Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!killer!jolnet!dattier
From: dattier@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US (=David W. Tamkin)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Some questions about USENET and commercial sites
Summary: still waiting for an answer to the very same question
Keywords: unidirectional bidirectional really now
Message-ID: <307@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US>
Date: 19 Mar 89 18:49:44 GMT
References: <7105@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <2958@looking.UUCP> <822@telly.UUCP> <1989Mar19.053739.6478@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: dattier@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US (David W. Tamkin)
Distribution: na
Organization: Jolnet Public Access Unix
Lines: 22
Reminder: I'd better fix my NAME variable, because I have no equal.

In <1989Mar19.053739.6478@utzoo.uucp> Henry Spencer wrote:

| In article <822@telly.UUCP> evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
| >If r.h.f. gets sent to Genie, will jokes posted to Genie be brought to
| >Usenet? Will Genie be a black hole into which Usenet postings go, without
| >us seeing what's added by Genie subscribers?
| 
| I believe Brad was quite explicit that the gatewaying envisioned would
| be bidirectional.

It must be two weeks now since I posted the same question: will it really be
bidirectional, and what, if anything, does Brad Templeton have IN WRITING
from GEnie or BIX to promise that?

I find it less than easy to believe that the pay-by-the-minute systems will
open their offerings to a large readership who won't be paying them and in
fact will shell money out to the very person who is giving the goods away.

David W. Tamkin     Post Office Box 567542    Norridge, Illinois  60656-7542
dattier@jolnet.orpk.il.us    Jolnet Public Access Unix     GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN
...!killer!jolnet!dattier      Orland Park, Illinois         CIS: 73720,1570
Anyone on Jolnet who agrees with me is welcome to speak up on his or her own.