🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct15.001307.1796@vpnet.chi.il.us> lisbon@vpnet.chi.il.us (Gerry Swetsky) writes:
>karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM writes:

No, that was karl@portal.hq.videocart.com, but that's ok.  We all make
mistakes. :-)

>>(I find myself actually agreeing with Randy here... oh no! :-)
>
>    I hope it's not contagious. :-)

On this particular point I hope it is.

>>Gerry, responses like yours are why I withdrew from participation from CLOUT 
>>in its entirety after being at only a few meetings.
>
>    No it isn't, Karl.  You've never maintained interest in any group
>    where you can't be a big fish in a small pond.  Remember, we go
>    back a loooong way.

Yes, Gerry, I do remember that we go back a long way.  But we deal in the
present and future, not the past, do we not?

>>I believe the point Randy made is that CLOUT (machine in reality?) >CRASHED< 
>>because someone tried to FTPMAIL a few tens of megs of code (or worse).
>
>    I didn't argue that at all.  Gee, am I agreeing with Randy too?
>
>>CLOUT is a VOLUNTEER system. 
>
>    And I'm one of the volunteers.  And if I'd had a key to the
>    computer room on Sunday, I'd have gone down and restarted clout.

Which is completely missing my (and Randys) point and attempting to
obfuscate the issue.  The issue which Randy raised was that there are a
number of sites which abuse a resource, namely FTPMAIL, and have for a long
time.  I was attempting to clarify why it happens, how it happens, and the 
inherent problem with resources which appear to be free and limitless when 
they're really not.  

I further was making the point that it is rediculous to assume that if
someone is one of a number of people who have a volunteer position that they
will all respond and "jump" when someone else wants them to -- especially
after being publically abused and berated for not being at your beck and
call 24 hours a day.

The largest problem is attitude.  Randy's point is well-taken and correct IMHO.

>    End of farting contest.

Gee, what useful rhetoric, and such wonderful language too.  I'm impressed.

>>I'm not going to get bashed 
>>in the head by people like yourself for providing a free service that costs 
>>me mucho dollars out of my own disposable income bucket.  
>
>    Oh, now we're on a different subject?

Nope; same subject. 

If you recall, something like three years ago, when the feeds were going to
"break" all over Chicago, I raised a proposal to do something about it in a
professional way.  It was resounding defeated on the grounds that Nooz and
mail "ought" to be free and so should connections.  Given the unassailable 
fact that free is cheaper than for-pay (even if you pay only a little), and 
despite the fact that you get what you pay for, I gave up and made my own 
arrangements -- AND still offered to provide connections when able (and
indeed, I still do).

However, the current situation, that of a "free" consortium being swamped by
demand it cannot possibly sustain over the long run is predictable and well
understood.  It also points out the fact that there is no such thing as a
>truly< free lunch.  >Someone< always eats the cost -- whether it be a
benefactor, some volunteer, or the people who use the resource.  Only when
it is those who use the resource do consumers understand and appreciate what
they're getting.

>>If someone's going to bash in my head, by Gods I'll at least try to break 
>>even on my investment!
>
>    So my providing free news feeds is costing you money?  Am I the
>    villan here?

Nope.  You're welcome to provide all the free news feeds you like.  No one
is going to stop you, and I certainly don't deny your right or privilege to
do so.  Nor do I think its a "bad" thing; quite to the contrary, its a good
thing that people are willing to do this.  I have been willing to do so for
quite some time, and in fact STILL provide free news feeds (so much for me
being one of those nasty bastards) and lots of free email traffic as well.
I pass over 100MB of UUCP traffic through my home machine on most days in 
one direction or another without complaint.

What I don't appreciate, and I doubt others do either, is being hit over the
head with innuendo and accusations when we don't "perform" up to someone's
standards when we're being charitable.  If my work and effort in these areas 
isn't appreciated, and boors such as yourself need to ridicule and lambast 
the effort that some of us have put in over the years perhaps we'll find 
it not to our liking to do it any longer.  

After all, just what really >is< in it for a person who is performing 
pro-bono work if not the personal satisfaction of doing so by people who
appreciate the effort?  If that motivating factor is removed, what is left?
Do you really think that there are many of us out here who like to be abused?

>>I've had my share of idiots FTPMAILing things like alt.binaries.pictures.*
>>archives, or the MIT "X11" source -- some of them from YOUR system Gerry --
>>passing through ddsw1. 
>
>    Three years ago.  Will you ever forget?

No, I won't -- for no other reason than at the time you maintained that
you had a >right< to do what you did, you thought that I should poll your 
site to deliver the traffic (after I had paid once already to pick it up) 
and additionally, to this day, don't think there was an issue worth even
a simple apology or something you "could control" in your user base.

-- Karl Denninger 		Inet:  kdenning@hq.videocart.com
					karl@ddsw1.mcs.com

Disclaimer:  VideOcart probably doesn't have any opinions on this stuff;
	     if they do, not only do I not know what they are but I'm not
	     qualified or authorized to speak for them anyway.