Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cepu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!harpo!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cepu!scw
From: scw@cepu.UUCP (Stephen C. Woods)
Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.stargate
Subject: Re: Need for Stargate screening?
Message-ID: <429@cepu.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 17-Jan-85 11:28:20 EST
Article-I.D.: cepu.429
Posted: Thu Jan 17 11:28:20 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 21-Jan-85 03:21:59 EST
References: <494@vortex.UUCP> <1917@sun.uucp> <366@hercules.UUCP> <425@cepu.UUCP> <377@hercules.UUCP>
Reply-To: scw@cepu.UUCP (Stephen C. Woods)
Followup-To: net.news.stargate
Organization: VA Wadsworth Med. Center; LA CA
Lines: 64
Xref: watmath net.news:3016 net.news.stargate:55

In article <377@hercules.UUCP> franka@hercules.UUCP (Frank Adrian) writes:
>In article <425@cepu.UUCP> scw@cepu.UUCP (Stephen C. Woods) writes:
>>
>>As I see it now, the net [... deleted comment about local groups...]
>> ...reasonable, from a content view are
>>totally out of place (E.G. net.flame).
>>-- 
>	Again, I reiterate... [...]s I can see, the basic scenario goes like
>this:
>	Stargate is implemented.
>
>	Certain groups are moved there (net.unix-wizards, etc.) and
>	moderated.
>
>	Certain other (unpopular, unmoderatable without changing their
>	character) groups remain on phones (net.flame, net.motss,
>	net.abortion, etc.).
>
>	Backbone site A (followe[...]phone nets, anymore."
>
>	And now only those subjects which a small elite group of
>	"moderators" (censors, Facists, *ssh*les) think are ac-
>	ceptable are discussed.

I really resent the implication that moderators have to be censors,
Facists and/or Assholes.  Personal attacks will prodouce nothing but
an unwillingness to listen to your side of the story.

>
>	And what we have is no longer USENET.  What you have is a form
>of ARPANET digested materials.  Not[...]ts to de facto censorship without
>recourse.
>	Again, if you will tell me how "politically unpopular" news
>groups will survive, I will stop making such a big issue of it.

Somehow is suspect that you'll never be convinced but...

>	But it seems that you people want to have stargate, regardless.
>Well, who out there is in favor of getting around the current people who
>run this net and forming a new one. I suggest the name ALTERNET and a
>new newsgroup called net.alternet to discuss it.

I do like that name, perhaps thats what you can call:

YOU CAN ALWAYS CREATE A NEW NET!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MAJOR ASSUMPTION, the backbone sites will drop the net. (they might,
then again they might not)

How do you get around it?

Well you connect you site to someother site (that is willing to connect to you
and exchange net.flame (or whatever) (Gee, sounds just like usenet to me).
Just because the backbone sites don't exsist doesn't mean that the net
will wither away. REMEMBER they didn't always exsist!!!!!

YOU CAN ALWAYS CREATE A NEW NET!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just how in the [explitive deleted] do you think USENET got started in the
first place?  It didn't spring full grown from the forehead of AT&T you know.
-- 
Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology)
uucp:	{ {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb}!cepu!scw
ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-cs location: N 34 3' 9.1" W 118 27' 4.3"