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

[I said:]
>>Or to come at it the other way, if Usenet cost a thousand dollars a
[...]
>>probably WOULD be able to detect the difference in our paychecks.

>Yes, Yes, and Yes. 

So it sounds to me like what you are really saying, then, is not that
the individual user doesn't pay for USENET.  You are saying that he pays
such a miniscule amount that he doesn't notice.  This is not the same
thing at all.

However, I think I shall get out of this argument since it's turning
into one purely of semantics, which is not the most productive thing
to talk about.  I think we all agree that, tiny or large, USENET is
having some financial effect on nearly everyone who reads it,
especially at schools or companies.  Discussing what (if anything) to
do about it is probably more useful than discussing how to describe it.
(Discussing whether the semantics of the situation is (are?) important
belongs in some other group, or email.  :-)

	Cathy

-- 
Cathy Foulston + Rice University + Network & Systems Support + cathyf@rice.edu