and maybe Spaf too, I suspect] if they knew how expensive we people are to
keep happy. So Spaf told me to bring it up to the backbone in general, but
quietly.
Meanwhile, I hear a whole lot of jabbering from the readers, the
end-users if you will, of this monster we call the net, saying that they
have a right to this and to that, and how dare anybody take away from them
this thing that has been free since the day they signed on X years ago?
I have a piece of news for you people: this gargantuan citizen's band radio
we are all on is not free, and it is paid for by somebody. The backbone
sites have been too generous to the rest of us -- so generous that we have
become spoiled. Spoiled rotten.
Remember this, all of you. He who can destroy a thing controls it.
Spaf is a kind-hearted and generous man who has spent his own time and
overtime on us, who has shielded us from paying for what we have consumed.
Nor is he the only one. He merely personifies the entire backbone and all
of the other supporters of the net.
You who bitch about having a voice in decisions should realize that
you are bums on the dole, yelling at the charity that feeds you and
complaining that the food is cold. I say, let you go hungry. Learn some
manners.
I am not a resident of a backbone site, nor am I in any way
connected financially or otherwise with the operations of any backbone
Usenet site. I am a student at the U of Chicago and a part-time employee of
a public relations firm that is retained at times by CompuServe Inc for
certain tasks. The opinions here are exclusively mine, and in no way
represent the opinions or positions of any firm or body with which I may be
associated.
Please e-mail all flames and all comments to me. I will summarize them at a
later date and post them to these newsgroups.
Sincerely,
Thomas Cox
...!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!benn
--
Thomas Cox
...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!benn
But of COURSE everything is unique.
If they weren't, they'd all be one thing.
Swamp Thing
>[]
>An open letter to the masses debating, either vocally or internally, the
>implications of Spaf-et-al's removal of net.bizarre and net.internat:
>
> One of the many letters we've seen about the removal of net.bizarre
>and net.internat raged on about the collective desires of the USENET
>community
>
>money at stake?
>
>Thomas Cox
>...!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!benn
I agree with most of what you say. However, I beleive that Gene Spafford has
gone about this in a way which was guaranteed to stir up trouble. THE problem
is money. It's not whether group X was created illegaly or not. If Gene had
been more forthright and come out stating "Look guys, if we don't cut down
traffic, the s*** is going to hit the fan.", and then asked for suggestions, we
could have discussed this pretty much rationally. However, by hiding behind a
facade of rule enforcement and taking essentially unilateral action
(particularly with net.internat), what we got instead was useless controversy.
Mark F. Flynn
Department of Physics
Washington University
St. Louis, MO 63130
ihnp4!wuphys!mff
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is no dark side of the moon, really.
Matter of fact, it's all dark."
P. Floyd
Roy M Turner
about Spaf's and the others decisions about the newsgroups, how about
presenting sound reasons for keeping them? And how about stopping for a
moment to consider the services you get from Usenet that you wouldn't if
it weren't for the "network fascists", "backbone cabal", <insert any other
inane, banal phrase here>, etc. Good Lord, people, grow up!
At the very least, give Spaf a break, at least for a week or two...he's a
great fellow, and besides, he's a newlywed, for cryin' out loud!! :-)
Roy
Lord Frith
> The author was quite right, on all counts. Instead of bitching and moaning
> about Spaf's and the others decisions about the newsgroups, how about
> presenting sound reasons for keeping them? And how about stopping for a
> moment to consider the services you get from Usenet that you wouldn't if
> it weren't for the "network fascists", "backbone cabal", <insert any other
> inane, banal phrase here>, etc. Good Lord, people, grow up!
>
Services such as.......?