Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mstar!mstar.morningstar.com!bob From: bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) Newsgroups: news.misc Subject: Re: The Rape of Usenet Message-ID: Date: 21 Dec 89 15:46:36 GMT References: <946@crash.cts.com> Sender: news@MorningStar.COM (USENET Administrator) Reply-To: bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) Followup-To: news.misc Organization: Morning Star Technologies Lines: 28 In-reply-to: canada@crash.cts.com's message of 20 Dec 89 17:47:14 GMT In article <946@crash.cts.com> canada@crash.cts.com (Diane Barlow Close) writes: In article <15097@well.UUCP> dsmall@well.UUCP (David Small) writes: It's time to announce that there is now a working uplink from USENET to GEnie... The link is one way... It seems to me like a benefit for everyone involved, especially if/when 2-way mail gets going. A benefit for *everyone*? It is only a benefit for *everyone on GEnie*. Usenet people don't benefit *at all* from this one-way ``exchange'' of information... It's obvious... who is benefiting from this ``exchange'' of information -- GEnie and no one else. It sounds like the project isn't considered done yet, and there is still work in progress. The first stage works (Usenet->GEnie) so David was politely telling the affected people about it. Now they're working on the second stage (GEnie->Usenet). When the flow passes both directions, they'll be just another big leaf node. I won't object until it becomes apparent that GEnie doesn't plan to implement or allow the outbound flow. I'm slightly worried by David's choice of "if/when" in describing the state of the 2-way project (you meant news, not just mail, right?), but I'm willing to wait for further explanation before shouting. "Never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by implementation delay." "Connectivity is good."