Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!topaz!klinzhai!webber
From: webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber)
Newsgroups: news.stargate
Subject: Re: On seeing the differences in what is and what should be
Message-ID: <191@brandx.klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Sun, 26-Apr-87 06:53:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: brandx.191
Posted: Sun Apr 26 06:53:33 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 26-Apr-87 23:14:41 EDT
References: <520@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU> <213200002@mirror>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 57
Summary: there is a difference

In article <213200002@mirror>, rs@mirror.UUCP writes:
> /* Written  3:15 am  Apr 23, 1987 by webber@aramis.rutgers.edu */
> >THE BASIC SOLUTION:
> >The most natural solution would be that if the a site cannot expend
> >more than a certain amount of resources toward supporting the net,
> >then it should just support the net to the extent that it can and then
> >cease for that day.
> Well, they're doing something very similar:  they're supporting the net
> to the extent they feel they can, in terms of giving preference to what
> THEY want:  moderated groups first, and "high-content" groups last.

Basically, it is the difference between giving $200,000 to your
favourite hospital and giving $200,000 to your favourite hospital on
the condition that they name a wing after you.  Now it seems to me
that in the later case, it is no longer a gift, you have simply found
the cheapest way to buy a wing with your name on it.  So, what is
happening, is that `they' are going from making substantial donations
to making no donations.  This is quite different than just cutting
back one's donations to what one can afford.  (One wonders why they
don't keep close enough tabs on what they are doing so that they don't
over expend in the first place!)

> Ultimate anarchy.  It is not a requirement of Usenet that you read --
> let alone believe -- the group listings posted by spaf@gatech, or the
> group creation/deletion messages posted by rick@seismo.  Most people
> and sites just find it in their best interests to do so.  If you have
> a problem with this, then perhaps a discussion with your SysAdmin might
> be worthwhile.

I haven't any idea as to how that related to the previous discussion.
Non sequitur? 

> /* Written  2:39 am  Apr 23, 1987 by webber@aramis.rutgers.edu */
> >Incidently, it is interesting that you didn't come up with an
> >alternative source of uncensored opinion/dialogue on the scale of
> >usenet...
> What about GENie, CompuServe, etc:  uncensored, pay-as-you-go, with lots
> of people there talking about lots of things.  It's silly to get all
> misty-eyed because something's evolving away from what you like,
> especially when more equitable alternatives available exist.

I strongly doubt that any of the services you mention carry anywhere
near the number of users that usenet does.  Also, the interface for
users is quite different (particularly in terms of the amount of time
a typical user stays connected).  Furthermore, by placing the cost
directly on the user, you tend to get the opinions of those that can
afford to pay for such services, as opposed to the more egalitarian
structure of the usenet (prior to its current death).  I assure you
that I had these in mind when I proclaimed usenet unique.

As mentioned earlier, it is not evolving this way.  To steal an
analogy from a recent issue of the Economist:  the patient has a cold,
but instead of prescribing a few asprin, the doctor is prescribing a
lobotomy -- the patient is nervous.


------------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; BACKBONE!top*Wdondond