Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:20162 alt.flame:2056
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!nuchat!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Death to binaries (was re: pictures in binaries)
Keywords: Like wow, man.
Message-ID: <2145@sugar.UUCP>
Date: 18 Jun 88 16:30:06 GMT
References: <4476@gryphon.CTS.COM> <2132@sugar.UUCP> <4523@gryphon.CTS.COM>
Organization: Sugar Land UNIX - Houston, TX
Lines: 82

In article ... richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes:
> In article <2132@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
> >Hey, you flamed two people at once!

> So what. Everyone on talk.bizarre is a bleeding idiot. There, now
> I flamed 15,000 people at once. So what.

Well, I'm more inteseted in the flaming aspect of the whole thing. How do
you get so good at it?

So, he said:
> >> Because it is decentralized, you can't kill USENET on purpose or
> >> by accident. If the feds came in tomorrow and tried to shut USENET
> >> off, they wouldnt be able to.

And I said:
> >I think if they got injunctions against uunet, the public access systems, and
> >the Internet there wouldn't be much of Usenet left. In fact, I think Fidonet
> >would be bigger than the remnants.

And he said:
> Peter, what on earth are you talking about ? ``Injunctions against
> UUNET and pubic access sites.'' You wanna explain that.
            ^^^^^ :->
	    Meese has already shut down a few pubic access sites, I believe.

You said, basically, the feds couldn't shut down Usenet. I think that they
could, by targeting the named entities.

> >> [nasty words deleted]

> >There. I promised an obscenity. USENET is whatever the people paying the
> >bills say it is. Most of the bills are being paid by Big Nasty Corporations,
> >and this is what they think they're paying for:

> >comp.unix.*,comp.lang.*,comp.sys.selected.groups,comp.sources.unix,
> >comp.sources.misc...

> I assume you can back up that ludicrous claim.

OK, what do you think BNCs think they're paying for? And who do you think is
paying for Usenet?

> >They, by and large, don't know about (or if they do they don't carry):

> >> general alt.individualism alt.aquaria alt.sex alt.drugs alt.rock-n-roll
> >... and so on.

> Granted you trimmed the list of 80 non computer groups to the few that
> are easiest to pick on.

Actually, I just took the first line of your list. I didn't particularly
select any groups to pick on.

> The point remains though, Peter, that of the
> roughly 400 newsgroups, only about 100 are computer related.

And it you took those 100 out, the net would lose a lot of its support. If
you took the other 300 groups away, many places wouldn't even notice.

> They enjoy
> wide distribution. Although it is net.chic to claim that USENET is for
> UNIX weenies, it is not true. The massive number of non UNIX, non-computer
> newsgroups should indicate that to you.

The readership surveys indicate that a lot of readers prefer non-technical
groups. By and large, however, they're not the ones paying the bills.

> >I really don't think that anyone's going to put their life on the line for a
> >newsgroup.

> Uh yeah, right. When you get back from mars, post again.

What is that supposed to mean? That this is a life or death matter? Or that
you thought my comment was so obvious that it doesn't need stating? If the
former, I'll drop by next time I go to mars.

I guess I should be more lavish with ":->".
-- 
-- `-_-' Peter (have you hugged your wolf today?) da Silva.
--   U   Mail to ...!uunet!sugar!peter, flames to /dev/null.
-- "A foolish consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds".