Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:20184 alt.flame:2064
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!mejac!gryphon!richard
From: richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Death to binaries (was re: pictures in binaries)
Summary: flame. Hit 'N' now if you dont like flames
Keywords: Like wow, man.
Message-ID: <4531@gryphon.CTS.COM>
Date: 19 Jun 88 02:09:34 GMT
Reply-To: richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton)
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: Trailing Edge Technology, Redondo Beach, CA
Lines: 66

In article <2145@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
>Well, I'm more inteseted in the flaming aspect of the whole thing. How do
>you get so good at it?

Practice.

>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.

No, I dont think this would work. As long as there are modems and open phone
circuits there will bw a net. Look at how little of a ripple in the fabric
of the net there was when the last few backbone sites drop off. There is far
more bandwidth available than you would suspect, Peter. You could replace
almost any backbone site with a 386, a big harddisk and a few telebits.

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

Uh, whats a BNC ?  Isn't that a connector ?

>
>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.

Yeah right. Look at the fuss when Brian Reid offered to rmgroup alt.sex.
That group has about the lowest propogation of any of the net, is certainly
the least technical and is even an alt group fer crissakes. The hue and
cry echo'd from here to Tibet.

Go ahead Peter, offer to rmgroup soc.singles or soc.women. I dare 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.

You're insane Peter. I asume you can back up this wild claim of yours.

>
>> >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? 

It means who said anything about dying for a newsgroup ?


-- 
                              "Shrimp Ahoy"
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM                               {backbone}!gryphon!richard