Xref: utzoo misc.misc:2208 news.misc:1161
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!nbires!stcvax!hao!woods
From: woods@hao.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
Newsgroups: misc.misc,news.misc
Subject: Re: The solution to: Re: "We don't get that newsgroup here"
Message-ID: <1089@hao.ucar.edu>
Date: 12 Jan 88 23:52:47 GMT
References: <505@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> <112@falkor.UUCP> <513@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> <116@falkor.UUCP> <933@tjalk.cs.vu.nl>
Reply-To: woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods)
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 23

In article <933@tjalk.cs.vu.nl> rblieva@cs.vu.nl (Roemer B. Lievaart) writes:
>heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (Ron Heiby) typed (on the subject of censorship):
>+---------------------------------------
>| No, that is economics.
>+---------------------------------------
>
>But what is it not to have someone post an article on misc.misc on
>a subject of which he doesn't receive the appropiate newsgroup?

  It's called common courtesy and respect for the wishes of his site
and/or intervening sites. If his site or his feed site has chosen not
to get a certain newsgroup, there is probably a good reason for it (and
even if there isn't, so what? They still made the choice not to get that
newsgroup). At any rate, that choice should be respected. It has nothing
to do with censorship; it's common courtesy.
  A lot of people seem to keep forgetting: access to USENET is not a right,
it is a privilege. Your site (and the site(s) that feed it) have chosen to
provide you with that privilege (or at least part of it). They have done
you a favor by doing so. They don't OWE you USENET access. The very LEAST you 
can do is cooperate with any access limitations they care to impose. As long 
as EVERYONE at your site operates under the same limits, it isn't censorship.

--Greg