🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <891@tardis.Tymnet.COM> jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) writes:
>In article <40@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz> ifarqhar@mqccsunc.mq.oz (Ian Farquhar) writes:
>>I hold no respect
>>for those people who whine every time a large article is posted, they remind
>>me of those laboratory administrators who like their lovely equipment
>>unsullied by actual use.  The net is there, let's use it!
>
>You mean, "The net is there, let's abuse it!  I don't have to pay for it!!!"
>
>Big postings: 1) time up the modem, 2) increase my phone bill, and 3) fill
>up my /usenet partition so that NOTHING ELSE CAN BE RECEIVED.  If you were
>to send me money to cover items 2 and 3, then I wouldn't mind item 1. :-)

I have absolutely no wish to turn this into a juvenile flaming session.
However, I feel that it is nevessary to respond to this.

The net is a voluntary system.  There is no compulsion to receive
certain newsgroups (at least under all versions of the software that I
am aware of), and if you as a network administrator have valid local
limitations, then you are quite free to choose not to get receive these
groups.  This is purely a local concern, as is the question of cost.

My point was simply to remind people that FTP access is unavailable to
many sites.  I also wanted, in my last paragraph, illustrate what I
consider to be a worrying movement developing on the network: censorship
and a small group of vocal people deciding what is "acceptable" on the
network as a whole.  Perhaps I should have expanded on this point rather
than using the (obviously ineffective) shock tactics.

Your definition of "aduse" seems very interesting, Joe.  What I was
suggesting is that initial posting should be made available to ALL users
of the network.  I - and many other local net users - are continually
frustrated to hear of items available for FTP access.  I do not see that
our desire to access this material contributes an abuse of the network.
I personally feel that posting the items initially would reduce the
network traffic in the long run, though I have no statistics to prove
this.

In the long run, this whole discussion comes down to one important
question: what is the net for?  If the network is for users, then I feel
that my viewpoint in valid.  If the network is a nice showpiece to show
of to the administrators but nothing more, then it follows that we
should not consider the requirements of users.  I leave this question to
the net-community.

I   apologise for using net bandwidth replying to something like this,
but I think that this is a very important issue.  Although I sympathise
with Joe Smith's position, I do not sympathise with the way he has
chosen to reply to this issue.  If anyone has anything further to say,
let's move this discussion to a more appropriate newsgroup.

I am not attacking you, Joe.  I just think that your position seems
rooted in the very attitude I was trying to illustrate.

Disclaimer:   The opinions expressed in this article are my own
              personal opinions and do not necessarily coincide
              with those of my employers.

Ian Farquhar 
Macquarie University 
Sydney, Australia.

D