Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site timeinc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!timeinc!greenber From: greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) Newsgroups: net.flame,net.news Subject: Re: Is anyone else offended..... Message-ID: <278@timeinc.UUCP> Date: Sat, 6-Jul-85 15:24:41 EDT Article-I.D.: timeinc.278 Posted: Sat Jul 6 15:24:41 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 7-Jul-85 05:38:45 EDT References: <266@timeinc.UUCP> <1106@mnetor.UUCP> Reply-To: greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) Followup-To: net.news Organization: Time, Inc. - New York Lines: 72 Xref: watmath net.flame:11012 net.news:3583 Summary: In article <1106@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: (Quotes me) >>... >>I feel that a SA should only control their machine. They shouldn't >>try to control what *I* read. > >I am ONLY trying to control OUR machine. > >But, we're running out of disk space, CPU cycles, modem bandwidth, and >the telephone bills are going up. Not to mention that nobody >down-stream of us would particularly miss net.flame and some of the >other newsgroups either. Let us assume for a moment that I am the system administrator at ihnp4 or any other backbone site. And I don't program in anything but COBOL. So there is obviously no need for net.lang.c, right? You talk about how the net is a public service and that sites have no responsibility to anyone but themselves. WRONG! We are a community. We have our problems, our joys (Lets have congrats for Yet Another Net Engagement to Gregg and Karen!), our problems --- and our responsibilities. One of those responsibilities, like taxes, is to provide for the general welfare, even if it is not in our own personal interests. I happen to enjoy reading net.flame, as well as net.wobegon. The message traffic in net.flame seems, by itself, to justify the existance of net.flame. If SA's feel that they can't afford the space, cycles, or other limited resources, then we should work on solving the problem --- not merely postponing it. Eventually we are going to hit enough message traffic that machines won't be able to handle even the technical groups. I think that many of the SA's are using the idea of "heavy burden" as a vehicle for removing net.flame. Net.flame might be an embarrasment to many, but I still feel that a site DOES have a responsibility to other sites dowstream to continue feeding them ALL groups. If you decide that you don't want to carry one group, then I feel the SA that is pulling the plug should arrange to have downstream sites fed by other sites. Makes it a little more work to pull the plug on a group, so SA's might think twice about pulling the plug on a group that they don't want. > >Netnews is a public service, brought to most free by SA's that put in >long hours of unpaid overtime to keep the whole thing from falling >apart and companies that pay the bills. We do it primarily for the >technical material and partially for mail access to the world, and >sometimes for some light entertainment. But, the cost of carrying >material that is at best in poor taste, and frequently legally >actionable is getting MUCH too high. Management is starting to put >pressure on too. > As for justifying it to management --- howzabout telling management that as a member of the USENET community, you have the responsibility to *at least* transfer ALL newsgroups (whether they are needed/wanted or not) in order to get the ones that you need/want? BTW ---- I would be interested in finding out what the actual, real costs of a group like net.flame are. I mean, are we talking $10 or $1000? >Chris Lewis, >UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis Ross -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. they would make me their spokesperson.