Xref: utzoo rec.humor.d:1228 news.misc:2154
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!mit-eddie!husc6!purdue!decwrl!eda!jim
From: jim@eda.com (Jim Budler)
Newsgroups: rec.humor.d,news.misc
Subject: Re: Yes, I can sell a jokebook via USENET.
Message-ID: <376@eda.com>
Date: 29 Nov 88 16:44:49 GMT
References: <2391@looking.UUCP> <79090@sun.uucp> <1057@ncar.ucar.edu>
Reply-To: jim@eda.com (Jim Budler)
Organization: EDA Systems,Inc. Santa Clara, CA
Lines: 37

In article <1057@ncar.ucar.edu> era@scdpyr.UCAR.EDU (Ed Arnold) writes:
| In article <79090@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
| >
| >On the other hand -- on the Internet, commercial activity is explicitly
| >against the rules and CAN get you in trouble. Add that to the large number
| >of Internet-based NNTP links and Brad's all-too-true statement above about
| >it happening all the time, and ask yourself if USENET is violating Internet
| >rules....
| >
| Maybe I'm dense, but I don't understand.

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't understand.

What does it matter if USENET violates Internet rules? Or are we to follow
other networks in complying with Internet rules because it is easier
than not complying?

"Violating their rules can get you into trouble". You mean like suspended
from Internet? I'm not on Internet in the first place.

I'm not on the Internet, don't have Internet advantages, but have to
abide by Internet restrictions?

Brad specifically asked that those messages not be gatewayed onto
the Internet. And I'm *sure* the Automatic Gatewaying Software
complied. 8^)

We're always running into this "not allowed on the Internet" argument
and I would really like someone to intelligently define to me why
I should care.                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

jim
-- 
Jim Budler   address = uucp: ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim OR domain: jim@eda.com
#define disclaimer	"I do not speak for my employer"
#define truth       "I speak for myself"
#define result      "variable"