lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) (11/26/88)
but I'm anti Soviet! Also, it is the GRU, the Soviet Military Intelligence, not the KGB, that primarily spies on the West. The KGB primarily spies on citizens of the Soviet Empire. So who exactly is going to be reading USENET in the Soviet Union. Joe Dissident? Or a member in good standing of the Communist Party? Who do you think is allowed to have a ham radio in the Soviet Union? Only someone who is ideologically correct, that's who. Still, the exchange from a USENET feed to the SU would be an interesting experiment. I'm sure they would like to participate in discussions with immigrants (i.e. escapees) from the SU in talk.politics.soviet. Why make it easier for Soviets to have access to technical information or assistance? How will a USENET connection enhance freedom in the SU? I'm not being facecious, these questions deserve some attention. -- Larry Cipriani, AT&T Network Systems, Columbus OH, Path: att!cbnews!lvc Domain: lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM
bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) (11/26/88)
In article <2326@cbnews.ATT.COM> lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes:
: but I'm anti Soviet!
That makes at least two of us!
: So who exactly is going to be reading USENET in the Soviet Union. Joe
: Dissident? Or a member in good standing of the Communist Party? Who
: do you think is allowed to have a ham radio in the Soviet Union? Only
: someone who is ideologically correct, that's who.
A minor problem with this: member of the party doesn't necessarily
mean ideologically correct. It only means someone who hasn't been
caught out at being not ideologically correct.
And ideologically correct doesn't mean hopelessly corrupt, either.
Not, mind you, that I am defending party liners, just noting that
even they may be capable of independent thought.
: Still, the exchange from a USENET feed to the SU would be an interesting
: experiment. I'm sure they would like to participate in discussions with
: immigrants (i.e. escapees) from the SU in talk.politics.soviet.
:
: Why make it easier for Soviets to have access to technical information
: or assistance? How will a USENET connection enhance freedom in the SU?
: I'm not being facecious, these questions deserve some attention.
Well, here's my reasoning. Consider that if the USSR wants to connect
to USENET, it is a small matter for them to set up an agent and a
machine. So, if USENET is of any importance to them, they have
already set up such a machine.
In any case, the savings they would obtain through this is certainly
small. It is the difference between setting up an agent and a machine
outside the USSR and inside the USSR. Certainly not a lot of money.
This is balanced against the fact that *any* information sent into
the USSR is destabilizing. One of the things holding the empire
together is its tight control of information.
Consider the effect on some Soviet scientist of say, my casual
discussion of the '386 machine *that I own and have complete freedom
to use*. I can sense the drools already. :-)
Consider the comparison that any intelligent mind will make between
the censorship that is routine in the USSR vs. the anarchic nature of
the USENET.
Consider having repeatedly rubbed in one's face the fact that one's
country, through its own folly, is somewhere between five and ten
years behind, technologically.
Consider the possible countering of Soviet propaganda.
---
All of this depends on the USSR's not censoring the USENET feed.
Might I suggest that the feed ought to be made contingent on the lack
of censorship?
---
Bill
{uunet|novavax}!proxftl!twwells!billtneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) (11/27/88)
In article <2326@cbnews.ATT.COM> lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: >So who exactly is going to be reading USENET in the Soviet Union. Joe >Dissident? Or a member in good standing of the Communist Party? Who >do you think is allowed to have a ham radio in the Soviet Union? Only >someone who is ideologically correct, that's who. Who do you think reads USENET in the US - Dennis Banks of AIM and the political prisoners of the Lexington Women's Unit? No, it's computing community types by and large. Sorry, that's just the nature of the net. Bridging it to the USSR would not be for the purpose of bringing rec.sport.auto to the Gulag, it would be for exchanging insights on computing with folks just like us (modulo differing cultural parameters) over there. >Still, the exchange from a USENET feed to the SU would be an interesting >experiment. I'm sure they would like to participate in discussions with >immigrants (i.e. escapees) from the SU in talk.politics.soviet. Hah! As fragile as this link is likely to be, if you think some CS prof in Kiev is going to jeopardize his access by getting into political arguments with decadent Westerners you have another think coming. In fact, just to keep temptation at a minimum, I would hope that Ambassador Crunch would not gateway t.p.s or similar powderkeg groups. >Why make it easier for Soviets to have access to technical information >or assistance? The answer lies in which Soviets we're talking about. Look -- someone in the computing arm of the GRU who wants to know about the latest expert system from Stanford, or how to debug an 8250 UART, probably has all the technical resources he needs to find out. He doesn't need Usenet, and though I'm sure digests are available to Soviet intelligence (courtesy our European gateways if nothing else -- flip those mattresses back over, folks!), it doesn't strike me as likely they pay all that much attention except for amusement. (Secure areas of Arpanet are another matter, and I offer no opinion in that regard.) But now consider another kind of Soviet - a senior at a technical school in Leningrad, say, who has been hacking away at his own PC or his school's for several years, has some astonishing neat little programs he's passed around locally, and is dying to know about what the rest of the world is up to. When he has a question, he doesn't have the nice GRU Library to browse through. He only knows what he can figure out himself, plus whatever six month old popular press magazines have been brought into the country and handed around. To him, Usenet would be an unbelievable godsend. And to us, having him on the net would be an unparallelled source of edification and amusement. This is the Soviet we want to give access to technical information, not his well-endowed counterparts in the government who don't need it anyway. > How will a USENET connection enhance freedom in the SU? >I'm not being facecious, these questions deserve some attention. --->t That it enhance freedom per se in the USSR ought not to be a requirement for the bridge to be established; there are benefits to both sides even if freedom is left at present levels as a result. Nevertheless, if one particularly wishes to enhance Soviet freedom, I believe this will contribute in a small way. Information itself is freedom, and empowerment. We need only establish that access is indeed being extended to that tech school senior in my example above, and the boost to Soviet freedom will be assured. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding)
lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) (11/28/88)
Before I give anyone else the impression that I'm a knee jerk Anti-Soviet I'm not. I can see the value in corrupting the Soviet system with a USENET feed, and yes it would be interesting to have the technical exchange with our counterparts in the Soviet Union. However, I remain unconviced that help to someone I don't know in the Soviet Union is in my long term self interest or national interest. I really do like helping people with technical problems. But how can I be certain that the help I give will not be used against me someday? In general one can't, and when it involves a nation that has missiles pointed at me I'll not get involved thank you. I'd like to make friends of people in the Soviet Union, but how do I know who I can trust? The university student I help just may end up in the GRU or KGB someday. No thanks. I once heard that the best Iron Curtain hackers were dissidents. Now I really would like to help them out! This may be enough of a reason for me to get involved in an exchange. In article <7961@dasys1.UUCP>, tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: > Who do you think reads USENET in the US - Dennis Banks of AIM and the > political prisoners of the Lexington Women's Unit? Of course not silly; being a bit rude aren't you? > No, it's computing community types by and large. Sorry, that's just the > nature of the net. I know, and don't lecture someone that's been reading USENET since its beginning how its used. I wrote: >>Why make it easier for Soviets to have access to technical information >>or assistance? > > The answer lies in which Soviets we're talking about... I'm unconviced that I can make a distinction about who to help and who not to help. And me again: >> How will a USENET connection enhance freedom in the SU? >>I'm not being facecious, these questions deserve some attention. > That it enhance freedom per se in the USSR ought not to be a > requirement for the bridge to be established; there are benefits to > both sides even if freedom is left at present levels as a result. The benefits to both sides in such relations with the Soviet Union are usually that they benefit more than we do. A USENET feed doesn't seem to be any different. > Nevertheless, if one particularly wishes to enhance Soviet freedom, I > believe this will contribute in a small way. Information itself is > freedom, and empowerment. I agree, however, how much that increase in freedom will be offset by a more efficient coercive Soviet system is unknown. I tend to believe it will be more than offset by it, a lot of people tend to believe the opposite, or don't have an opinion. You just can't be certain. > We need only establish that access is indeed being extended to that tech > school senior in my example above, and the boost to Soviet freedom will > be assured. Maybe so, but I need more evidence before I change my mind. -- Larry Cipriani, AT&T Network Systems, Columbus OH, Path: att!cbnews!lvc Domain: lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (11/28/88)
From article <2338@cbnews.ATT.COM>, by lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani): " ... However, I remain unconviced that " help to someone I don't know in the Soviet Union is in my long term self " interest or national interest. So don't be convinced. Is anyone who has a different opinion really a traitor? Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) (11/28/88)
In article <2338@cbnews.ATT.COM> lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: >I really do like helping people with technical problems. But how can >I be certain that the help I give will not be used against me someday? >In general one can't, and when it involves a nation that has missiles >pointed at me I'll not get involved thank you. When I was in the UK, I several times saw in the press the comment that the USA has missiles pointed at the UK. There are reasons why this is credible, though I reserve judgement. Did this stop people in the UK who believed it posting helpfully to Usenet? Nope. By this criterion, we should refuse all assistance to anyone working for our own governments (people raving about guns in misc.legal evidently believe it likely that the USA government will become oppressive and need to be resisted by force). >I'd like to make friends of people in the Soviet Union, but how do I know >who I can trust? The university student I help just may end up in the GRU >or KGB someday. No thanks. I'm reminded of a USAn author on programming methods who described having been at a conference where someone came up to him and gushed about how enormously helpful the author's books had been to him in his work. The author lapped this up for a while, and then said "by the way, what do you do?" "Oh, I work on ICBMs." The author told his readers that he had never been more depressed. The university student you help *here* may do just such work some day. Should we drop Usenet *here* for that reason? If you don't think that working on nuclear weapons is so bad, how about the people providing computer support for the South African police? Who to trust? The point has been well made that for low-grade technical information such as Usenet provides, the KGB, GRU, and the rest *already* have access if they want it. Consider comp.arch, for example. There is nothing discussed there which is not publicly available, in manuals, letters patent, &c. If you consider comp.unix.{questions,wizards}, there's nothing there that couldn't be answered by reading the sources, and I am absolutely certain that the Soviets have V7 sources, and would wager a large sum that they either have the V.3 sources or don't want them. And so it goes. What about the possibility of information flowing the other way? I think it would be useful to have some of the sci.* groups coming from the SU. And would the CIA obtain no benefit from knowing the names of individuals who are that interested in the West?
lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) (11/28/88)
In article <2719@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes: > From article <2338@cbnews.ATT.COM>, by lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani): > " ... However, I remain unconviced that > " help to someone I don't know in the Soviet Union is in my long term self > " interest or national interest. > > So don't be convinced. Is anyone who has a different opinion really a > traitor? > Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu No. I think someone that actually *helps or trades* the Soviet Union is a traitor to anyone that has tried to escape it, and to anyone that has fought for the free world, and against me personally. -- Larry Cipriani, AT&T Network Systems, Columbus OH, Path: att!cbnews!lvc Domain: lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM
sbelcas@hvrunix.UUCP (Sarah Belcastro) (11/28/88)
In article <2338@cbnews.ATT.COM>, lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: > I really do like helping people with technical problems. But how can > I be certain that the help I give will not be used against me someday? > > The benefits to both sides in such relations with the Soviet Union are > usually that they benefit more than we do. A USENET feed doesn't seem > to be any different. My quarrel with you is this: Does it matter that they receive more benefit from the link than we? We are all human and we should help each other out. You seem to be really fearful of people whom i doubt would be in a position to use anything against you, unless you plan on travelling to the Soviet Union. And, in my opinion, it shouldn't really matter whether there is a possibility of "THEM" using the fact that you helped someone against you. If people always refused to help others at the threat of personal harm, where would we be today? I firmly believe that humans are meant to help each other and make each other's lives better, thereby making the world a happier place. It's not as if it would be particularly inconvenient to answer a question on a network to which one ordinarily posts. --sarah marie belcastro. Bitnet: s_belcastro@hvrford (our mail seems to be bouncing at Drexel.)
merlyn@intelob.biin.com (Randal L. Schwartz @ Stonehenge) (11/29/88)
In article <2338@cbnews.ATT.COM>, lvc@cbnews (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: | However, I remain unconviced that | help to someone I don't know in the Soviet Union is in my long term self | interest or national interest. | | I really do like helping people with technical problems. But how can | I be certain that the help I give will not be used against me someday? Replace the "someone I don't know in the Soviet Union" with "someone I don't know at {DEC,HP,Intel,Tandem,IBM...}". Same argument applies. Don't tell me that economic freedom is any different than political freedom... there are millions of people right here in the good-old U.S. of A. that are prisoners of economic circumstances, and living a life comparable or worse than the average Soviet citizen. (Heck, even as a successful small business owner, I'm beginning to wonder about the American system...) Maybe I'm an optimist, but someone once told me that you can't hate anyone you truely know. I've found lots of evidence for that. People that state otherwise must not have tested the waters. And, how come this is in comp.misc, and not talk.political.whatever? Oh well. Actually, I vote for *not* sending them USENET. The resulting death of productivity (from time spent reading USENET) at such a crucial stage in Soviet technological development would be sufficient motiviation to launch a first strike. :-) :-) :-) -- Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 on contract to BiiN Technical Information Services (for now :-), in a former Intel building in Hillsboro, Oregon, USA. <merlyn@intelob.biin.com> or ...!tektronix!inteloa[!intelob]!merlyn SOME MAILERS REQUIRE <merlyn@intelob.intel.com> GRRRRR! Standard disclaimer: I *am* my employer!
bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) (11/29/88)
In article <2338@cbnews.ATT.COM> lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes:
: Before I give anyone else the impression that I'm a knee jerk Anti-Soviet
: I'm not. I can see the value in corrupting the Soviet system with a USENET
: feed, and yes it would be interesting to have the technical exchange with
: our counterparts in the Soviet Union. However, I remain unconviced that
: help to someone I don't know in the Soviet Union is in my long term self
: interest or national interest.
Here is what I've said about a Soviet newsfeed:
1) The Soviets can already get any information they want from the
USENET. It is very easy for *anyone* to get on the net.
2) Therefore, the only thing that a feed directly to them can effect
is the cost of the information. It can't affect *what* information
they get from the net.
3) It is an arguable proposition that lesser expense of a non-
clandestine feed to the Soviet empire is outweighed by its
possible destabilizing effects.
I happen to believe that the destabilizing effect is the more
important. However, that's just an opinion; we don't have the facts.
: I really do like helping people with technical problems. But how can
: I be certain that the help I give will not be used against me someday?
However, there is one benefit that a known Soviet feed gives you: you
can refrain from answering Soviet questions. There are two
possibilities: if they maintain their clandestine feeds, they now
have an additional cost, the cost of the known feed. This eliminates
the cost argument against the feed. If they don't maintain their
clandestine feed, then you *know* when you might be contributing to
the Soviet empire's welfare.
There is another benefit to us and our intelligence agencies: the
nature of the questions coming over the feed is information about the
state of the Soviet empire.
---
Bill
{uunet|novavax}!proxftl!twwells!billlvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) (11/29/88)
My last posting on this worn out topic (unless somebody gets rude and I have to be rude too). So what will be accomplished with a USENET connection to Moscow University? I agree that it will mainly transfer some low grade technical information into the USSR. I agree that it won't make any difference to the KGB or GRU. What I want is to make life as difficult as possible for anyone living there so they want to leave or demand real reforms. I'm opposed to anything that makes the USSR a better place to live. If you don't share this opinion fine, just be sure to tell it to at least one escapee from the USSR. Any information that flows out of the USSR is no doubt carefully screened and low grade. A lot of the technical journals from the USSR contain a lot of junk. You really have to sift thought a lot to find something good, sort of like USENET. My earlier statement about the roles of the KGB and GRU is not accurate. The KGB, I'm sure, has a very big role in the US. However, it is fundamentally different than that of the GRU. US missiles pointed at the UK? Nah, they're pointed at France :-( The people that I'm most concerned with in western gov't aren't the technical types; it's the policy making, power hungry bureaucrats that scare me. However I'm more nervous about helping someone, no matter who they are, from the USSR than just about anywhere else in the world. I can't worry about *everything* that I do and how it may harm me someday. I've got better things to do. Like I said before, once the USSR permits free immigration to all their citizens I'll believe they are civilized. -- Larry Cipriani, AT&T Network Systems, Columbus OH, Path: att!cbnews!lvc Domain: lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM
baron@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Baron Fujimoto) (11/29/88)
In article <2719@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes: >From article <2338@cbnews.ATT.COM>, by lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani): ^" ... However, I remain unconviced that ^" help to someone I don't know in the Soviet Union is in my long term self ^" interest or national interest. ^ ^So don't be convinced. Is anyone who has a different opinion really a ^traitor? ^ Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu Hear! Hear! (killing two birds with one stone... :-) Baron, baron@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu -- INTERNET: baron@uuccux.uucc.hawaii.edu | BITNET: baron@uhccux.bitnet | "Make beans into peas!" ICBM: 21 19 N 157 52 W |
schraudo@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Nici Schraudolph) (11/29/88)
Here are my 2c as a European who has been following this discussion: The upshot of all this seems to be that everyone agrees that the proposed usenet hook-up to the S.U. would help Soviet users - the disagreement is mostly about whether you want to help them at all! Get real guys! No one is going to obtain any sensitive information through the public net - and if you don't want to help a perfectly ordinary Soviet citizen with everyday problems go see the shrink about your paranoia! You don't even realise that you are just as much a victim of OUR propaganda machine as they are of theirs - in fact the Russians are in my experience the better educated and politically open-minded people! You heard right, yes, our propaganda machine: we do have it, it is only better concealed in the private media. Basic computing theory should even tell you that ours (decentralised control, highly parallel) is likely to be much more powerful than theirs (central control, highly sequential). The proof is right here in the enormous volume of preconceived, biased, even naive views of life in the Soviet Union that that have been voiced in this discussion. I admit I am not immune to infiltration by the media - there is an antidote, however, that I like to use: frequent exposure to other cultures - travel! The more places I've been to, the more I realise that people are people, politicians are mostly corrupt, and military should be dumped in outer space wherever you find them, including both in the U.S. and the S.U.! All you have to do is travel to Europe, and the distinction between OUR rockets and THEIR rockets is meaningless: my West German hometown, for example, would in case of nuclear warfare be destroyed by a FRENCH warhead - does that mean that I should consider France an enemy? I have friends in places aimed at by French, British, American, Russian, Chinese missiles. Have you ever thought about how YOU (sorry about the generalisation) could benefit from this link? Like, getting some better idea about how life in the S.U. really is (as opposed to the picture Hollywood has installed in your brains)? Omigosh, you might even learn something from their scientists! Did you know that the Russians are world leading in mathematics, laser eye surgery, therapy for autistic children, to name but a few? I bet you were surprised that they got ATs over there (all smuggled in from the U.S. by KGB [sic] spies, of course :-) Sorry about the length and semi-flame nature of this, but I have silently endured the glorious ignorance the majority of Americans exhibit when it comes to international affairs for half a year now: ever since I moved here. I just had to get this off my chest now. -- "Language is a Virus from Outer Space" - William S. Burroughs ##################################################################### # Nici Schraudolph nschraudolph@ucsd.edu # # University of California, San Diego ...!ucsd!nschraudolph # ##################################################################### Disclaimer: U.C. Regents and me share no common opinions whatsoever.
bader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) (11/29/88)
lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: > So what will be accomplished with a USENET connection to Moscow University? > I agree that it will mainly transfer some low grade technical information > into the USSR. I agree that it won't make any difference to the KGB or > GRU. What I want is to make life as difficult as possible for anyone living > there so they want to leave or demand real reforms. I'm opposed to anything > that makes the USSR a better place to live. If you don't share this opinion > fine, just be sure to tell it to at least one escapee from the USSR. God forbid that a political system you don't agree with should make it's citizens happy! Aren't you being a bit arrogant, deciding what other people should want? Maybe (just maybe) they have different priorities than you... -Miles
mml@srhqla.UUCP (Michael Levin) (11/30/88)
In article <208@twwells.uucp> bill@twwells.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes: > >This is balanced against the fact that *any* information sent into >the USSR is destabilizing. One of the things holding the empire >together is its tight control of information. > That's their problem, not ours. >Consider the effect on some Soviet scientist of say, my casual >discussion of the '386 machine *that I own and have complete freedom >to use*. I can sense the drools already. :-) > That's how I used to feel when I was 13, and my (older) friends talked about their cars. Again, that's their problem, not ours. >Consider the comparison that any intelligent mind will make between >the censorship that is routine in the USSR vs. the anarchic nature of >the USENET. > That's their problem, not ours. >Consider having repeatedly rubbed in one's face the fact that one's >country, through its own folly, is somewhere between five and ten >years behind, technologically. > >Consider the possible countering of Soviet propaganda. > Yeah. >All of this depends on the USSR's not censoring the USENET feed. >Might I suggest that the feed ought to be made contingent on the lack >of censorship? > Isn't that a form of censorship? I'll show you mine, but only if... That isn't the right spirit. Our decision as to whether or not to allow our 'comrades' in the USSR to participate should be purely motivated on our own selfish (or altruistic, if you prefer) reasons. Why do you want to even occupy your mind thinking about all the things that their government is doing wrong, right, or whatever?? The Soviets are people, as are the French, the Americans, the Italians, or whatever. I don't see the issue!! If some- one over there can set up a UUCP connection, or whatever, then let them. If a site that connects to the rest of the net is willing to give someone a feed, so be it. Just like that. The way *WE* (anarchistically) like to do things. After all, anything on USENET isn't exactly a *secret*. Somebody once said, if three people know something it isn't a secret anymore. I happen to agree. If 100,000 people have access to something, you may as well put it on the 6:00 news, or the front page of the paper. Or on the Soviet hookup to USENET. Enough said, Mike Levin -- +----+ P L E A S E R E S P O N D T O: +------+-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* | Mike Levin, Silent Radio HeadQuarters, Los Angeles (srhqla) | No room for a * | Path:{aeras|csun|pacbell|pyramid|telebit}!srhqla!levin |'snappy remark'* +-------------------------------------------------------------+-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
aem@ibiza.Miami.Edu (a.e.mossberg) (11/30/88)
In <2365@cbnews.ATT.COM>, <lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM> wrote: >So what will be accomplished with a USENET connection to Moscow University? >I agree that it will mainly transfer some low grade technical information >into the USSR. I agree that it won't make any difference to the KGB or >GRU. What I want is to make life as difficult as possible for anyone living >there so they want to leave or demand real reforms. I'm opposed to anything >that makes the USSR a better place to live. If you don't share this opinion >fine, just be sure to tell it to at least one escapee from the USSR. We have several professors here from the Soviet Union with whom I've discussed both recent Soviet reforms and elctronic information exchange. These are not visiting, they are naturalized citizens of the US. *All* of them applaud the changes under Misha and feel that better communication between the peoples of the super-powers can only benefit everybody. >Like I said before, once the USSR permits free immigration to all their >citizens I'll believe they are civilized. You mean "emigration". I agree that there should be free emigration allowed. The Soviet Union is not alone in restricting emigration. Israel is also guilty of this. aem a.e.mossberg - aem@mthvax.miami.edu - aem@mthvax.span (3.91) Labor creates all wealth.
dtynan@sultra.UUCP (Der Tynan) (11/30/88)
In article <2354@cbnews.ATT.COM>, lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: > > No. I think someone that actually *helps or trades* the Soviet Union is a > traitor to anyone that has tried to escape it, and to anyone that has fought > for the free world, and against me personally. > > Larry Cipriani, AT&T Network Systems, Columbus OH, Ronald Reagan *refuses* to impose strict sanctions against the South African Government. What does that make him? As for your point about helping people with bombs pointed toward you. Well, I'm from Ireland, and you can bet the farm that Shannon Airport (the most westerly airfield in Europe) is an American target. I'm currently under contract to a defense company. Does that make a difference? I think not. Overall, I think your stance reeks of McCarthyism. The only way to improve relations with 'your adversaries', is by better communication, and under- standing. Unless, of course, you'd like to keep your notions of the SU as the great oppressor. Good versus Evil, etc. The ony way to make this planet a better place, is by trying to remove the hatred and fear between different groups. That can only be done by realizing that the opposite group is made up of people like ourselves, and by seeing things from the other persons point of view. As a further point of discussion, I think we should amend the discussion as to whether or not to swap news with the USSR, but whether or not to swap "ussr.all" with the USSR. That way, people posting to those groups know where it is going, and people worried about 'sensitive data' can keep it away from ussr.sources. Comments? - Der -- dtynan@zorba.Tynan.COM (Dermot Tynan @ Tynan Computers) {apple,mips,pyramid,uunet}!Tynan.COM!dtynan --- If the Law is for the People, then why do we need Lawyers? ---
mikew@tarfoo.wyse.com (Mike Wexler) (11/30/88)
If the GRU can make a long distance phone call, they can already get access to USENET without having anyone in the United States devoted to reading or copying it. All they have to do is set up an account on Portal or UUNET and dial it from Moscow. They can setup a billing address in the US without much difficulty. Mike Wexler(wyse!mikew or mikew@wyse.com) Phone: (408)433-1000 x1330 Moderator of comp.sources.x
marcel@mlogic.UUCP (Marcel Samek) (11/30/88)
In article <5569@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> nschraudolph@ucsd.edu (Nici Schraudolph) writes: >Here are my 2c as a European who has been following this discussion: More specifically you are a Western European. I am an American who originally comes from Eastern Europe, and with all due respect I think that your posting illustrates that simply being from Europe, as you are, does not spare you from exhibiting the same 'glorious ignorance' which you accuse Americans of having a monopoly on. > [miscellaneous ramblings on 'propaganda machines' deleted] >The proof is right here in the enormous volume of preconceived, biased, >even naive views of life in the Soviet Union that that have been voiced >in this discussion. Yes, I agree with you perfectly. Many (if not most) Americans have frustratingly naive notions of what life behind the iron curtain is really like. Their ideas, however, are not naive because they have biased and negative preconceptions; their ideas are naive because they are clueless as to how opressive and dehumanizing life behind the iron curtain really is. In this resepect, as a 'European' who considers himself as liberated from the ignorance which blinds Americans, I find that you a lot more naive and blind than those you complain about. > >I admit I am not immune to infiltration by the media - there is an antidote, >however, that I like to use: frequent exposure to other cultures - travel! >The more places I've been to, the more I realise that people are people, >politicians are mostly corrupt, and military should be dumped in outer space >wherever you find them, including both in the U.S. and the S.U.! I think that maybe you ought to try living in Czechoslovakia, for example, for a while. If, after that, you still judge politicians on both sides of the iron curtain by the same scale then I think that your naivete springs not from ignorance but rather an insitence on seeing the world the way you want to see it. > >All you have to do is travel to Europe, and the distinction between OUR >rockets and THEIR rockets is meaningless: my West German hometown, for Yes, and during WWII, as far as any soldier caught in a crossfire was concerned, the difference between German bullets and American bullets was also meaningless; he would get killed by either. The situation then, however, was more important than can be judged by which bullet took one soldiers life, and the situation now is more complicated than whose bomb destroys your hometown, or all of Germany for that matter. If you really believe what you write here, then your arrogance and ignorance is a poor reflection on the intellectual and moral attitudes of those 'Europeans' who consider themselves untarnished by American naivete. >Have you ever thought about how YOU (sorry about the generalisation) could >benefit from this link? Like, getting some better idea about how life in Yes I am sure that many Westerners would benefit by direct contact with those behind the iron curtain. I am also sure that many individuals behind the iron curtain would benefit by direct contacts with Westerners. I have no quarrel with either. I do, however, vehemently oppose the legitimization of tyrannical regimes by continued normal relations. The Soviets and their puppet states wish desperately to be recognized as legitimate players in western life; the tearing down of communication barriers by the free world is an indication of such acceptance. Whether it benefits 'us', or 'them', until the totalitarian regimes in the Eastern block grant some basic human rights to the citizens of those countries, I consider it very naive and short sighted to pretend that 'they' are just like 'us'. > >Sorry about the length and semi-flame nature of this, but I have silently >endured the glorious ignorance the majority of Americans exhibit when it >comes to international affairs for half a year now: ever since I moved >here. I just had to get this off my chest now. I honestly sympathize with you since I feel the same frustration as you do, just from a different viewpoint. At the risk of being accused of generalizing as grossly as you did, I will conclude with this blatant flame. My frustration at the general ignorance of Americans when it comes to international affairs is only exceeded by my frustration at the arrogance which Western Europeans exhibit when it comes to the same topic. My general impression is that many do not care what kind of squalor or oppression the rest of the world lives in as long as they themselves are not threatened in any manner. It is sad to see such pervasive self centerdness and short sightedness in countries which I feel close ties to and feel very fond of. -- Marcel A. Samek | Media Logic Incorporated | 2501 Colorado Blvd. Suite 350 ARPA: mlogic!marcel@unisys.sm.com | Santa Monica, CA 90404 UUCP: ...sdcrdcf!mlogic!marcel | (213) 453-7744
per@kps.UUCP (Per Ejeklint /EFS) (11/30/88)
In article <2354@cbnews.ATT.COM> lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: >No. I think someone that actually *helps or trades* the Soviet Union is a >traitor to anyone that has tried to escape it, and to anyone that has fought >for the free world, and against me personally. AARGH! And you say you don't believe in capital punishment? You won't put a traitor in the electric chair, but you will refuse to give help that could, maybe, help the process of liberation for 200 million people! -- "The choir sang a capella, which means singing without music." ------------ Per Ejeklint Phone: + 8 799 03 18 UUCP: !mcvax!enea!kps!per Kuwait Petroleum Svenska AB KPSNET: per@kps
scrane@cs.tcd.ie (Stephen Crane) (11/30/88)
In article <2365@cbnews.ATT.COM>,lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: >My last posting on this worn out topic (unless somebody gets rude and I >have to be rude too). This is not a very mature attitude, if I may say so :-> >What I want is to make life as difficult as possible for anyone living >there so they want to leave or demand real reforms. I'm opposed to anything >that makes the USSR a better place to live. These two statements are contradictorary, in the first you say that you want to make life as difficult as possible...to demand real reforms, in the second you say that you are opposed to making the SU a better place to live. My deduction from this statement is that either you should refrain from making life as difficult as possible (for otherwise it might become a better place to live due to the ``real reforms'') or you should think before you post. >If you don't share this opinion >fine, just be sure to tell it to at least one escapee from the USSR. This statement is incomprehensible to me. Perhaps you could rephrase it. >The people that I'm most concerned with in western gov't aren't the >technical types; it's the policy making, power hungry bureaucrats that >scare me. I agree whole-heartedly! >However I'm more nervous about helping someone, no matter who >they are, from the USSR than just about anywhere else in the world. Why is this exactly? This is the eighties, man, not the fifties! >Like I said before, once the USSR permits free immigration to all their ^^^^^^^^^^^ Surely you mean emigration? >citizens I'll believe they are civilized. >-- >Larry Cipriani, AT&T Network Systems, Columbus OH, >Path: att!cbnews!lvc Domain: lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM Stephen Crane, Department of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin 2. ``Sheltering under the west's nuclear umbrella, without paying a penny'' ---Michael Heseltine
anna@vedge.UUCP (Anna Kochanowska) (12/01/88)
In article <7961@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: >Who do you think reads USENET in the US - Dennis Banks of AIM and the >political prisoners of the Lexington Women's Unit? No, it's computing >community types by and large. Sorry, that's just the nature of the >net. Bridging it to the USSR would not be for the purpose of bringing >rec.sport.auto to the Gulag, it would be for exchanging insights on >computing with folks just like us (modulo differing cultural parameters) >over there. Have you ever read _Homo Sovieticus_ of Zinowiew ? -- The views expressed are those of the writer, and not of Visual Edge, or of the Usenet. A.M.Kochanowska
jrk@s1.sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway CMP RA) (12/01/88)
In article <2365@cbnews.ATT.COM>, lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: > What I want is to make life as difficult as possible for anyone living > there so they want to leave or demand real reforms. If *you* harass them, they will blame *you*. "Ah", you say, "get rid of your government and I'll stop". When people make this argument with bombs, we call them terrorists. Denying USENET access wont kill anyone, but there is no other moral difference. > I'm opposed to anything that makes the USSR a better place to live. Duh... You mean that if the Soviet Government instituted freedom of speech, movement, and religion, tomorrow, you would be opposed? Or were you half asleep when you penned that sentence? -- Richard Kennaway SYS, University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K. uucp: ...mcvax!ukc!uea-sys!jrk Janet: kennaway@uk.ac.uea.sys
smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan) (12/01/88)
Next you'll be telling us if you cut a Russian, they'll bleed.
--
-- s m ryan
+------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| ...and they were all in exactly the same nightmarish | The nerve-agent |
| state: their faces were wholly burned, their | causality...will die |
| eyesockets where hollow, the fluid from their melted | of asphyxiation within|
| eyes had run down their cheeks. | a few minutes.... |
+------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (12/01/88)
In article <5569@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU>, schraudo@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Nici Schraudolph) writes: > Get real guys! No one is going to obtain any sensitive information through > the public net - and if you don't want to help a perfectly ordinary Soviet > citizen with everyday problems go see the shrink about your paranoia! This is absolutely true! My organization has been on the Net for over four years now, during which time I have read virtually every newsgroup and article which could conceivably contain "sensitive" information. With the exception of a few snatches of AT&T UNIX source code, I have never seen anything which by any stretch of the imagination even comes close to being militarily "sensitive" (or "company confidential", for that matter). For those readers who are naive enough to feel that any Net articles may be "sensitive", go visit your library and examine a few copies of periodicals such as "Defense Electronics" or "Microwave Systems News". Compare THAT material which is freely in the public domain with the details given in any Net article about any defense-related topic. I am neither in favor of, nor opposed to any Net connection with the Soviet Union, but I feel compelled to make the above point. <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York <> UUCP: {allegra|ames|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <> VOICE: 716/688-1231 {att|hplabs|mtune|utzoo|uunet}!/ <> FAX: 716/741-9635 {G1,G2,G3 modes} "Have you hugged your cat today?"
cl@datlog.co.uk (Charles Lambert) (12/01/88)
In article <2365@cbnews.ATT.COM> lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: >So what will be accomplished with a USENET connection to Moscow University? Oh Larry! They might just be interesting (and even enlightening) people to converse with. Perhaps your prejudice doesn't permit the term "people" to be applied to citizens of the Soviet Union? Time to go back to your bunker, Larry. ---------- Charlie
anna@vedge.UUCP (Anna Kochanowska) (12/02/88)
I suggest trying to know Russians better.
There is well known russian scientist (sociologist) Zinowiew, leaving
(I am not quite sure) in Munich, West Germany and writing _very_ good
books about Russians, and not only. Read _Homo Sovieticus_ or any of his books.
You will know better what kind of danger Russian present. You may even know
better your-self.
I know that his observations are right, because I know a lot of Russians and
other _homosos_es. Maybe I am one of them ? :-)
--
The views expressed are those of the writer, and not of
Visual Edge, or of the Usenet.
A.M.Kochanowskapss@unh.UUCP (Paul S. Sawyer) (12/02/88)
In article <2365@cbnews.ATT.COM>, lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: > My last posting on this worn out topic (unless somebody gets rude and I > ... What I want is to make life as difficult as possible for anyone living > there so they want to leave or demand real reforms. I'm opposed to anything > that makes the USSR a better place to live. If you don't share this opinion > fine, just be sure to tell it to at least one escapee from the USSR. > > Like I said before, once the USSR permits free [emmigration] to all their > citizens I'll believe they are civilized. > > -- > Larry Cipriani, AT&T Network Systems, Columbus OH, > Path: att!cbnews!lvc Domain: lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM So, say that something happens that makes Soviet life THAT difficult and anyone then IS allowed to leave? Will they all want to come to the U.S., since we all agree (who choose to live here) that it's the best place to be? Will we find them ALL a place to live, and be happy to let them compete for "OUR" jobs, etc.? After all, Mexico lets people leave and some U.S. people don't like that. Many Soviet people LOVE their land, their heritage, etc. and would rather not leave; would you deny them the few reforms that seem to be beginning to happen? Yes, anyone who WANTS to leave ANY country should be allowed to, but I can't wish increased hardships on entire populations so that they will take some uncontrolled actions towards "real" reforms. And - - USENET is not likely to increase the Soviet standard of living all THAT much, but a U.S. - U.S.S.R. connection could increase our understanding of each other FAR beyond any disadvantages. cc: boris@umoscow.CCCP :-) -- = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Paul S. Sawyer uunet!unh!unhtel!paul paul@unhtel.UUCP UNH Telecommunications Durham, NH 03824-3523 VOX: 603-862-3262 FAX: 603-862-2030
lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) (12/02/88)
In article <267@s1.sys.uea.ac.uk> jrk@s1.sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway CMP RA) writes: I wrote: >> I'm opposed to anything that makes the USSR a better place to live. > >Duh... You mean that if the Soviet Government instituted freedom of speech, >movement, and religion, tomorrow, you would be opposed? Or were you half >asleep when you penned that sentence? Duh no, though I sometimes fail to express myself well. I thought it was clear in the context the sentence appeared in I was talking out anything *external* to the USSR. I'm sure everyone has heard by now that the USSR has stopped jamming western propoganda into the USSR. To say the least, I really am suprised. Stalin must be turning in his grave. -- Larry Cipriani, AT&T Network Systems, Columbus OH, Path: att!cbnews!lvc Domain: lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM
gtww2z9z%gables.span@umigw.miami.edu (Jason Gross) (12/03/88)
There have been many arguments against letting the Soviets have access to UUCP or Usenet becuase they might possibly gain certain clasified material. With that thinking, we had better pull out of anything that we and the USSR are part of becuase they just might gain certain classified material from that organization! C'mon, guys! I've only been using the net a short while and I have yet to see anything that could be considered classified or that they couldn't find in the many journals that lie around in our libraries. So get that Russophobic attitude out of your system and let's chitaiyetay! Dasvedanya, tovarishi! -- Jason Gross Comp Sci Ugrad University of Miami Class of '91 (?) =========================================================================== Four out of five doctors | Mail your invigorating replies to: | Post think that life is the | GTWW2Z9Z%Gables.Span@Umigw.Miami.Edu | No leading cause of death. | (What a lovely address, isn't it now?) | Bills ======================================================== IBM Sucks Silicon!
curtc@pogo.GPID.TEK.COM (Curtis Charles) (12/03/88)
In article <2067@garth.UUCP> smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan) writes: >Next you'll be telling us if you cut a Russian, they'll bleed. ...and 'cause they're commies, they probably bleed RED too! Last year I did a term paper (in a grad level international marketing class) on (ta da) Trade with the Soviet Union. The US trades with the USSR to a much greater extent than you'd imagine. You can buy Coke-a-Cola in Moscow. You can buy a Big Mac in Leningrad. A great number of the oil field supplies used in the Soviet oil patch are designed and produced by American companies. But these commodities are a drop in the bucket compared to US agricultural exports to the USSR (no, wheat isn't #1; corn is!). The most interesting findings of my study were: 1) The Russians are very good at paying their bills, and there is very little country risk due to a very stable government. 2) The Russian market is virtually untapped, and is hungry for American goods. (Levi's draw $100 in Moscow!) 3) The Russians are a pain to deal with. What takes a week to close in Cincinatti takes 6-8 months to close in Moscow. They change the rules (bid on this, deliver that), and probably drive the hardest bargains in the world. Counter trade is factored into almost all deals (sure, we'll buy 100,000 gallons of Coke syrup, but you've got to take 25,000 pairs of size 42 dungarees in exchange!) Also, how does one place a value on a square block of Tblisi? Or in a workers time? Or on a factory in Moscow? (This is a problem because free market competitive factors aren't setting the prices, the government is. So how do you compare the governments prices to those elsewhere to figure out if the deal is OK?) 4) Petrostroika has opened up the possibility of joint ventures. The ground rules were that the venture had to be 51% owned by the USSR, couldn't break any Soviet labor laws, and had to be managed by Soviet citizens. It could make deals outside of the USSR, or sell to the internal market. 5) The US exports mostly agricultural (read renewable) products to the USSR, while the USSR exports mostly mineral resources (read non- renewable). 6) The Russians try hard to import as much know-how as possible, especially in the areas of (surprise) international banking and marketing. They are also interested in western business planning methods. (The joint ventures are designed to squeeze both know-how and capital out of the deal.) Business with the USSR is definately worth the hassle. The size of the market is enormous, and the rewards and tremendous. USENET access with the Russians? Sure, why not. Perhaps through this kind of communication we can start to dispel the myth that the Russians are blood thirsty killers with knives at our throats. You can bet a shot of Vodka that the KGB and CIA will both be listening in though. (In fact, if you subscribe to Pravda here in the states, our very own CIA will send you a monthly postcard (alternatively in English and Russian) telling you that they know!) So what! I haven't seen any really sensitive info go over the net; it's mostly just smalltalk (no caps :-). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Curt Charles | "Let our swords run red with the blood of curtc@pogo.GPID.TEK.COM | infidels..." Sean Connery
davef@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Dave Fiske) (12/06/88)
In article <758@quintus.UUCP>, ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: > When I was in the UK, I several times saw in the press the comment > that the USA has missiles pointed at the UK. There are reasons why this > is credible, though I reserve judgement. Did this stop people in the UK We once had a guest lecturer, Milton Leitenberg, at a class on foreign policy when I was in college. He shared with us some of his notes and observations from a news conference he attended at the Pentagon, at which the officer giving the briefing made allusion to a policy of the U.S. to target any nation which has atomic weapons. Someone asked if that meant that allies, like Britain and France (presently an unofficial ally), were targeted. Leitenberg said the general just smiled, then went on to his next topic. Well, I guess it's always possible for any country to undergo a Communist revolution, and we can't very well wait till the last minute to modify our targeting. :^) -- "WW2 NAVY PLANES--MISSING SINCE Dave Fiske (davef@brspyr1.BRS.COM) 1945--SPOTTED NEAR MARS!" Home: David_A_Fiske@cup.portal.com Headline from Weekly World News CIS: 75415,163 GEnie: davef
jarl@loglule.se (Jarl Sandberg) (12/07/88)
Is it not time to stop the whole discussion about Soviet access to Usenet, different spy/counter spy organizations and start talking computers. By the way, isn't the best way of making KBG/GRU incapable of any move to drown them with data, incomplete data, garbage data and so on. They won't be able to find the useful information since it is hidden by a lot of irrelevant data. I belive that this is the ghost of all intelligence sevices, not the absence of data, but rather too much data. And after all, if three can't keep a secret, how can anyone think that anything published in Usenet can be called secret? I think the whole discussion is aiming at the wrong target since Usenet is a open INTERNATIONAL network and can't be used to contain secrets. Second, if you can't stop soviet access to the net, what the use discussing it in such a way that the USSR can observe anything you say (i.e. USENET). Third, which topics seems to be to most popular on the net? For me it seems to be that the topics the Soviet "really" can gain vital information about is if Tom Bombadill is a maia or what ever. --jarl Standard disclaimer applied here.
jrich@devnet4.hac.com (john richardson) (12/08/88)
In article <7961@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: > Hah! As fragile as this link is likely to be, if you think some CS prof > in Kiev is going to jeopardize his access by getting into political > arguments with decadent Westerners you have another think coming. > In fact, just to keep temptation at a minimum, I would hope that > Ambassador Crunch would not gateway t.p.s or similar powderkeg groups. I don't think any kind of censorship on our side, whatever the intentions, would be a good idea. For those that are worried about the disruptive influence of these "powderkeg groups", I'm sure the KGB would be capable of restricting access to them. For those that hope USENET might become a disruptive influence, you are probably going to be disappointed. > What about the possibility of information flowing the other way? > I think it would be useful to have some of the sci.* groups coming > from the SU. And would the CIA obtain no benefit from knowing the > names of individuals who are that interested in the West? I'm sure all access to USENET would be controlled by the KGB anyway, and probably limited to approved individuals, and screened for appropriate content. I discount the possibility of a massive disinformation blitz, but it does exist. In article <222@taniwha.UUCP>, michael@taniwha.UUCP (Michael Hamel) writes: > Could you bring yourself to believe that they might have changed in the > last twenty years? I suspect some people said the same thing in the sixties, vis a vis the 1930's. Once bitten, twice shy. We would want to recognize a true change, but it will take time to accept that all the current noise is not some Potemkin-type PR campaign. In article <2355@cbnews.ATT.COM> lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: > When the Soviet Union allows free immigration to all citizens then I will > believe they have *fundamentally* changed. Until then, it is a prison, > and only a prison. A good criteria for recognizing a true change, as this would indeed require a fundamental change in Soviet attitudes. Congress, however, would probably respond by limiting Soviet emigration. John Richardson jrich@devnet4.hac.com All opinions are certainly my own, and are expressed entirely as an individual.
36_5130@uwovax.uwo.ca (Kinch) (12/09/88)
In article <208@twwells.uucp>, bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) writes: > In article <2326@cbnews.ATT.COM> lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: > : but I'm anti Soviet! > > That makes at least two of us! It also makes two horses asses out of the pair of you! Just what does it mean to be anti-Soviet except to be predjudiced against a huge amount of innocent people! (A Soviet like an American or a Canadian or a West/East German etc. is a person!) As far as USENET goes, just what kind of important information is on this BBS that everbody wants to keep from any body else? I read it alot during the summer (not much time these days) on all sorts of different newsgroups and other than a whole bunch of speculation and misinformation I saw very little that the KGB/CIA/M15/CISIS or any other "spy" organization would find in anyway useful. That is not to say that I think it is bad, quite the contrary! Even bad disscussion is better than no disscussion at all! Of course, if your intention is to keep the level of ignorance that the west and the east have for each other at the same rate, then I can see not letting them have access. (Though as many have already said, the point is probably moot as this is probably already screened for goodies by every "spy" organization anyway!) I had to comment. I am just tired of seeing this crap! Kinch (* I still dont know when not to talk! *)
jac423@leah.Albany.Edu (Julius A Cisek) (12/09/88)
In article <2108@vedge.UUCP>, anna@vedge.UUCP (Anna Kochanowska) writes: > I suggest trying to know Russians better. Stop right there. I don't think that anyone really believes that the Russian people are evil. It's not the citizens, it is the government. I doubt that much of the public would get to see much of the net anyway. And if they do, you can be sure it'll be 'selective' articles. -- What about technology, computers, .------------------. J.A.Cisek nuclear fusion? I'm terrified of |Spectral Fantasies| jac423@leah.albany.edu radiation, I hate the television. `------------------' jac423@rachel.albany.edu
scrane@cs.tcd.ie (Stephen Crane) (12/09/88)
In article <643@jurgen.loglule.se> jarl@loglule.se (Jarl Sandberg) writes: >By the way, isn't the best way of making KBG/GRU incapable of any move to >drown them with data, incomplete data, garbage data and so on. They >won't be able to find the useful information since it is hidden by a lot >of irrelevant data. Isn't the net like this already, with or without the GRU listening in? :-) >For me it seems to be that the topics the Soviet "really" can gain vital >information about is if Tom Bombadill is a maia or what ever. > Wha? (By the way, I think it is `Bombadil'). (Irony--just say `no.') Stephen Crane Distributed Systems' Group, Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin.
majka@moose.cs.ubc.ca (Marc Majka) (12/10/88)
In article <643@jurgen.loglule.se> jarl@loglule.SE (Jarl Sandberg) writes:
+ By the way, isn't the best way of making KBG/GRU incapable of any move to
+ drown them with data, incomplete data, garbage data and so on. They
+ won't be able to find the useful information since it is hidden by a lot
+ of irrelevant data.
*Sigh* Sounds just like most of the newsgroups that I read. Give them a
news feed and they will never dig themselves out of the noise and flames.
---
Marc Majkabill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) (12/15/88)
In article <1049@uwovax.uwo.ca> 36_5130@uwovax.uwo.ca (Kinch) writes: : In article <208@twwells.uucp>, bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) writes: : > In article <2326@cbnews.ATT.COM> lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: : > : but I'm anti Soviet! : > : > That makes at least two of us! : : It also makes two horses asses out of the pair of you! : : Just what does it mean to be anti-Soviet except to be predjudiced : against a huge amount of innocent people! (A Soviet like an American : or a Canadian or a West/East German etc. is a person!) Sorry, but you are absolutely wrong. Note the wording: "anti-Soviet". Not "anti-Russian". Russia is a country. The Soviet Union is an empire. I have nothing against the Russians and others dominated by the Soviet Union's government (other than noting that "no government continues to exist, save by the tacit consent of the people." [This is probably misquoted, but you get the idea.]) So, call yourself an *ignorant* horse's ass. : As far as USENET goes, just what kind of important information is on : this BBS that everbody wants to keep from any body else? I read it : alot during the summer (not much time these days) on all sorts of : different newsgroups and other than a whole bunch of speculation and : misinformation I saw very little that the KGB/CIA/M15/CISIS or any : other "spy" organization would find in anyway useful. That is not to : say that I think it is bad, quite the contrary! Even bad disscussion : is better than no disscussion at all! You haven't seemed to have read: I'm *for* letting the Soviets have a publicly known site. Shall I send you my postings arguing for it? : I had to comment. I am just tired of seeing this crap! So am I. : Kinch (* I still dont know when not to talk! *) Right. --- Bill {uunet|novavax}!proxftl!twwells!bill
miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) (12/16/88)
In article <115@gsgpyr.hac.com>, jrich@devnet4.hac.com (john richardson) writes: > In article <2355@cbnews.ATT.COM> lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: > > When the Soviet Union allows free immigration to all citizens then I will > > believe they have *fundamentally* changed. Until then, it is a prison, > > and only a prison. > A good criteria for recognizing a true change, > as this would indeed require a fundamental change in Soviet attitudes. > Congress, however, would probably respond by limiting Soviet emigration. Oops. This has already happened (reference: NPR story 12-13-88). One official was quoted as saying something like "now that the Soviet Union is opening its doors, the United States is closing its doors." Big surprise, eh? -- NSA food: Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, DIA & NRO. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson