NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/gnu/misc/discuss/2892

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-03 | 3.8 KB

Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:2892 comp.org.eff.talk:5664 comp.unix.bsd:5073 comp.os.mach:1163 news.groups:17541
Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!convex!bcm!rice!cathyf
From: [e-mail] (Catherine Anne Foulston)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,news.groups
Subject: Re: AT&T Long Distance Boycott (was: BNR2SS, Mach, and The Lawsuit)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:30:35 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Rice University
Lines: 65

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Terry Lambert) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William J. Vajk) writes:
>>>>First, it does not affect "all of us."
>>>I am once again dismayed at the responses made by supposedly
>>>intelligent individuals to affairs which do indeed affect all
>>>of us. Perhaps some people simply don't se the connections.
>>
>>An article about voting for a particular presidential candidate affects all of
>>us too.  Even if you're not a US citizen or resident, the US has enough
>>world-wide influence that which president is elected is probably going to have
>>some indirect on you.  Should such an article be posted to a thousand-odd
>>newsgroups?
>>
>>Anyone can get heart disease.  Should I post articles about cholesterol in
>>gnu.misc.discuss because it affects "all of us" and so can go to every
>>newsgroup on the net?
>

>    I think we are all aware of the failings of usenet as a political
>organizational tool, or as an organizational tool in general.  People will
>read only the topic categories in which they are interested in, and it is
>this categorization (and the [mostly academic] pressure to keep it) that
                what?  non-academic people want one
                big group we're all forced to read?
                I don't get it.

>prevents it from being used this way.


>treating him as if he did.  The newsgroups included (even in this posting)
>are quite germane to the topic of the AT&T suit.
        NOT
at least not news.groups, anyway.  Although the other stuff in this
thread about where the thread belongs may be appropriate to news.groups.

[Entire paragraph deleted that made me want to say "IDotNP, film at
11."  But I would never actually say that of course.  :-) ]


>[usenet not appropriate for boycott]
>This is doubly true of the Internet, which is the primary mechanism used

Let's say "a major mechanism, in the USA."  Usenet would survive without
the NSF part of the Internet, it would just be slower in places.

>in the distribution of usenet, since the funding body is the NSF, a federally
>funded agency, and organisation of a boycott in this manner violates several
>federal statues regarding restraing of trade.

Now that's actually sort of interesting, since the long-distance digital
lines the Internet runs over are provided by MCI.  So it could appear
that MCI was helping the NSF, or NSF was helping MCI, to promulgate a
boycott of AT&T.  Alert the conspiracy theorists!  (But please be nice
to us non-conspiracy-theorists and take it to alt.conspiracy.)  I
don't actually think this is a real issue because the opposition to
the boycott have just as much opportunity to post to the net.

    Cathy

--
Cathy Foulston + Rice University + Network & Systems Support + [e-mail]
Why throw stones even if your own house isn't glass?  Do you really want to
wreck your friends' houses?  What if your enemy retaliates with a torch?
And are you sure you don't even have a glass window somewhere?