Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!uccba!hal!ncoast!allbery From: allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: Of Paranoia and of Internet (Was: Re: EndOfSourcesList ...) Message-ID: <4091@ncoast.UUCP> Date: Fri, 7-Aug-87 21:42:49 EDT Article-I.D.: ncoast.4091 Posted: Fri Aug 7 21:42:49 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 9-Aug-87 11:16:03 EDT References: <267@brandx.UUCP> <7200004@iaoobelix.UUCP> <289@brandx.rutgers.edu> <3632@ncoast.UUCP> <13647@topaz.rutgers.edu> Reply-To: allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) Followup-To: comp.sources.d Organization: Cleveland Public Access UN*X, Cleveland, Oh Lines: 78 As quoted from <13647@topaz.rutgers.edu> by webber@topaz.rutgers.edu (Webber): +--------------- | In article <3632@ncoast.UUCP>, allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes: | > As quoted from <301@brandx.rutgers.edu> by webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber): | > | Doubtless paranoia is not the appropriate clinical term, but I would | > | hardly call people who threaten to sue if they transfer messages that | > | they don't want due to their own laziness as `realistic.' I hardly | > +--------------- | > | > I take it, then, that you believe you have a God-given right to send stuff | > anywhere and have EVERYONE forward it. Tell it to the folks who run the IBM | > VNET. | | I take it that any net that transmits messages as boring as ibm pc | binaries has no right to complain about the quality of the content of | any other messages. You know, I always find it interesting that | everyone wants everyone else to forward everything so that they can | pick and chose the parts that interest just them. +--------------- Why do I detect in this paragraph a rich and fruity smell, as of skunk? Bob, you can't have it both ways (i.e. "don't allow binaries on any net I'm on, but you damned better accept anything I submit"). Your article smacks of hypocrisy. BTW, I pay to keep ncoast working. I hate to tell you, but this includes phone bills. As for sites outside ncoast, they pay if they want it. I don't object to Bob Webber not wanting to carry comp.binaries.ibm.pc; I object to Bob Webber trying to force people who WANT it _not_ to carry it. This network is built on the idea that if site A wants something, it can carry it; and if it doesn't want it, it doesn't have to receive it; and that no site or person has the right to force another site to carry/not carry something. Another site can block articles in its "sys" file, or add a connection to another system to receive newsgroups (and ncoast is always willing to accept such connections). Obviously, this is a wrong-minded way of doing things, and it's obviously coorrect that Bob Webber should decide what everyone should (i.e. the outside-the-US sites) and should not (i.e. comp.binaries) carry. Thank you for enlightening us, O Great One! +--------------- | DoD does not `own' any `name' (I bet they haven't even applied for a | trademark). Any way, I see that you couldn't find an RFC or any other | `official' document to back up your position, so you simply decided to | repeat it in case people would start to agree if you just said it | often enough. +--------------- I haven't got the RFC's; I suppose someone who can't ftp something from another machine is subhuman. Don't bother replying to this, as your statement above contains the assumption that I have access to every RFC, an assumption that holds true only if I can ftp from SRI-NIC; and thereby implicitly considers sites that DON'T have FTP or TCP/IP of any sort as being totally ignorable. However, I have a copy of RFC822 here, from the time it was posted to the Usenet. The Preface makes it clear that the Internet is defined as the DoD ARPA network; the terms are used interchangeably. This, of course, is not enough, simply because it doesn't support Mr. Webber's claim. Pulling out my crystal ball, I see that Mr. Webber will continue to make untrue statements and insist that his definition of "Internet" _must_ be the One True Definition because he said so. Actually, it doesn't require a crystal ball at all; all it requires is to compare this situation to the many similar situations that have arisen recently with respect to postings by Mr. Webber, and to see what responses he has made in each case. My current opinion is that Mr. Webber ought be shut up. However, I support the current network organization; and, thanks to the fact that Mr. Webber's idea of how the network should work is NOT the way the network _does_ work, he can continue to talk all he wants. This is something that Mr. Webber is likely never to understand except by applying the label "sucker" somewhere. A pity. -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc and comp.binaries.ibm.pc {{harvard,mit-eddie}!necntc,well!hoptoad,sun!cwruecmp!hal}!ncoast!allbery ARPA: necntc!ncoast!allbery@harvard.harvard.edu Fido: 157/502 MCI: BALLBERY <>