🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <18063@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>Your counterexamples have consisted of bogus analogies.
>
>You aren't the official spokesman for what USENET is or isn't.  Quit
>pretending you are.

That's the best contradiction within a posting I have seen in a while!
Of course I am not the official spokesan for what USENET is.  That's
what I've been telling you all along -- or more to the point, that you
aren't the spokesman either.   One thing I can say with authority.  USENET
has no ideology.  Not yours or mine.   So it is *not* non-commercial.  It
does *not* prohibit shareware or selling books etc.  That's because it's
not any ideology and it doesn't prohibit anything explicitly.

So stop running around describing your opinion of the ideology that governs
USENET as a fact.  There is no ideology, that's all you can say.  USENET is
just a private club with effectively no rules.

And shareware does appear on USENET, and has appeared here fairly often.
So don't say it isn't appropriate here.  I don't argue by analogies in this
case, I present real examples of the facts.
-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont. (519) 884-7473