martinl@molihp.UUCP (Martin M Lacey) (01/10/86)
In article <704@pucc-j> rsk@pucc-j (Wombat) writes: >This may be premature, as I am not aware of any potential Usenet hosts >in South Africa, but I think we should anticipate future developments >and, as a body, refuse to connect any of our hosts to any host in South >Africa until apartheid disappears from that country. >-- >Rich Kulawiec pucc-j!rsk or rsk@asc.purdue.edu Nice try, but in my opinion that is a very bad idea. The Net *purpose* is the exchange of information and discusion of ideas. Restrictions, if any, should only apply to material goods. Finding out how the people there are thinking and what is *really* going on is an important part in eliminating the idea of aparthied. They only way of *forcing* a change is to make as many people aware of the situation as possible - democracy ya' know. In fact, I would like to see such a connection occur; talk about getting what you have to say out to PEOPLE :-). - Martin the Magician. - DISCLAIMER: these are all my own opinions, but hopefully reflect those of others.
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (01/11/86)
In article <704@pucc-j> rsk@pucc-j (Wombat) writes: >This may be premature, as I am not aware of any potential Usenet hosts >in South Africa, but I think we should anticipate future developments >and, as a body, refuse to connect any of our hosts to any host in South >Africa until apartheid disappears from that country. >-- >Rich Kulawiec pucc-j!rsk or rsk@asc.purdue.edu Um, err, well, there's lots of potential usenet hosts in the USA, maybe we should (as a body of course) refuse to connect any of our hosts to possible US sites until the USA stops interfering in Nicaraugua and El Salvador. Just a thought... Just kidding... But, then again, maybe not... Can't we keep this thing apolitical? -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) (01/11/86)
Ridiculous! "Let's ban the press from South Africa; let's
boycott all mail and telephone communications with South Africa..."
And so on.
Ridiculous.
Fortunately, it is a matter of individual choice of sites to
connect to South Africa, not a net-wide policy issue.
[ And no, we don't have any such connections. Not that we
wouldn't, as far as I'm concerned ]
--
Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,hplabs}!amdahl!gam
~ And each day I learn just a little bit more ~
~ I don't know why but I do know what for... ~jmoore@mips.UUCP (Jim Moore) (01/11/86)
> This may be premature, as I am not aware of any potential Usenet hosts > in South Africa, but I think we should anticipate future developments > and, as a body, refuse to connect any of our hosts to any host in South > Africa until apartheid disappears from that country. > -- > Rich Kulawiec pucc-j!rsk or rsk@asc.purdue.edu If the issue should arise, I would invite the opportunity to exchange ideas with the people living with the situation in South Africa. Should we follow the lead of Prime Minister Bote(sp?), and censor information flow between South Africa and the rest of world? Economic sanctions obviously do serve to put pressure on a country to behave in a particular manner. But I fail to see what information flow sanctions could do except help a repressive government hide its dirty laundry. Jim Moore MIPS Computer Systems ucbvax!decwrl!mips!jmoore
dick@tjalk.UUCP (Dick Grune) (01/13/86)
Discontinuing communications is the last resort of the incompetent. Would you stop mail (letter mail) connections with Albania, Lybia, Israel, South Africa, Red China, the US, Tai-wan or any other country you disagree with polotically, if you had the power? Which ones exactly? And how about telephone? Dick Grune Vrije Universiteit de Boelelaan 1081 1081 HV Amsterdam the Netherlands
pete@stc.UUCP (01/13/86)
Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Keywords: Xpath: ukc eagle In article <132@molihp.UUCP> martinl@HP-UX.UUCP (Martin M Lacey) writes: >In article <704@pucc-j> rsk@pucc-j (Wombat) writes: >>This may be premature, as I am not aware of any potential Usenet hosts >>in South Africa, but I think we should anticipate future developments >>and, as a body, refuse to connect any of our hosts to any host in South >>Africa until apartheid disappears from that country. >>-- >>Rich Kulawiec pucc-j!rsk or rsk@asc.purdue.edu > >Nice try, but in my opinion that is a very bad idea. The Net *purpose* >is the exchange of information and discusion of ideas. Restrictions, >if any, should only apply to material goods. Finding out how the people >there are thinking and what is *really* going on is an important part >in eliminating the idea of aparthied. They only way of *forcing* a change >is to make as many people aware of the situation as possible - democracy >ya' know. In fact, I would like to see such a connection occur; talk >about getting what you have to say out to PEOPLE :-). Surely, information counts as 'material goods'. Otherwise, why pay for software, Reuters, etc? Whether the sort of communication offered by USENET, where simple disagreements seem to become raging personal feuds very quickly, would be helpful in persuading the poor frightened paranoid people of South Africa to return to rationality is doubtful to me. -- Peter Kendell <pete@stc.UUCP> ...!mcvax!ukc!stc!pete `I've suffered for my art. Now it's your turn.'
elkins@ttidcc.UUCP (Richard Elkins) (01/13/86)
In article <704@pucc-j> rsk@pucc-j (Wombat) writes: >This may be premature, as I am not aware of any potential Usenet hosts >in South Africa, but I think we should anticipate future developments >and, as a body, refuse to connect any of our hosts to any host in South >Africa until apartheid disappears from that country. >-- >Rich Kulawiec pucc-j!rsk or rsk@asc.purdue.edu Should we really play God with potential net-users in every country of the world? Can you guess their political and moral state of mind? What if its a machine owned by black aficans? Do we ask them what color they are first? To the contrary, the more information, ideas, and opinions which flow to the troubled spots of the world, the better. We're talking about lifeblood. I have a feeling your intentions are good but I think that this suggestion has immense potential for unintended harm.
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (01/13/86)
The subject of boycotting or not South Africa may be a legal one.
Does anyone know the current state of Government regulation on the
flow of technical information to South Africa?
--
James C. Armstrong, Jnr. {ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa
"It's a sort of mini-clone!" Who said them, what story?cc100jr@gitpyr.UUCP (Joel M. Rives) (01/13/86)
In article <4061@mhuxd.UUCP> wolit@mhuxd.UUCP (Jan Wolitzky) writes: > >I'm not sure how threatened Pretoria would feel by a cutoff of Usenet, >but if one were to consider the indispensible role of the South >African passbook system in maintaining Apartheid, the indispensible >role of IBM computers in maintaining the passbook system, and the >indispensible role of U.S. computer professionals in maintaining IBM, >then the possibility of a far more effective boycott might become >apparent. >-- >Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ; 201 582-2998; mhuxd!wolit >(Affiliation given for identification purposes only) This is a very interesting concept! Would you mind elaborating a little on your statements? The possibilities that you seem to suggest are rather far reaching indeed - as any one who has come to depend upon computers for a great deal of their automation should know. Besides... suppose a small group of very bored and very intelligent young hackers were to manage their way into Pretoria's Databanks. Hmmm.... Joel Rives Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!cc100jr "Remember, no matter where you go, there you are!" << Buckaroo Banzai >>
dave@quest.UUCP (David Messer) (01/15/86)
> This may be premature, as I am not aware of any potential Usenet hosts > in South Africa, but I think we should anticipate future developments > and, as a body, refuse to connect any of our hosts to any host in South > Africa until apartheid disappears from that country. > -- > Rich Kulawiec pucc-j!rsk or rsk@asc.purdue.edu Please don't do it! I am not in favor of aparthied by any means, but USENET doesn't need more censorship. We are already deleteing "politically incorrect" newsgroups and talking about more restrictions every day. We are missing a wonderful chance at truely having free speech on a global scale. I don't think the proponents of aparthied in South Africa will be hurt by not hearing the views of the USENET community. (Sorry about the double negative. ;-) -- David Messer UUCP: ...ihnp4!quest!dave ...ihnp4!encore!vaxine!spark!14!415!sysop FIDO: 14/415 (SYSOP)
martinl@molihp.UUCP (Martin M Lacey) (01/16/86)
>> [rebuttle on disallowing communication with S.A.] >>Nice try, but in my opinion that is a very bad idea. The Net *purpose* >>is the exchange of information and discusion of ideas. Restrictions, >>if any, should only apply to material goods. Finding out how the people >>there are thinking and what is *really* going on is an important part >>in eliminating the idea of aparthied. > >Surely, information counts as 'material goods'. Otherwise, why pay >for software, Reuters, etc? > >Whether the sort of communication offered by USENET, where simple >disagreements seem to become raging personal feuds very quickly, >would be helpful in persuading the poor frightened paranoid people >of South Africa to return to rationality is doubtful to me. >-- > Peter Kendell <pete@stc.UUCP> > Aw, come on Peter!!. How much information (read software) have you gotten off the net without paying for it. If its on the net it is free, so why restrict what is free. Lets Give those "poor fightened people" a chance to voice what THEY think before *we* (read you) decide that they are hopelessly lost. Personnally, I welcome with open arms any information I can find on the state of the world today. Let the PEOPLE talk. Martin the Magician. DISCLAIMER: Once again, I stand alone on my pillar of purity :->>>. Actually, if the net were world-wide and had no political affiliations, at least the people of the net would know what the people *who are involved in* political situations are thinking. A good thing, in my opinion - but just a start.
putnam@steinmetz.UUCP (01/17/86)
In article <704@pucc-j> rsk@pucc-j (Wombat) writes: >This may be premature, as I am not aware of any potential Usenet hosts >in South Africa, but I think we should anticipate future developments >and, as a body, refuse to connect any of our hosts to any host in South >Africa until apartheid disappears from that country. >-- >Rich Kulawiec pucc-j!rsk or rsk@asc.purdue.edu Considering all the talk we get in net.news.group and net.news about 1) the impending demise of the net 2) the horrible phone bills 3) the incredible cost of sending yet another license plate, or a dinette set for sale, around the world maybe it would be more punishment to _force_ the south africans to get Usenet, and pay for all the phone bills. (Maybe we could even reinstate net.flame, and net.bizarre, just for them :-). On a more serious note, the african nations that make the noise about south africa import quite a bit of food and other 'necessaries' from them. Sometimes this is relabled to look less like it comes from south africa, but not always. South african wine isnt bad (taint good, but taint bad) - and i bought it in a store in Zaire, one of the countries that are fond of chastizing the americans for trading with south africa. I think it is probably far more effective to encourage companies, universities, local governments... to stop investing in south africa, and to withdraw investments already made there. -- O -- jefu tell me all about -- UUCP: {rochester,edison}!steinmetz!putnam Anna Livia! I want to hear all.... -- ARPA: putnam@GE-CRD
dave@quest.UUCP (David Messer) (01/20/86)
> Does anyone know the current state of Government regulation on the > flow of technical information to South Africa? What has that to do with USENET? :-) -- David Messer UUCP: ...ihnp4!quest!dave ...ihnp4!encore!vaxine!spark!14!415!sysop FIDO: 14/415 (SYSOP)
greggt@ncoast.UUCP (Gregg Thompson) (01/24/86)
> This may be premature, as I am not aware of any potential Usenet hosts > in South Africa, but I think we should anticipate future developments > and, as a body, refuse to connect any of our hosts to any host in South > Africa until apartheid disappears from that country. > -- > Rich Kulawiec pucc-j!rsk or rsk@asc.purdue.edu Don't involve Usenet into politics!