Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site floyd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!floyd!trb
From: trb@floyd.UUCP (Andy Tannenbaum)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: net.gay
Message-ID: <1987@floyd.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 25-Sep-83 17:14:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: floyd.1987
Posted: Sun Sep 25 17:14:59 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 27-Sep-83 16:14:21 EDT
References: <135@denelcor.UUCP>, <18656@wivax.UUCP>, <1050@utcsstat.UUCP> <315@cbosgd.UUCP> <286@ut-sally.UUCP>
Lines: 24

s that problem would be.

John, I don't think you realize the level of inconvenience that can be
caused when sites decide to refuse certain groups.  Have you considered
how difficult it is to track down bad links in netnews?  It's a pretty
messy network, and many administrators don't have the time or desire to
track down quirks.  Let's say you're interested in 68K discussions.
Let's say there's some company around with an interest in promoting
some competitor to the 68k.  Might it not be in their interest to try
to squash constructive discussion about use of the 68K?  I would be
saddenned by such behavior, and I think it's an unwritten commandment
of USENET to let the information flow.  You don't want to encourage
restriction of public access to public domain information, either in
the technical or non-technical areas.  I don't want to see that
resctrictive behavior become common in netnews administrators.

One good thing about netnews is that we all assume that if we post an
article, then it will get to the people who want to read it, and if
people post articles that we want to read, we will get those articles.
If you suggest that administrators follow their selfish whims, then
it's just gonna make netnews that much more of a pain in the ass to use
as a dependable tool.  I don't see what good comes out of it.

	Andy Tannenbaum   Bell Labs  Whippany, NJ   (201) 386-6491