Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!decwrl!shelby!msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!dmshq!com50!craig From: craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Anarchy (Re: Fool) Message-ID: <1990Nov12.033234.9412@com50.c2s.mn.org> Date: 12 Nov 90 03:32:34 GMT References: <18667@rpp386.cactus.org> <1990Nov2.191240.4568@lavaca.uh.edu> <18684@rpp386.cactus.org> <1990Nov3.193714.4223@lavaca.uh.edu> <1990Nov4.031734.19127@com50.c2s.mn.org> <284@crucible.UUCP> <1990Nov6.030346.11113@com50.c2s.mn.org> <288@crucible.UUCP> <1990No Organization: Com Squared Systems, Inc. Lines: 28 In article peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1990Nov8.133951.7304@com50.c2s.mn.org> craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) writes: >> The Usenet is NOT an anarchy. No matter how many times you click your heels >> and say it, the Usenet is not an anarchy. The alt.* network comes closer to >> being an anarchy, but even there, there are guidelines being formulated and >> "enforced". > >Anarchy does *not* mean "no rules". Anarchy means "no ruler". Nobody on Usenet >has any authority over the subject matter or group naming conventions outside >their own local area. My dictionary seems to provide for the lack of rules as being a basis for anarchy. I contend that the Usenet does not lack for rules or guidelines. And the moderator of n.a.n seems to be approaching the dictatorial stage according to some people on the net. And then, there are the owners and system administrators of the news nodes. As you state, they hold the power within their own nodes. But some people extend their authority beyond their own system to affect other people and systems. These actions should not be viewed as anarchy in action for which there should be no recourse. Rather the actions should be viewed as lawlessness on the part of the perpetrators. /craig >-- >Peter da Silva. `-_-' >+1 713 274 5180. 'U` >peter@ferranti.com