🚀 go-pugleaf

John Navas wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:52:55 +0100, Mark McIntyre
> <markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in
> <rfo6k.188957$6i4.132499@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com>:
> 
> > John Navas wrote:
> >> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:46:05 -0700, John Higdon
> >> <HisRoyalRadioHigness@kome.com> wrote in
> >> <HisRoyalRadioHigness-5BE3A3.09460518062008@news.announcetech.com>:
> >> 
> >>> In article <819i545fe2h55o2p71gfhoul5ois99ut4l@4ax.com>,
> >>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> >>>> I seriously doubt that.  The "caps" being considered are in the
> GIGAbyte >>>> range of broadband, not the MEGAbyte range of dialup.
> Like most people >>>> I'm not even close to that level of transfer.  
> >>> And if you don't need it, no one does. I understand.
> >> 
> >> What part of "most people" was unclear?  ;)
> > 
> > The part where you produced some evidence that "most people" only 
> > generated hundreds of megs of monthly traffic?  :-)
> 
> The evidence is readily available, as I'm sure you know.  :-)
> 
> >>>> I'm not sure what you mean by "things the Internet promised" --
> do you?  >>>> -- but I don't see any real risk to anything other than
> massive >>>> audio/video downloading, which is NOT what the Internet
> was built for.  >>> Could you direct me to a reference which outlines
> "what the Internet was >>> built for"? I had always mistakenly
> assumed that it was a dumb network >>> whose usage was limited only
> by the imagination of those utilizing it.  >> 
> >> There are ample references to the fact that multicasting wasn't a
> >> consideration in the original design of TCP/IP, on which the
> Internet is >> based, as I'm sure you know.
> > 
> > I'm unclear as to how this answers the question.
> 
> Why am I not surprised.

The usual John Navas "blow-off". Why am I not surprised.

-- 
Cliff