russ@wpg.UUCP (Russell Lawrence) (06/03/88)
While I was engrossed in reading the various postings about
comp.women, my associate's ten year old son came into my office and
asked me what I was doing.
"Aw, these people are preparing to vote on a new newsgroup and they're
discussing the issues", I answered without thinking.
"Voting, huh?", he grinned. "How old do you have to be to vote?"
I realized that he was eagerly anticipating that he might get a chance
to vote on whatever it was that we were voting about, but when the irony
of his question hit home (...in the light of the comp.women quibbling,
flames and name calling), I burst out laughing and had to ask myself
"Yeah, how old DO people have to be to vote?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose that minimum age, immigration (ie, access rights), and other
restrictions on citizenship will never play a fatal role in net politics
because net "property owners" have so much freedom and autonomy. When
an immature, overzealous, or misguided sense of purpose causes some
people's good intentions to stray too far from a common and purposeful
goal, site administrators can always withdraw their support... even though
such actions are usually greeted by cries of "fascism" from a
chorus of net weenies.
--
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 456-0001
{uunet,killer}!wpg!russoconnor@sungoddess.UUCP (06/03/88)
An article by russ@wpg.UUCP (Russell Lawrence) says:
] "Yeah, how old DO people have to be to vote?"
Look, let's get this silliness over with.
Will one of you SYSTEM ADMINISTATOR PEOPLE please
write a script that will :
1. Create a few hundred new accounts on your machine.
2. Give them all realistic names.
3. Have them all send in whatever vote you like.
Vote, huh ?
--
Dennis O'Connor oconnor%sungod@steinmetz.UUCP ARPA: OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa
"Never confuse USENET with something that matters, like PIZZA."pst@comdesign.UUCP (06/03/88)
From article <441@wpg.UUCP>, by russ@wpg.UUCP (Russell Lawrence):
< I suppose that minimum age, immigration (ie, access rights), and other
< restrictions on citizenship will never play a fatal role in net politics
< because net "property owners" have so much freedom and autonomy.
Net "property owners"? Perhaps we should limit sufferage to TRUE net
property owners -- those of us that:
(a) pay the phone bill
(b) actually own the hardware
(c) pay for the maintenance on the hardware
(d) pay for the added disk drive that was needed to hold news
It would make the voting process much simpler for the vote taker :-), but
then again, I think there might be some flames -- does Spaf own his own
USENET node? Does Rick Adams? Does Mark Horton? Hmmmm, perhaps this isn't
such a good idea after all... (heavens, what if Bob Webber went out and
bought a IBM-PC with UUPC! We'd have yet another landslide for comp.
protocols.tcpip.eniac and 99.9% of the backbone sites would have nothing
to say about it (sick smile)).
Oh well, what about split cases (like myself), who administer a small
network at work, and have a unix-box at home... I guess I get to vote,
but what if I am using NNTP to pull the groups off of the hard disks at
work? Am I then 3/5ths of a vote because I am slave to a real computer?
(note: to our non-US friends, this is a reference to the 3/5ths rule on
slave votes back when we had such delightful concepts as slavery :-(.
"Every land-owning white male is equal..." ... lovely justice)
Grinning all the way home,
Paul
--
work: home:
comdesign!pst@pyramid.com pst@ai.ai.mit.edu
...!pyramid!comdesign!pst ...!ucbvax!ucsbcsl!nessus!pst
pst@sbitp.bitnetbill@carpet.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (06/04/88)
In article <346@comdesign.UUCP> pst@comdesign.uucp (Paul Traina) writes: >From article <441@wpg.UUCP>, by russ@wpg.UUCP (Russell Lawrence): [ deleted some stuff ] Speaking only for myself, the three sites I administer [five I feed] >Net "property owners"? Perhaps we should limit sufferage to TRUE net >property owners -- those of us that: > (a) pay the phone bill yes [no] > (b) actually own the hardware yes [yes] > (c) pay for the maintenance on the hardware yes [no] > (d) pay for the added disk drive that was needed to hold news yes [?] > >It would make the voting process much simpler for the vote taker :-), but I answered your questions but you failed to describe your eligibility to make the proposal. I feel eligible to criticize since I met your criteria. Sure, I carry on and generally try to protect my economic turf since it's mine and mine alone (in truth, lately I have been getting some help from my neighbors with LD bills), but you don't establish your own position. Would you qualify within your own conditions? If so, good! Let's proceed. I'm not sure what this has do do with anything, but I don't see where it is pertinent to the content of the net. >then again, I think there might be some flames -- does Spaf own his own >USENET node? Does Rick Adams? Does Mark Horton? Hmmmm, perhaps this isn't don't know don't know yes I think that you are overlooking a *VERY* important point here. Each of the individuals that you have mentioned by name has made countless hours of contributed labor, gratis. They have created and maintained, for the rest of us, one of the most fascinating (and sometimes, like now, frustrating) information networks on earth. Can you reach Dennis Ritchie on CompuServe? Can you get Brian Reid's recipes from The Source? Does Henry Spencer cull and digest Aviation Week and Space Technology on Delphi? I'm not making any suggestions one way or the other about the above, but I think that Spaf, Rick, Mark, Larry Wall, and many many others too numerous to mention, deserve some respect from the rest of us. They didn't insist that they be canonized before pitching in and getting it done, they just hunkered down and got it done. It's here in living color for us to study, enjoy, and use. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. The trio that you mention spends hours and hours of their own unpaid time keeping the wheels on for the rest of us. >such a good idea after all... (heavens, what if Bob Webber went out and >bought a IBM-PC with UUPC! We'd have yet another landslide for comp. >protocols.tcpip.eniac and 99.9% of the backbone sites would have nothing >to say about it (sick smile)). For shame! Re-read what you said, Bob has every bit as much right to his opinions and postings as you do. Sure, he's controversial and I'm not one of his fans, but when I've used him in a cartoon it was in private, via email, you do it on the net and in an example that doesn't have anything to do with him. Yup, I've attacked him in private, but I think it shabby for you to make a caricature. It should be beneath your dignity. Bob is certainly capable of defending himself, I am criticizing _you_. >Oh well, what about split cases (like myself), who administer a small >network at work, and have a unix-box at home... I guess I get to vote, >but what if I am using NNTP to pull the groups off of the hard disks at >work? Am I then 3/5ths of a vote because I am slave to a real computer? Pooh! Sorry Paul, I'm not buying it. I have disagreed with people on the net before but I don't think I've ever posted a flame. This article certainly qualifies as that and my apologies to the rest of the group. I'm weary of the self appointed experts who needlessly nit pick and take cheap shots at the very people who make this whole thing work, i.e. your thoughtless article and my ineffectual flame. They aren't perfect, I'm not, I don't know you. They don't claim to be perfect, I don't, but when votes start being qualified and being made into fractions, I don't think that you are either. Please don't trivialize something that's important, or if you do, please post to a group that encourages trivia. Your flatulence has nothing more to do with news.admin than does my follow up. If you posted to something else and crossposted to news.admin, then double Pooh! -- Bill Kennedy Internet: bill@ssbn.WLK.COM Usenet: { killer | att-cb | ihnp4!tness7 }!ssbn!bill
pst@comdesign.uucp (Paul Traina) (06/06/88)
>>DANGER: SARCASM or SATIRE USED IN THIS ARTICLE<< For those who do not understand the concept of using humor to expose falacy in thinking or to illustrate a point, please type 'n' now. Thank you, Acme Flame Retardants, Inc. From article <80@carpet.WLK.COM>, by bill@carpet.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy): >>Net "property owners"? Perhaps we should limit sufferage to TRUE net >>property owners... > ... Would > you qualify within your own conditions? If so, good! Let's proceed. Actually, yes, I do qualify, but that was not the point of the original posting. I was trivializing (your own words, not mine) the concept of a minimum voting age and other ridiculous restrictions. I find the concept distasteful, and the practice unenforceable. How could we restrict voting by some means when it is in a sysadmin's power to simply stuff the ballot by making up 5000 votes to send to the coordinator. Should we require each user to send his/her SSN in the mail message? What would our non-US friends do? (by the way, the last two sentences are sarcastic, just in case you still haven't caught on.) >>then again, I think there might be some flames -- does Spaf own his own >>USENET node? Does Rick Adams? Does Mark Horton? Hmmmm, perhaps this isn't What kind of idiot would blast three of the most influential people on the net? Give me more credit than that, Bill. I'm surprised that anyone wouldn't understand, by the tone of the article, that this was tounge-in-cheek, it was not a criticism. My entire point was an effort to show that the people who seem to put the most work into the net would not qualify to vote. This struck me as clearly ridiculous. > I think that you are overlooking a *VERY* important point here. Each of the > individuals that you have mentioned by name has made countless hours of > contributed labor, gratis. They have created and maintained, for the rest > of us, one of the most fascinating (and sometimes, like now, frustrating) > information networks on earth. Exactly! I agree with you 100% -- that's exactly why I used those names. See above. > [talk about how I'm a slime to suggest that it would be scary if > Bob bought a PC with UUPC and started getting news] About the snide remark about Bob, ok, I stand guilty -- I will now publicly admit: I have nothing against Bob, and I have loved and enjoyed the antics of the entire situation. It has often brought a smile to my face on an otherwise gloomy day. I loved the idea of comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac and should have voted for it. I think Bob is a fine human being and he has performed the useful function of making people THINK. I threw in a cheap shot, done in good fun. I made the mistake of assuming that from the tone of my entire article, it would be understood as such. > [more verbage about my posting being a fart and that I should > not trivialize important ideas] Re-read the article, I take back nothing except the poke-in-the-ribs about Bob. All I can say is "Think before you hit the 'f' key." In an effort to avoid further mindless flamage from people who accept everything that comes over the wire without stopping to think that a human being, not a machine, wrote the posting; I will endeavor to place big: >>DANGER: SARCASM or SATIRE USED IN THIS ARTICLE<< messages at the beginning of the article. > Bill Kennedy Internet: bill@ssbn.WLK.COM > Usenet: { killer | att-cb | ihnp4!tness7 }!ssbn!bill -- work: home: comdesign!pst@pyramid.com pst@ai.ai.mit.edu ...!pyramid!comdesign!pst ...!ucbvax!ucsbcsl!nessus!pst pst@sbitp.bitnet
bill@carpet.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (06/06/88)
I posted a lengthy admonition yesterday that I'm following up via email.
Please no discussion, there appears to be a misunderstanding that we will
work out.
--
Bill Kennedy Internet: bill@ssbn.WLK.COM
Usenet: { killer | att-cb | ihnp4!tness7 }!ssbn!bill