🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1994Jun3.133306.13118@zygot.ati.com> john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes:
>In article <ELI.94Jun2003407@wheat.cisco.com> eli@cisco.com (Steve Elias) writes:
>>giving internet access to Joe on the Street or Joe in the Slammer or
>>the Single Welfare Mom needn't be a negative situation like our
>>current welfare setup is.
>
>Do we actually want Joe in the Slammer's drivel adding to the noise
>level on the net? It is not just a matter of cost, but a matter of
>overall value of the traffic.
>

I find it only remotely possible that what "Joe in the Slammer"
might have to offer in the way of items for useful discussion would
be even the least bit more "noisy" than the material the numerous
"Joes/Janes in their first year of college" contribute at present.  What
is it you imagine prisoners are going to want to talk about which is
so readily classifiable as "drivel"?  And how does this "drivel"
stack up against e.g., the proliferation of alt.sports,
alt.tvsitcom, alt.rushlimbaugh, alt.collegelife, etc.? 

Most importantly, I think, who is the "we" you speak of in your
first sentence above?

 
Tristan