🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep25.214623.928@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com> c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) writes:
>The cost IS there. But not to the extent that individual users will

By George! I think he's got it!  "The cost IS there."  (somewhere a choir
of angels sings...)

That's all we were trying to say.  Usenet costs.

>start seeing USENET: $29.30 after FICA and FED-TAXES. For a smaller

And whether there is a line-item on your paycheck or not the cost
is there.

>organization, USENET costs may be more noticeable, but so are benefits
>(how many small organizations can afford an on site GNU Emacs expert?)

Yaaaaaay!


However since some has brought up the fact that the whole costs
issue was brought up about the additional costs of unreasonable 
cross-posts maybe we should step back and say that the cost to
the user (now admitted) isn't the point anyway.  It is the cost
to the site.  Whether for disk space, long-distance phone charges,
network per-packet charges, administrator time or whatever.  Or even
employee time wasted rereading the same article (or even just reading
enough to remember to skip over it) time after time.

		-Richard Hartman
		hartman@ulogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Fosters!  It's Australian for beer, mate!"