Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 Unisoft-Cosmos; site kepler.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!lll-crg!well!micropro!kepler!jpd
From: jpd@kepler.UUCP (John Donovan)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: Proposal for starting net.peace
Message-ID: <204@kepler.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 1-Sep-85 18:16:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: kepler.204
Posted: Sun Sep  1 18:16:22 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 3-Sep-85 01:39:41 EDT
References: <195@kepler.UUCP> <10@pyramid.UUCP>
Organization: MicroPro Int'l Corp., San Rafael, CA
Lines: 46
Keywords: Peace, politics, new group
Summary: Net.peace IS appropriate

> 
> I like the idea of a net.peace group, but absolutely NOT under the conditions
> John has described. I see three serious problems:
> 
> First, as John has defined it, net.peace would be used to link peace activist
> groups around the country that have no other purpose or involvement with
> Usenet. What with net traffic already at the bursting point, I must oppose a
> group which uses the net only as a means to avoid paying their own phone
> bills. Usenet is NOT a free bulletin board service, available to anyone with a
> modem and friend at a Usenet site. Everyone is expected to contribute as much
> to the net as they take out. 

 Carl, what I propose is setting up a forum for everyone currently on Usenet;
but, in addition, inviting along some non-profits such as the American Friends
Service Committee and other mainstream groups with a direct involvement
in the peace movement.  This is hardly "a means to avoid paying their own phone
bills;" it is a way for like minded persons to network together and exchange
ideas.  I certainly expect that everyone will contribute as much as they take
sway from the net.

> 
> Second, I question the unabashed political use of the net. It's one thing to
> provide a soapbox for expressing ideas (e.g. net.politics); it is quite
> another for the net to sanction a group which uses it as a means to a political
> ends. (This has legal/litigious risks, as well.)

  Admittedly, this use IS open to question, and I would like to hear other
points of view.  What I foresee is merely the open exchange of ideas, just
as we see now throughout Usenet, but with a focus appropriate to this
forum.  All I am proposing that is new is to open up the group to persons
who don't work just for University Comp Sci departments and large corporations,
but also to some persons whose life work is in the area of peace activism.
I find this a benevolent and exciting idea.  I can see where it could cause
others cause for alarm.  Please speak up! 

> Finally, even if it were acceptable, there is no way that net.peace would
> accomplish the goals John has set for it. It is not possible (or desirable) to
> control or restrict who submits articles to a group. Thus net.peace would
> quickly degenerate into the free-for-all that net.politics now is, with great
> debates over pros and cons of the peace movement. 
>
It is quite possible that net.peace would become a magnet for the contentious.
Since I strongly resist restricting entrance to the forum, net.peace could
very possibly get just as heated as net.politics.  I don't think this is
much of an argument for not trying it, however. Let's "give net.peace
a chance."