Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!chinacat!sequoia!rpp386!jfh
From: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware
Message-ID: <18087@rpp386.cactus.org>
Date: 3 Mar 90 14:50:32 GMT
References: <14010@s.ms.uky.edu> <125816@midas.UUCP> <635@magnus.Hotline.Com> <34720@watmath.waterloo.edu> <18063@rpp386.cactus.org> <1341@utoday.UUCP>
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Lone Star Cafe and BBS Service
Lines: 31

In article <1341@utoday.UUCP> wagner@.UUCP (Mitch Wagner) writes:
>In article <18063@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>In article <34720@watmath.waterloo.edu> bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) writes:

Brad Sez -
>>>Sigh.  USENET is *NOT* public domain.  It's not even a public network.
>>>It is *not* noncommercial.  Saying it won't make it so.  I have, and have
>>>given, counterexamples.  Counterexamples are generally accepted as a pretty
>>>darn good way of disproving a thesis.  So stop saying it!

John Sez -

>>You aren't the official spokesman for what USENET is or isn't.  Quit
>>pretending you are.

Mitch Sez -

>Neither are you. Brad is stating his opinions, Ross states his, you 
>state yours, I state mine, Tom Neff states his. What's the problem?

There is a difference between saying "I don't think that USENET is
a commercial network" and saying "USENET is *NOT* public domain.
It's not even a public network. It is *not* noncommercial."

Those are statements of fact, not opinions.  "I think", or "I feel",
or "In my humble opinion"; those are statements of opinion.  Brad
makes statements of fact.  Since USENET has no spokesman, stating
that he is not the spokesman is a true statement of fact.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                             UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832                           Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org