[net.micro.mac] The purification of net.sources.mac

clyde@ut-ngp.UTEXAS (Clyde W. Hoover) (10/24/85)

Re: proposal to 'ban' shareware from net.source.mac.
** Flamethrowers to high

1. ARRRGH!!! Much of my MAC software comes from the net.  Don't you clowns
   DARE cut off my source of software just because 'Somebody is using USENET
   for monetary gain'.   Give me a >>break<<.  Maybe, just MAYBE if EVERYONE
   who downloads a shareware program from the net sends in the requested
   donation, the programmer will maybe, just MAYBE feel their time and effort
   was economically justified and maybe, just MAYBE they will put some
   more effort into a new version or a new program.
  
   I strongly suspect there ain't no one getting rich off of shareware, bunkos.

2. Who do >>you<< (whoever you are) think you are to control
   what get posted to USENET? Anarchy and freedom, isn't that what
   USENET is all about?  If I want a newsgroup and my feed doesn't
   give to me, I will find some other site to feed me.
   >>You<< (whoever you are) object to shareware in net.sources.mac, >>I<<
   object to creationist garbage in net.origins.  Then am I right in
   calling for the suppression of creationists?

3. Somebody ALWAYS pays the bills for distribution.
   If it's Compuserve, the user pays the connect charges.
   If it's USENET, then lots of administrators pay the phone bills.
   If your administrator doesn't like paying for net.sources.mac, or 
   net.flame, or net.religion.jewish, then they can choose not to.

** Flamethrowers off, shields to full power
-- 
Shouter-To-Dead-Parrots @ Univ. of Texas Computation Center; Austin, Texas  

"All life is a blur of Republicans and meat." -Zippy the Pinhead

	clyde@ngp.UTEXAS.EDU, clyde@sally.UTEXAS.EDU
	...!ihnp4!ut-ngp!clyde, ...!allegra!ut-ngp!clyde

dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (10/25/85)

> Re: proposal to 'ban' shareware from net.source.mac.
> ** Flamethrowers to high
> 
>  I strongly suspect there ain't no one getting rich off of shareware, bunkos.
> 
> 2. Who do >>you<< (whoever you are) think you are to control
>    what get posted to USENET? Anarchy and freedom, isn't that what
>    USENET is all about?  If I want a newsgroup and my feed doesn't
>    give to me, I will find some other site to feed me.
>    >>You<< (whoever you are) object to shareware in net.sources.mac, >>I<<
>    object to creationist garbage in net.origins.  Then am I right in
>    calling for the suppression of creationists?

Ah, but I do not (nor even try to) make money by posting my garbage to
net.origins.

The issue is perhaps less whether postings are garbage than whether an
explicitly non-commercial venture is being used for commercial gain -
gain actual *or* potential.  The issue is complicated, of course, by the
fact that many of the postings do not come from the authors, and so may
not be said to represent direct efforts on the part of those authors to
profit from their work on USENET.

Anarchy and freedom may be *part* of what USENET is about, but it is so,
subject to other considerations.  Many of the postings on this subject
seem to proceed on the premise of elevating one purpose (out of many)
of USENET to primacy over all others, then insisting that, relative to
*that* goal, the answer is simple.  What is simple is such analysis.

What's the answer?  How should I know?  I'm a creationist, ergo, I know
nothing... :-)

-- 
                                                                    |
Paul DuBois     {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--
                                                                    |
"The voice of the Lord is full of majesty."                         |
                           Psalm 29:4

bantz@uiucuxc.CSO.UIUC.EDU (11/06/85)

One of the express goals of the creationists is to force schools to buy
equal amounts of creationist and "evolutionist" teaching materials, and
to get funds for their religious endeavors from NSF.  This doesn't seem
much less commercial than the "freeware" postings to me.

The AI and laser-lovers notesfiles (from ARPAnet) contain a large number
of articles explicitly concerned with commercial products, by people who
stand to benefit from their success.  I find the information useful, and
don't mind at all paying (however indirectly) for its transmission.

Finally, there has been quite a bit of traffic in more than one group on
SDI/starwars; a good bit of the passionate argument for SDI comes, of 
course, from defense contractors who are going to get a whole lot more 
than a few $10 volutary donations for their efforts.  

My dictionary, by the way, for those concerned with the "principle," says
that "commercial" denotes LARGE SCALE buying and selling of goods, or 
BUSINESS.  (An alternate definition is "intellectual exchange" - is that
endangered too?)  It seem fa.laser-lovers, net.ai, and fa.arms-d should go
before net.sources is even an issue.  I would prefer to keep them all.