Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!ccplumb
From: ccplumb@watnot.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.stargate
Subject: Re: Stargate is a hybrid, a broadcast common carrier
Message-ID: <12738@watnot.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 30-Mar-87 01:58:28 EST
Article-I.D.: watnot.12738
Posted: Mon Mar 30 01:58:28 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 31-Mar-87 00:54:44 EST
References: <1369@ncc.UUCP> <764@looking.UUCP> <18049@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: ccplumb@watnot.UUCP (Colin Plumb)
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 35

In article <18049@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> fair@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Erik E. Fair) writes:
>Brad Templeton proposes (for the nth time since I've been reading his
>articles on this network) a "sender-pays" USENET.
>
>Brad, you're free to set this up in your own corner of Canada (and if

Hey!  We're here, too (ruptime lists 90 machines)!   :-)

Also: I think a sender-pays Usenet would *degrade* the quality of
net traffic.  To wit, here are my thoughts:

The undesirable postings are the extended flames that some people post.
We want to discourage them.

The desirable postings (why I read netnews, and would pay for it if
necessary) are the informative, well-thought-out ones.  Code.
Bug fixes.  Reviews.  Advice.
We want to encourage them.

These postings take time to compose, and are harder to write than
flames.  Sometimes (E.g. source), they are longer.

Why should a person who doesn't enjoy parading his/her opinions
up and down (I refer to those somewhat more modest than myself)
*pay* to contribute them?  The people who'd pay would be those
who most strongly believe their opinions are right, and *that*
is the definition of `fanatic.'

It would be nice to put all the costs in the right place, but
`poster-pays' won't work.
--
	-Colin Plumb (watmath!watnot!ccplumb)

Silly quote:
Don't upset the apple pie.