jpd@kepler.UUCP (John Donovan) (08/29/85)
I'd like to propose starting a peace net on usenet, to be called
(not surprisingly) net.peace. This would be a spin-off of
net.politics, giving a forum for peace groups and assorted peaceniks
to share ideas, alert each other of coming events and activities,
and generally network together. For groups with little power and
less money, information (and its dissemination) is critical.
As for the need from USENET's standpoint, net.politics sees a lot uf
use, but the exchange of ideas is random and not directed toward any
goal other than expressing opinions or flaming at Don Black. If
peace.net is set up, I would like to continue my (so far local) effort
to get various peace groups to network together on a national level
via USENET.
The other critical question is: How many publicly accessible nodes
are there out there? I get on here through my terminal at work, which
in turn uses the VAX at the WELL in Sausalito. The WELL was set up by
the folks at the Whole Earth operation as a cheap, public access
network. It is a fine local net; but it also is a gateway to USENET.
For non-profit groups to be able to use USENET, there would have to be
a number os such nodes around the country---and, hopefully, Europe
(replies solicited). Are there any, and where???
Looking forward to your feedback. Thanks.
---John Donovancsg@pyramid.UUCP (Carl S. Gutekunst) (08/31/85)
In article <195@kepler.UUCP> jpd@kepler.UUCP (John Donovan) writes: >I'd like to propose starting a peace net on usenet, to be called >(not surprisingly) net.peace. This would be a spin-off of >net.politics, giving a forum for peace groups and assorted peaceniks >to share ideas, alert each other of coming events and activities, >and generally network together. For groups with little power and >less money, information (and its dissemination) is critical. > ... >If peace.net is set up, I would like to continue my (so far local) effort >to get various peace groups to network together on a national level >via USENET. > >The other critical question is: How many publicly accessible nodes >are there out there? ... >For non-profit groups to be able to use USENET, there would have to be >a number of such nodes around the country---and, hopefully, Europe >(replies solicited). Are there any, and where??? I like the idea of a net.peace group, but absolutely NOT under the conditions John has described. I see three serious problems: First, as John has defined it, net.peace would be used to link peace activist groups around the country that have no other purpose or involvement with Usenet. What with net traffic already at the bursting point, I must oppose a group which uses the net only as a means to avoid paying their own phone bills. Usenet is NOT a free bulletin board service, available to anyone with a modem and friend at a Usenet site. Everyone is expected to contribute as much to the net as they take out. Second, I question the unabashed political use of the net. It's one thing to provide a soapbox for expressing ideas (e.g. net.politics); it is quite another for the net to sanction a group which uses it as a means to a political ends. (This has legal/litigious risks, as well.) Finally, even if it were acceptable, there is no way that net.peace would accomplish the goals John has set for it. It is not possible (or desirable) to control or restrict who submits articles to a group. Thus net.peace would quickly degenerate into the free-for-all that net.politics now is, with great debates over pros and cons of the peace movement. Net.peace is a perfect application for a mailing list, if you get the explicit permission of every jump site. Possibly a more elegant solution would be a phone network of PC's, using one of the many available bulletin board software packages that are available. -- -m------- Carl S. Gutekunst, Software R&D, Pyramid Technology ---mmm----- P.O. Box 7295, Mountain View, CA 94039 415/965-7200 -----mmmmm--- UUCP: {allegra,decwrl,shasta,sun,topaz!pyrnj}!pyramid!csg -------mmmmmmm- ARPA: pyramid!csg@sri-unix.ARPA
jpd@kepler.UUCP (John Donovan) (09/02/85)
> > I like the idea of a net.peace group, but absolutely NOT under the conditions > John has described. I see three serious problems: > > First, as John has defined it, net.peace would be used to link peace activist > groups around the country that have no other purpose or involvement with > Usenet. What with net traffic already at the bursting point, I must oppose a > group which uses the net only as a means to avoid paying their own phone > bills. Usenet is NOT a free bulletin board service, available to anyone with a > modem and friend at a Usenet site. Everyone is expected to contribute as much > to the net as they take out. Carl, what I propose is setting up a forum for everyone currently on Usenet; but, in addition, inviting along some non-profits such as the American Friends Service Committee and other mainstream groups with a direct involvement in the peace movement. This is hardly "a means to avoid paying their own phone bills;" it is a way for like minded persons to network together and exchange ideas. I certainly expect that everyone will contribute as much as they take sway from the net. > > Second, I question the unabashed political use of the net. It's one thing to > provide a soapbox for expressing ideas (e.g. net.politics); it is quite > another for the net to sanction a group which uses it as a means to a political > ends. (This has legal/litigious risks, as well.) Admittedly, this use IS open to question, and I would like to hear other points of view. What I foresee is merely the open exchange of ideas, just as we see now throughout Usenet, but with a focus appropriate to this forum. All I am proposing that is new is to open up the group to persons who don't work just for University Comp Sci departments and large corporations, but also to some persons whose life work is in the area of peace activism. I find this a benevolent and exciting idea. I can see where it could cause others cause for alarm. Please speak up! > Finally, even if it were acceptable, there is no way that net.peace would > accomplish the goals John has set for it. It is not possible (or desirable) to > control or restrict who submits articles to a group. Thus net.peace would > quickly degenerate into the free-for-all that net.politics now is, with great > debates over pros and cons of the peace movement. > It is quite possible that net.peace would become a magnet for the contentious. Since I strongly resist restricting entrance to the forum, net.peace could very possibly get just as heated as net.politics. I don't think this is much of an argument for not trying it, however. Let's "give net.peace a chance."
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (09/03/85)
> Net.peace is a perfect application for a mailing list, if you get the explicit > permission of every jump site. Possibly a more elegant solution would be a > phone network of PC's, using one of the many available bulletin board software > packages that are available. FIDO, perhaps. Or even a subset USENET. There's no law saying you can't buy a couple of UNIX boxes & set up your own net. You could even link into the rest of the net... make it usenet "domain" peace.*, and have a peace.politics, peace.activism, peace.this, peace.that. just put this in your news/sys file: uucp-neighbour:all,net.all:: peacenet-neighbour:all,peace.all:: Now *that* sounds like a good idea!
howard@cyb-eng.UUCP (Howard Johnson) (09/04/85)
World.peace will not be achieved via net.peace. > As for the need from USENET's standpoint, net.politics sees a lot uf > use, but the exchange of ideas is random and not directed toward any > goal other than expressing opinions or flaming at Don Black. Usenet works well as a forum for exchanging information and to some degree for discussion about common interests. But *netnews* groups which invite SOAP-BOX DISCUSSIONS do not achieve significant progress toward their desired ends. This has already been proven in net.religion, net.politics, net.abortion, et. al. > The other critical question is: How many publicly accessible nodes > are there out there? I don't know about your site, but mine is definitely not publicly accessible; it is accessible through invitation only. By this I mean that the general public in Austin are not invited to sit down at my terminal to gain access to Usenet. To date, all Usenet news groups are invited guests at our site. Identifiable "soap-box" groups are escorted to the bit bucket at an early age. Just don't force us to stop offering news groups to our downstream neighbors. -- ..!{seismo,topaz,mordor,harvard,gatech,nbires,ihnp4}!ut-sally!cyb-eng!howard (ordered best to worst); also ..!{ut-ngp,shell}!cyb-eng!howard +1 512 458 6609
douglas@bcsaic.UUCP (douglas schuler) (09/04/85)
I, for one, am in favor of net.peace news group.
** My opinions are not necessarily those of the Boeing Corporation. **
--
Doug Schuler (206) 763-5295
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax}uw-beaver!uw-june!bcsaic!douglas
uw-june!bcsaic!douglas@washington.arpafranka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (09/08/85)
In article <195@kepler.UUCP> jpd@kepler.UUCP (John Donovan) writes: > >I'd like to propose starting a peace net on usenet, to be called >(not surprisingly) net.peace. This would be a spin-off of >net.politics, giving a forum for peace groups and assorted peaceniks >to share ideas, alert each other of coming events and activities, >and generally network together. For groups with little power and >less money, information (and its dissemination) is critical. This sounds like a perfect candidate for a mailing list to me. Perhaps Mr. Donovan would like to run one?
jpd@kepler.UUCP (John Donovan) (09/12/85)
In article <640@mmintl.UUCP>, franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: > > This sounds like a perfect candidate for a mailing list to me. Perhaps > Mr. Donovan would like to run one? I'd be happy to, Frank, but I am still holding out for net.peace. I have been sitting out the Clash of the Titans, watching for the impending demise of Usenet as the Mongol hordes come swarming in over public access sites.(:-) Seriously, I think net.peace has stirred up a lot more frenetic reaction than it deserves. Yes, Usenet has an overload problem, and yes, new newsgroups will contribute to it. But does the drawbridge get drawn starting with net.peace? I certainly hope not. I would be happy to run a peace mailing list, but not until the net.peace issue is settled. I would also be happy to moderate a version of net.peace, but only as a fallback position. Come on, folks, how about at least a moderated net.peace? -- ---- ... John Donovan, MicroPro Technical Communications {dual,ptsfa,hplabs}!well!micropro!kepler!jpd