dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) (01/02/91)
In the referenced article tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: #In article <PCG.90Dec31145142@teachk.cs.aber.ac.uk> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: #> [ ... kithrup has links to both SCO, a USENET site, and #> ucscc, which is an Internet site but has an UUCP link to #> kithrup, yet does not advertise itself as a USENET site or #> an Internet-USENET gateway ... ] # #Excuse me, but what in the world is an "Internet-USENET gateway"? # #I would not ordinarily object to casual misuse of the basic mail/news #terminology, but when someone of Piercarlo's stature gets it wrong, and #bases an entire long argument on it, I have to wonder what he really means. I shouldn't worry about it - or anything else that Piercarlo posts. It is his normal way to almost totally misunderstand a situation, build a whole false edifice based on a small grain of truth, then post polemics complaining that the situation he has imagined is wrong. I used to argue with him - especially because of that grain of truth which sometimes does need to be dealt with - but I have learned that it is a waste of time. And nobody should believe any of his statements about how the various nets are organised unless they are corroborated by other, competent, people. I am sorry to so denigrate the views of another member of the net: it is not my usual way. But Piercarlo has confused so many arguements with his distorted view of the world that I consider it necessary to warn others. Regards, David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK dww@stl.stc.co.uk <or> ...uunet!mcsun!ukc!stl!dww <or> PSI%234237100122::DWW Usenet works on the principle that 10,000 people know more about the answer to any question than one does. Unfortunately they know 10,000 different answers.
pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (01/03/91)
On 1 Jan 91 22:55:20 GMT, dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) said: dww> In the referenced article tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: pcg> In article <PCG.90Dec31145142@teachk.cs.aber.ac.uk> pcg> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: tneff> Excuse me, but what in the world is an "Internet-USENET gateway"? tneff> I would not ordinarily object to casual misuse of the basic tneff> mail/news terminology, but when someone of Piercarlo's stature tneff> gets it wrong, and bases an entire long argument on it, I have to tneff> wonder what he really means. Please note the (gentle, and well accepted) irony: the paragraph above can be read "Piercarlo's entire argument makes no sense whatever because it is based entirely on totally inappropriate terminology". It can also be read in many other ways. I like this style. I like less this style: dww> I shouldn't worry about it - or anything else that Piercarlo posts. dww> It is his normal way to almost totally misunderstand a situation, dww> build a whole false edifice based on a small grain of truth, then dww> post polemics complaining that the situation he has imagined is dww> wrong. [ ... and worse ... ] This is called humour-impairment, man. Cool your jets :->. As to whether there is really something strange in the water in Aberyswyth, let the readership beware. I am quite sure that they can make up their own minds. Networks are a very political thing, and everybody knows, or ought to know, that. Maybe not everybody knows that I have no interest whatsoever in these politics except intellectual curiosity and concern over an important aspect of the field which I have chosen for my career. I am not selling anything here -- I am just a wary customer. Others cannot say the same. Rubbishing other people's reputation in the extravagant way you use demonstrates little diplomatic sense. Or maybe you want to become a celebrity -- maybe one day it will be possible to prove attribution, and then you make history by being the first person to lose a million pounds thanks to a posting. Keep trying :->. -- Piercarlo Grandi | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac.aber.cs@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk
wain@seac.UUCP (Wain Dobson) (01/04/91)
In article <3882@stl.stc.co.uk> dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) writes: >In the referenced article tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: >#In article <PCG.90Dec31145142@teachk.cs.aber.ac.uk> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: > >I am sorry to so denigrate the views of another member of the net: it is >not my usual way. But Piercarlo has confused so many arguements with his >distorted view of the world that I consider it necessary to warn others. > Thanks David, think most readers saw through the polemics. I guess what I'm wondering, is whether you ever won any of the arguments. :-) -- Wain Dobson, Vancouver, B.C. ...!{uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!seac!wain
thinman@cup.portal.com (Lance C Norskog) (01/06/91)
Mr. Grandi used an oddity of the English language called a 'synecdoche'. This is a reference to an object by naming a part of that object, c.f. a "field hand" or "deck hand". UseNet refers to the bulletin board system itself, he was talking about the larger UUCP/Internet web. Other than that, he uses the words correctly and gets the legalities correctly too. Pay attention! The Internet is being used as a "commons", as in "The Tragedy of the Commons". UUCP->Internet->UUCP is an abuse if it's not government-sponsored research, or you're not designing bombs :-) Synecdoche is your new word for the day. Pronounce the 'ch' 'sh'.
pjt@cpac.washington.edu (Larry Setlow) (01/06/91)
In article <37629@cup.portal.com> thinman@cup.portal.com (Lance C Norskog) writes:
Synecdoche is your new word for the day. Pronounce the 'ch' 'sh'.
[email bounced. Think of this as my inappropriate post for the month]
Better still, prounounce the 'ch' as 'k' and the 'e' as 'ee'. Four
syllables, stress on the second.tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (01/07/91)
In article <37629@cup.portal.com> thinman@cup.portal.com (Lance C Norskog) writes: >Mr. Grandi used an oddity of the English language called a 'synecdoche'. Even if he had, synecdoche has no proper place in a technical discussion about which networks should interconnect. The part cannot be casually substituted for the whole, or vice versa, when the very meat of the argument concerns inappropriate routing through parts and wholes. >The Internet is being used as a "commons", >as in "The Tragedy of the Commons". UUCP->Internet->UUCP is an abuse >if it's not government-sponsored research, or you're not designing bombs :-) First of all, there is a distinction between simple misuse of an apparently free resource, versus the specific economic paradox embodied in the "Tragedy of the Commons." In the latter (Commons) case, it was explicitly in each user's interest to maximize his (quite permissible) use of the resource, in order that he not suffer competitively with other users; the end result being destruction of the resource for all. But in the Internet case, (a) there is no underlying right to use it as a third party mail carrier in the first place; (b) given the availability of non-Internet ways for many sites to get mail delivered (high speed modems make UUCP much more attractive, for instance), users are not compelled to keep using the Internet resource forever even as quality of service degrades with increased usage. They can switch to something else. So the much-overused Commons model fits poorly. What we really have is a modified black market, where the Man could theoretically lower the boom any day but doesn't, and where the door is always open for someone to come in and offer better service for a cheaper price -- but while the quasi-illicit resource is out there for the taking and not yet overwhelmed, only a few (like UUNET and PSI) will bother. Finally, there is not much hard data available on the extent of Internet misuse. What misuse does occur is only partly intentional; some of it is a by-product of inaccurate UUCP mapping, and could be corrected. >Synecdoche is your new word for the day. Pronounce the 'ch' 'sh'. Did you know that the word 'gullible' is not in the dictionary? (Synecdoche is, of course, pronounced sin-EK-duh-kee. Pedantry is its own reward :-) ) -- "I'm not sure I've even got the brains to #:# Tom Neff be President." -- Barry Goldwater, 1964 #:# tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (01/07/91)
According to thinman@cup.portal.com (Lance C Norskog): >UUCP->Internet->UUCP is an abuse if it's not government-sponsored research, >or you're not designing bombs :-) If so, then why is the DNS so happy to register UUCP-only sites? Not that I'm complaining about the DNS, but it seems inconsistent. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> "If Usenet exists, then what is its mailing address?" -- me "c/o The Daily Planet, Metropolis." -- Jeff Daiell
amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) (01/09/91)
In article <27887475.65E6@tct.uucp>, chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > If so, then why is the DNS so happy to register UUCP-only sites? Not > that I'm complaining about the DNS, but it seems inconsistent. DNS visibility has nothing to do with Internet connectivity as such. In fact, the DNS and IP network number applications make it quite clear that actual Internet connectivity is a separate issue that must be approved by the appropriate agencies. -- Amanda Walker Visix Software Inc.
rdc30med@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil (LCDR Michael E. Dobson) (01/09/91)
In article <27887475.65E6@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >According to thinman@cup.portal.com (Lance C Norskog): >>UUCP->Internet->UUCP is an abuse if it's not government-sponsored research, >>or you're not designing bombs :-) > >If so, then why is the DNS so happy to register UUCP-only sites? Not >that I'm complaining about the DNS, but it seems inconsistent. Perhaps to allow Internet sites to send mail to them by only having to specify user@site.dom.ain ? It sure makes life easier for me and my users. I can use the UUCP maps for one of my MUAs (ELM), but not the one used by the majority of my users, and not for the MTAs. So having MX records for UUCP sites served by an Internet site is A Good Thing(tm). I believe most dual sites (I am one) only advertise their UUCP links in the maps. I connect to some Internet sites via both SMTP and UUCP, but I only show the UUCP links. That way, the maps will only generate a UUCP path even though I could use the Internet for that hop (by could use I mean in the technology sense, not the legal sense). -- Mike Dobson, Sys Admin for | Internet: rdc30med@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil | UUCP: ...uunet!mimsy!nmrdc1!rdc30med AT&T 3B2/600G Sys V R 3.2.2 | BITNET: dobson@usuhsb or nrd0mxd@vmnmdsc WIN/TCP for 3B2 | MCI-Mail: 377-2719 or 0003772719@mcimail.com