Date : Fri, 18 Oct 1985 10:50:05 GMT
From : Eric Hestenes <hestenes%sdcsla.uucp@BRL.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Classified ads
> --Frank says:
>
> You have it backwards. For the record, I started INFO-CPM at MIT-MC
> The same sequence occurred earlier when I resurrected INFO-MICRO after
> it had become dormant for about a year. There are several other
> newsgroups with similar ARPANET origins, such as HUMAN-NETS, the first
I don't debate the order of events or event the role of the arpanet in
fostering interest in various areas. You win that battle, though you don't win
them all in this area.
> You ask if we can agree to disagree. The answer is no. For sale
> message to newsgroups such as INFO-CPM and INFO-MICRO will not be
> tolerated. For-sale messages leaking into what is now called DDN
> (Defense Data Network) is quite a serious matter. There is mention of
Why is it serious? Or rather, to whom is it serious to?
> it in netiquette, which every potential poster to a newsgroup should
Which i have read.
> read. The consequences on the DDN side if users from a particular
> host do not observe this restriction is to pull their connection from
> the net. This has never actually happened, but it has come close on
> more than one occassion in the early years. The consequences on the
> uucp side is to drop the gateway. We do not wish to do that. But if
> you insist on ignoring our restrictions, we have no choice.
I'd really like to hear a definition of net.micro.cpm that doesn't include
INFO-CPM. Are they one and the same group? Or are they different?
This issue goes beyond ad postings. The meat of it is, who calls the shots.
Does arpanet call the shots in usenet newsgroups? It appears so. If this is
the case, then let's just admit it once and for all.
Also, if this group is gateway'd to arpa, why isn't it called fa.info-cpm
rather than net.micro.cpm. Or even better, mail.info-cpm?
On usenet, this *is* the ettiquite. Or am I mistaken?
Overall, you totally miss the point.
If a usenet newsgroup allows ads ( e.g. na.for-sale ) and those ads
are forwarded all over the DDN, who ( as a result ) deserves to be yanked off
of the net - the poster or the person who made the connection?
It's a chicken or the egg problem, except among certain net historians and
finger pointers.
The answer obviously lies in negotiation and observing the tendancies that
will best help *both* newsgroups.
And it is here that I think we should
agree to disagree on . I think limited ads are useful, even for arpanet
types, and certainly for non-arpa types. This is a *philosophical* stance,
not a
*political* one. Politically, you guys win. After all, Mr DoD pays my paycheck
also. ( After i've paid him, of course ). Believe me, I know the rules
and try
to abide by them.
But the issue over whether there is a legitimate advantage in terms of
communication in using one forum versus the other is just not settled!
You don't decide what is best, you explore and find out! Just like with
television and radio, it is not possible to foresee all the ways a medium
may be used. I personally would like to see many, many more people use
networks like this if only for the reason that it makes certain kinds of
activities easier to accomplish. And I don't think that this can happen
without cost, but what other major technologies didn't get started in the
defense sector? I am pro-technology and pro-effective communication,
not anti-arpa. Peek at the larger issue, rather than the most obvious
( and redundant ) interpretation.
But aside from the noise here, this discussion was
old before it started. I give up.
No hard feelings, I hope.
eric
---
I'm thankful to say that these opinions have nothing to do with those of my
employer. They are mine only.