brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (04/25/88)
As some people may have noticed, a person named cgs@umd5.umd.edu (Chris Sylvain) recently posted an ARC file entitled "PSPICE demo" to comp.binaries.ibm.pc. The uuencode of this ARC file, in 14 parts, was 770K in size, approximately. As uuencoded material, it would reduce to about 580K when compressed, but not a lot further because it is already compacted. And of course, to hit one of my pet peeves, the posting was made with no identification of what the program does or is for, as if I'm going to put together a 14 part megabyte package and process it just to see a demo of something that I don't even know the purpose of. But the 770K strikes a new and amazing level for what is reportedly a demo version of a commercial package. There are 8000 sites on this net. Let's say there are 400 non-local links. These links range in price from .3 cents/K to 15 cents/k, for telebit-at-night to 1200 baud by day. A good average might be 2.5 cents/kilobyte, which is just better than the 1200 baud by night rate. This means that each K posted to the net costs $10 over all the links. But this idiot posted something that cost $5,800! Now ads on the net are fine. People want to see product announcements, support and info from companies in the industry, that's clear. But a demo copy at this price is ridiculous. My personal feeling is that this person should be required to come up with around $5,000, and contribute it to running the UUCP map project or reducing UUNET fees or something. Even staunch "right-to-post" types might even see the logic for booting this sort of fellow off the net. This passes all the limits, folks. (Yes, this posting cost $17, but that's less than .1 cents/reader, which is actually quite efficient.) And let's get comp.binaries.ibm.pc moderated IMMEDIATELY. It was voted on ages ago. I'm going to change it to moderated tonight and let's Mr. Dehsi start his task. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
ken@nsc.nsc.com ({JOAT}) (04/26/88)
in article <1574@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) says:
Hey, Brad. Lighten up. I liked the posting, the person who posted it
applogized for not saying what it was already, so quiet nagging.
Pcplus was a demo program also, and I hope others will disregard your
bitching and post other demo programs to the net.
--
PATH= Second star to the right, {...Ken Trant...}
and straight on till morning
"Official Sponsor, US Olympic Team" {...Merrill Lynch Realty...}
415-651-3131 *:-) 408-721-8158woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (04/27/88)
I agree with Brad. 770K for a commercial demo is not an appropriate use of net bandwidth. --Greg
madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost) (04/27/88)
In article <1574@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: |As some people may have noticed, a person named cgs@umd5.umd.edu |(Chris Sylvain) recently posted an ARC file entitled "PSPICE demo" |to comp.binaries.ibm.pc. [...] | |And of course, to hit one of my pet peeves, the posting was made |with no identification of what the program does or is for [...] Before you all flame the hell out of him, let me identify the program. SPICE is a program that helps analyze electronic circuits. He should have told you this, but for his defense: If you need to analyze them, you probably already know what SPICE is. If you don't, the program probably won't do you any good anyway. I can see that a lot of people (ok, engineers :-) might really want this program, even if it's a demo. The poster reported that it actually functions, although not with all the bells-and-whistles of the full blown program. Even a small version of SPICE can be very useful, especially if you're an engineering student and don't particularly need the $3000 version. | [discussion of transmission costs deleted] | |But this idiot posted something that cost $5,800! This is a time-old argument with pros and cons. Why not flame at things like talk.bizarre which generate tons of useless material every day? At least the program *does* something. For those that understand what it does, it is valuable. Aside from that, I find that your analysis of the cost of transmission as being somewhat flawed. I'd suspect that many UUCP connections are faster than 1200 baud. But this is just nit-picking. jim frost madd@bu-it.bu.edu
bill@sigma.UUCP (bill) (04/27/88)
in article <1574@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) says: > Hmmm.. I mentioned this program to one of our project leaders, who immediately wanted me to get a copy (now all we need - I hope - is an intact part 10). An hour or so later one of our analog designers came by to say he'd seen mention of it in sci.electronics, and would I please get a copy for him? -- William Swan ..uw-entropy!sigma!bill
davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (04/28/88)
A long long time ago in an article far far away (<812@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> to be exact) dave@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Dave Goldblatt) said:
-
-Sounds good, but I still think there should be an unmoderated "use-at-
-your-own-risk" group.
-
Read, comp.risks and see if you still have the same feelings about a
use-at-your-own-risk group. I realize that most of the people who'd submit
to a sources/binaries group are honest, but I wouldn't bet that there
isn't someone out there who wouldn't forge an article, and post some sort
of virus program. At least with the moderated groups, I know that
someone else is in the same boat with me, and might/will figure out that
something's wrong before I do.
---
-
-Internet: dave@sun.soe.clarkson.edu or: dave@clutx.clarkson.edu
-BITNET: dave@CLUTX.Bitnet uucp: {rpics, gould}!clutx!dave
-Matrix: Dave Goldblatt @ 1:260/360 ICBM: Why do you want to know? :-)
You can't make it foolproof because fools are so damned ingenious.
--
DavidBedno(akaTheCatintheHat,Dr.Seuss,Dr.Dave,Bamf)Nowappearingat:
davidbe@sco.COM-OR-...!{uunet,ihnp4,decvax!microsoft,ucbvax!ucscc}
!sco!davidbe-OR-610PacificAve#5,Santa Cruz,California95060Home:
408-425-5266Work:408-425-7222x697(I'mprobablyhere...)/*NotSCO'sopinions*/phil@amdcad.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) (04/28/88)
In article <157@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes:
.I agree with Brad. 770K for a commercial demo is not an appropriate use
.of net bandwidth.
Foo on you software weenies. A number of people here liked it. Why
don't you bitch about all the games being posted. Now there's a waste
of money. oops, marketing just said some of the games make neat demos
for our products. Well, guess there's an audience for almost
everything, huh?
It doesn't matter if it's a "commercial demo". If enough people want
it then it is justified.
--
Make Japan the 51st state!
I speak for myself, not the company.
Phil Ngai, {ucbvax,decwrl,allegra}!amdcad!phil or phil@amd.comruss@wpg.UUCP (Russell Lawrence) (04/29/88)
From article <21335@amdcad.AMD.COM>, by phil@amdcad.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai): > > It doesn't matter if it's a "commercial demo". If enough people want > it then it is justified. > I was one of the guys who posted an immediate complaint last weekend when I saw the two SIZEABLE demos in the ibm group at the end of last week. I must admit that I sent one of the posters (Chris Sylvain) a private flame, but later apologized to him when Herb Barad at Tulane sent me a note telling me how USEFUL the demo might be to EE persons. I think 'useful' is one of the operative words here; in that context, maybe it was a good thing that Chris posted 'pspice'. HOWEVER, another operative word is 'timing'. I'm on the verge of losing my upstream feed for the comp group (which I pass on to other sites) because of the radical fluctuations in volume from day to day. Some nights, my feed takes 3 hours at 1200 baud and other nights it take 13 hours... so scheduling is a bitch! If news volume were a little more consistent, my problems as a news administrator would be cut in half. While freedom to post freely is a wonderful thing and valuable to all of us, I can't think of a quick way to alleviate radical fluctuations in news volume apart from introducing a moderator. MAYBE, however, posters could be encouraged to limit their daily articles. If PSPICE and the other demo had gone out over a six day period, I don't think anyone would have noticed. Perhaps the authors of the "How to use the News" document could amend their suggestions to include a note about limiting one's daily contributions. Who knows? Maybe a "down the volume" approach might even rub off on talk.bizarre. :-) -- Russell Lawrence, WP Group, POB 306, Metairie, LA 70004 AT&T: +1 504 456 0001 UUCP: {philabs,hpda,nbires,amdahl,...}!uunet!wpg!russ
jpederse@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (John Pedersen) (04/29/88)
In article <157@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: |>I agree with Brad. 770K for a commercial demo is not an appropriate use |>of net bandwidth. And I'm on the other side, appreciate the posting. -- John.Pedersen@Wichita.NCR.COM NCR Engineering & Manufacturing EMC Engineering Wichita KS 316-636-8837
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (04/30/88)
It's quite true that there's nothing wrong with a commercial demo if it is truly useful, but you have to look at the scale here. The posting cost almost $6,000 to transmit. How many sites on the net have circuit designers doing small circuits who might find this demo useful? I have seen a couple of postings indicating such people, and a lot of postings from people who didn't even know what SPICE is. Were there 100 such *sites*? I sincerely doubt it. Even if there were that many, then it cost $60/site to transmit it. There are far more efficient methods, like regular mail -- even overnight couriers -- that are much cheaper and more reliable than this. And I suspect the cost was more like $200 per site that actually took the program and is now using it. Now this applies to any posting. Before posting any binary, one should consider if there are more efficient methods of distributing it. In this case, "I have a PSPICE demo. Send me 3 disks and a SASE" would have been the thing to do. Or even "Send me $30 and I'll copy it." Or drop it off with places like PC-Sig that will do it for $6/disk. Or put it somewhere with anonymous telebit uucp login and/or ftp. The only thing special about a commercial demo is that such programs have other methods of distribution, and the net isn't the right one In fact, I would guess (correct me if I'm wrong) that whoever makes PSPICE will send you the demo for a nominal fee, perhaps with some docs, even. If the demo were to be just an ad, I think it would be appropriate to ask permission of all long distance forwarding sites before posting it. Net people generally do want to see one-time ads and product announcements, news, support and other such commercial information, but 770K stretches this a bit. A lot. So before you post, (although soon the moderator will be in place) think if another form of distribution might be cheaper for the net. Not cheaper for you or easier for you, but better for those of us out here. I'm one of the many sites lucky enough to have a local backbone site for a feed. But they recently requested that all their feeds get telebits to reduce phone time, and I did, to the tune of $1200. So even a free feed pays the cost of excess wastage. I still haven't heard this dweeb apologize. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
tmanos@aocgl.COM (Theodore W. Manos) (04/30/88)
In article <5041@nsc.nsc.com> ken@nsc.nsc.com ({JOAT}) write: > in article <1574@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) says: > Hey, Brad. Lighten up. I liked the posting, the person who posted it > applogized for not saying what it was already, so quiet nagging. > Pcplus was a demo program also, and I hope others will disregard your > bitching and post other demo programs to the net. Hey Ken, lighten up. If you liked the ADVERTISEMENT so much, then *YOU* pay for it! I sure as hell don't want to. And I imagine that most of the other site admins feel the same way about it. I'll be damned if *I* am going to pay to do somebody elses advertising for them! And that is *all* that a demo program is - advertisement. PCPlus-TD included (which I personally thought was garbage anyhow, but that's another matter entirely). And, an apology, while being a *step* in the right direction, will hardly function as adequate total compensation to those companies or people (as in my case) on the net whose money and time have been squandered by such a thoughtless action. (Yes, *I* pay to cost for USENET here, equipment, connection charges, everything, out of *MY* pocket. However, companies have the same right to complain about it too.) So, since you enjoyed that advertisement so much, can we site admins expect a check from you for $5,800.00 to the UUCP Mapping Project soon? I'd like to propose that the USENET go back to it's more original function, which was *NOT* to provide advertisement free of charge to certain companies or persons who are nothing other than leeches. I'd like to see the net allow *only* Public Domain and Freeware software to be distributed over it. If software is to be distributed over the net, free of charge to those who distribute/author it, then it should be both fully functional and completely free of usage charges to anyone who gets it from the net. Anything else is a perversion of the function of USENET. There are more than sufficient numbers of BBS systems available to those who desire to obtain Shareware, Crippleware, or "User supported software" products. If a BBS Sysop (of which I am one) decides to allow such products on their board (which I do), then that is their choice - on an *individual* basis - to "fund" uncompensated advertisement for others. The distribution of items via USENET does *not* allow such individual choices to be made by those who will end up paying for it - they get the free stuff mixed together with the "rippoffware", or they get nothing at all. -Ted Ted Manos tmanos@aocgl.{COM,UUCP,UU.NET} or ...!{uunet,mcdchg}!aocgl!tmanos
mjw@vaxine.UUCP (Mike Wilt) (05/02/88)
In article <416@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM> jpederse@encad.UUCP (John Pedersen) writes: >In article <157@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: >|>I agree with Brad. 770K for a commercial demo is not an appropriate use >|>of net bandwidth. > >And I'm on the other side, appreciate the posting. I appreciate the posting too. I played with it long enough to do a few simple designs. As a commercial, it didn't work on me. I'm not at all interested in the version that costs money. Mike
ken@nsc.nsc.com ({JOAT}) (05/03/88)
in article <20.UUL1.3#935@aocgl.COM>, tmanos@aocgl.COM (Theodore W. Manos) says:
$ in article <5041@nsc.nsc.com> ken@nsc.nsc.com ({JOAT}) write:
$$ in article <1574@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) says:
$$ Hey, Brad. Lighten up. I liked the posting, the person who posted it
$$ applogized for not saying what it was already, so quiet nagging.
$$ Pcplus was a demo program also, and I hope others will disregard your
$$ bitching and post other demo programs to the net.
$
$ Hey Ken, lighten up. If you liked the ADVERTISEMENT so much, then *YOU* pay
$ for it! I sure as hell don't want to. And I imagine that most of the other
$ site admins feel the same way about it. I'll be damned if *I* am going to pay
Then don't, drop binaries from your site.
$ to do somebody elses advertising for them! And that is *all* that a demo
$ program is - advertisement.
That is ALL!, how narrow minded. Because it isn't usefull to you it is
worthless is that right. Get serious (the scary thing is you probably are.)
$ PCPlus-TD included (which I personally thought
$ was garbage anyhow, but that's another matter entirely). And, an apology,
Thanks for the editorial, personally I liked it.
$ while being a *step* in the right direction, will hardly function as adequate
$ total compensation to those companies or people (as in my case) on the net
$ whose money and time have been squandered by such a thoughtless action. (Yes,
The apology was for the people who didn't know what it was, not for posting
this usefull demo.
$ *I* pay to cost for USENET here, equipment, connection charges, everything,
$ out of *MY* pocket. However, companies have the same right to complain about
$ it too.)
$
$ So, since you enjoyed that advertisement so much, can we site admins expect a
$ check from you for $5,800.00 to the UUCP Mapping Project soon?
No, but a simple thank you is certainly called for.
Thank you site admins, where ever you are.
$ Ted Manos tmanos@aocgl.{COM,UUCP,UU.NET} or ...!{uunet,mcdchg}!aocgl!tmanos
Ken Trant
nsc!ken
--
PATH= Second star to the right, {...Ken Trant...}
and straight on till morning
"Official Sponsor, US Olympic Team" {...Merrill Lynch Realty...}
415-651-3131 *:-) 408-721-8158jsb@actnyc.UUCP (The Invisible Man) (05/03/88)
In article <392@pan.UUCP> jw@pan.UUCP (Jamie Watson) writes:
[ much flaming deleted ]
)I like your mentioning of talk.bizarre, though - perhaps we should get the
)entire comp.binaries.* hierarchy aliased to talk.bizarre, which is not (thank
)God) carried in Europe, so we wouldn't have to pay for future lunacy like this.
(This is too easy...) Where do you get off flaming a news group that you don't
even receive? Is it the title that you find offensive? Is it those unruly
Americans you don't like?
The crux of your argument (if it may be termed an argument, the Abuse department
is down the hall to your right) seems to be that only those froups that you
personally find useful should be allowed to exist. Perhaps there should only
be 1 froup titled net.Jamie (moderated by yourself? or perhaps by God, whom you
feel certain agrees with you; or perhaps you feel you *are* God?)
--
"When you awake, you will remember everything"
jim (uunet!actnyc!jsb)mike@ivory.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Michael Lodman) (05/04/88)
In article <21335@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >In article <157@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: >>I agree with Brad. 770K for a commercial demo is not an appropriate use >>of net bandwidth. >It doesn't matter if it's a "commercial demo". If enough people want >it then it is justified. I agree completely! I wonder how many of the software nerds would have complained if the distribution was of a demo unix kernel or some such instead of something they didn't understand. -- Michael Lodman (619) 485-3335 Advanced Development NCR Corporation E&M San Diego mike.lodman@ivory.SanDiego.NCR.COM {sdcsvax,cbatt,dcdwest,nosc.ARPA,ihnp4}!ncr-sd!ivory!mike When you die, if you've been very, very good, you'll go to ... Montana.
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (05/04/88)
According to my calculations, there has been 771K of comments
regarding this subject.
Oh, do I have to ?
Ok.
:-)
--
"Words of wisdom Lloyd, words of wisdom"
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM rutgers!marque!gryphon!richardjc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers) (05/07/88)
In article <859@actnyc.UUCP>, jsb@actnyc.UUCP (The Invisible Man) writes: > In article <392@pan.UUCP> jw@pan.UUCP (Jamie Watson) writes: > [ much flaming deleted ] > )I like your mentioning of talk.bizarre, though - perhaps we should get the > )entire comp.binaries.* hierarchy aliased to talk.bizarre, which is not (thank > )God) carried in Europe, so we wouldn't have to pay for future lunacy like this. What are you folks talking about? The articles in talk.bizarre are almost all mercifully short. It's one of the cheapest newsgroups around. It's those folks that want to be taken seriously that waste our precious Mbytes. > The crux of your argument (if it may be termed an argument, the Abuse department > is down the hall to your right) seems to be that only those froups that you > personally find useful should be allowed to exist. Perhaps there should only > be 1 froup titled net.Jamie (moderated by yourself? or perhaps by God, whom you > feel certain agrees with you; or perhaps you feel you *are* God?) Hey, I just typed in: su inews -C to.jc and posted a couple of articles. It worked fine. Most sensible articles I've read in a long time. And, no, I WON'T put it in the sys file so it can get forwarded to you! But I may let you have the rmgroup message, if you ask nice. [;-] -- John Chambers <{adelie,ima,maynard,mit-eddie}!minya!{jc,root}> (617/484-6393) You can't make a turtle come out. -- Malvina Reynolds
jay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard) (05/07/88)
In article <392@pan.UUCP> jw@pan.UUCP (Jamie Watson) writes: >[...] How >can anyone even DREAM of posting a megabyte of BINARY, for a DEMO which is of >interest to perhaps 1% of the net? And of that 1%, how many are actually >going to be foolish enough to run a binary-only program of unknown origin >on their computers? I'm watching for the posting that says "Whoops, I guess >I made a mistake. That wasn't PSPICE that I posted, it was a program that >will wipe your entire hard disk". Careful...you're letting your Unix bigotry show again. In the real (read: non-Unix) world, binary-only distributions are common. This is so that authors can be more assured that their work isn't swiped and used for someone else's profit. The vast majority of binary-only programs are not trojans or viruses, but useful programs that do (more or less) what they're supposed to. Literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of BBS users download binaries and run them without a single problem - and about half of the contents of my DOS partition were gotten that way. Unix software is distributed as souce not because it's such a wonderful idea, but because it must be: my 80286 won't run a VAX binary. PCs don't have that problem. People who argue for source-only distributions don't believe in letting an author do as he likes with HIS work. >I like your mentioning of talk.bizarre, though - perhaps we should get the >entire comp.binaries.* hierarchy aliased to talk.bizarre, which is not (thank >God) carried in Europe, so we wouldn't have to pay for future lunacy >like this. Please don't do that...we're doing something serious in there. (See .signature below.) -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC...>splut!< | GEnie: JAYMAYNARD CI$: 71036,1603 uucp: {uunet!nuchat,hoptoad!academ!uhnix1,{ihnp4,bellcore}!tness1}!splut!jay Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity. Let's rename it talk.bizarre.Kent.Paul.Dolan.for.President.in.88!
dougie@its63b.ed.ac.uk (Dougie Nisbet) (05/13/88)
In article <859@actnyc.UUCP> jsb@actnyc.UUCP (The Invisible Man) writes: >In article <392@pan.UUCP> jw@pan.UUCP (Jamie Watson) writes: > [ much flaming deleted ] >)I like your mentioning of talk.bizarre, though - perhaps we should get the >)entire comp.binaries.* hierarchy aliased to talk.bizarre, which is not (thank >)God) carried in Europe, so we wouldn't have to pay for future lunacy like this. > >(This is too easy...) Where do you get off flaming a news group that you don't >even receive? Is it the title that you find offensive? Is it those unruly >Americans you don't like? > It isn't always necessary to experience something to have an opinion about it. (Drugs, alcohol, prostitution, politics, arms, incest, rape) Jamie's reaction is perhaps excessive, but understandable. The incredibly overwhelming impression I receive of American's not realising that their posting permiate all over the world is probably felt by many others. (No, I don't want to buy your concert tickets, or rent your apartment, its just a teeny bit out of the way ...) I followed the recent arguments about talk.bizzare V comp.binaries.ibm.pc in news.admin, and feel that any group which feels its claim to fame is to get top of the traffic ratings is probably not wanted here. >The crux of your argument (if it may be termed an argument, the Abuse department >is down the hall to your right) seems to be that only those froups that you >personally find useful should be allowed to exist. Perhaps there should only >be 1 froup titled net.Jamie (moderated by yourself? or perhaps by God, whom you >feel certain agrees with you; or perhaps you feel you *are* God?) > Well, this is big of you isn't it? Perhaps you feel that that this is a constructive response? Perhaps you feel that Abuse deserves Abuse? Gosh, how can I bear your biting sarcasm. > >-- > "When you awake, you will remember everything" > jim (uunet!actnyc!jsb) Yes, very good, very moving, very deep. Right now I need aphorisms like I need holes in my heads HHGTTG
jsb@actnyc.UUCP (The Invisible Man) (05/15/88)
In article <1317@its63b.ed.ac.uk> dougie@its63b.ed.ac.uk (Dougie Nisbet) writes: )In article <859@actnyc.UUCP> jsb@actnyc.UUCP (The Invisible Man) writes: )>In article <392@pan.UUCP> jw@pan.UUCP (Jamie Watson) writes: )> [ much flaming deleted ] )>)I like your mentioning of talk.bizarre, though - perhaps we should get the )>)entire comp.binaries.* hierarchy aliased to talk.bizarre, which is not (thank )>)God) carried in Europe, so we wouldn't have to pay for future lunacy like this. )> )>(This is too easy...) Where do you get off flaming a news group that you don't )>even receive? Is it the title that you find offensive? Is it those unruly )>Americans you don't like? )> ) )It isn't always necessary to experience something to have an opinion about it. )(Drugs, alcohol, prostitution, politics, arms, incest, rape) ) )Jamie's reaction is perhaps excessive, but understandable. The incredibly Perhaps my reacion was excesive too. Is it understandable? )overwhelming impression I receive of American's not realising that their )posting permiate all over the world is probably felt by many others. )(No, I don't want to buy your concert tickets, or rent your apartment, ) its just a teeny bit out of the way ...) Yes I'm aware of this stereotype of Americans. They think everyone speaks English too. ) )I followed the recent arguments about talk.bizzare V comp.binaries.ibm.pc )in news.admin, and feel that any group which feels its claim to fame is )to get top of the traffic ratings is probably not wanted here. ) Groups don't have such aims. Individuals do. I'm an American and I've also been known to post to talk.bizarre but I don't fit these sterotypes. Fortunately, I'm not the type of person who would draw the conclusion from your and Jamie's postings that all Britishers see the world in stereotypes but my tentative conclusion is that the 2 of you do. )>The crux of your argument (if it may be termed an argument, the Abuse department )>is down the hall to your right) seems to be that only those froups that you )>personally find useful should be allowed to exist. Perhaps there should only )>be 1 froup titled net.Jamie (moderated by yourself? or perhaps by God, whom you )>feel certain agrees with you; or perhaps you feel you *are* God?) )> ) )Well, this is big of you isn't it? Perhaps you feel that that this is )a constructive response? Perhaps you feel that Abuse deserves Abuse? )Gosh, how can I bear your biting sarcasm. ) )> )>-- )> "When you awake, you will remember everything" )> jim (uunet!actnyc!jsb) ) )Yes, very good, very moving, very deep. Right now I need aphorisms )like I need holes in my heads HHGTTG Perhaps you feel that this is a constructive response? ...etc. Gosh, how can I bear your biting sarcasm. -- "Notitiae gratia notitiarum" jim (uunet!actnyc!jsb)
rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (05/23/88)
You know, I don't like binaries very much. If someone were to mail me a virus, it'd be ridiculously easy for me to post it somewhere from some fairly major machine where I have an account. Or maybe I'll sign up with a public access system using phony names and a PO box. I'm fairly sure that I could make it nearly impossible for anyone to track it back to me. Have I made you paranoid? Good. Have you got a virus? I'd like to see it. /rich $alz -- Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net.