Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84 chuqui version 1.7 9/23/84; site nsc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!nsc!chuqui
From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: Is anyone else offended.....
Message-ID: <2918@nsc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 28-Jun-85 21:40:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: nsc.2918
Posted: Fri Jun 28 21:40:40 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Jun-85 04:46:49 EDT
References: <266@timeinc.UUCP> <2908@nsc.UUCP> <270@timeinc.UUCP>
Reply-To: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach)
Organization: Plaidhenge
Lines: 67
Keywords: responsibility, liability, common sense, euthanasia
Summary: 

In article <270@timeinc.UUCP> greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes:
>Chuq:
>
>What you do at your site is up to you (of course).  What you feed to other
>sites is quite a question!

Uh, what I feed to other sites is something I do at my site. By definition,
then, it is up to me (of course). 

>My feeling is that if you don't want net.flame at your site, then just
>let it pass through.  OK...there is an expense associated with just
>"letting it pass through".  So perhaps you can have the feeds that
>feed you net.flame feed the sites that you are currently feeding.
>(Did that last sentence make sense??? I think so.....)

I think that what you are trying to say is that if one of my downstream
sites still wants net.flame, then they should be able to get it from
someone else. (right?) Well, the only reason I haven't yet pulled the plug
is because I'm attempting to find out whether or not my downstream sites
want it, and if they do, how to do it. There are a lot of possibilities,
actually. I think I'm already doing what you suggest, although I bet a lot
of other sites aren't.

>My only concern here is that some SA doesn't decide that some one
>news group, one that is valuable, isn't valuable at their site.
>So they pull the plug.  Imagine what happens if ihnp4 decides that
>they only think that net.wombat is valuable.   So the net degrades
>down to one newsgroup --- unless somebody up or down stream from ihnp4
>decides that even net.wombat isn't important or valuable.  Then we
>have no net!

That is one thing that I've been trying to avoid from the start. NO system
should arbitrarily cut out newsgroups without discussing it with their
neighbors, because they have a responsibility to their neighbors to pass
news. If they can't come to an agreement, then the upstream site tends to
have veto powers, but at the least a downstream site needs to know what 
is going on and can find a new feed if the change is unacceptable. Any 
site that makes these kind of structural changes silently is abrogating
their responsibilities. This DOESN'T mean they shouldn't do it, it DOES
mean they should consider the implications of what they are doing and make
sure that the groups affected know what is happening and have some feedback
in the decision.

>Perhaps some type of "policy" in the anarchy of USENET should be set
>such that if a site decides that they no longer wish to participate
>in a given news group, they can pull the plug on their machine
>without affecting anyone else on the net??

Policy? forget it. A large number of sites have already pulled the plug on
a large number of groups, just ask Europe or Australia. There is
absolutelt no reason to try to set up unenforcable policies, especially
when all they do is give people a false sense of security. 

>I can understand how you feel towards the Scott Turners of the
>world, but just think how their respective mothers feel.  Would
>you want to take credit for the likes of him????

Hell, Scott isn't any worse than a half a dozen others in net.flame. He
just got lucky enough to get noticed by the net. That doesn't make what he
did any more acceptable, just makes keeping net.flame around a little less
acceptable.
-- 
:From the misfiring synapses of:                  Chuq Von Rospach
{cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui   nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA

The offices were very nice, and the clients were only raping the land, and
then, of course, there was the money...