From: merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin)
Newsgroups: alt.cd-rom,general
Subject: re: USENET Thought Police [was Re: CD ROM INC.  CATALOG REQUESTS!]
Date: 12 Nov 1992 02:11:57 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: neuro.usc.edu

In article <BxKnMx.7oF@syd.dms.CSIRO.AU> stuarta@syd.dms.CSIRO.AU (Stuart Andrews) writes:
>> The phone number is (303) 231-9373.  Or you can email
>> ephillip@nyx.cs.du.edu and leave your adress and we will mail you a
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  Flames to this address^

Personally, I find it extremely rude, inconsiderate, and a gross abuse
of network etiquette to invite huge numbers of people to flood anyone's
email mailbox with hate mail.  This kind of personal attack may be far
worse than simply allowing someone who may be unfamiliar with what the
originator of this flamefest considers common knowledge.

>OK People, we all know the rules, every so often someone breaks them.

As mentioned above -- it is an unwarranted assumption that everyone
knows and endorses Stuart Andrew's concept of "the rules."

>Commercial Postings to these newsgroups are no allowed. Don't do it.

While it may be Stuart Andrews' policy (perhaps even official usenet
policy) to forbid all commercial postings, I sometimes appreciate the
kind of information provided by such postings.  Often it is possible
for such postings to make individual purchasers and institutions aware
of substantial cost savings (particularly from vendors in other states
or other countries) which would not become known via local news media.

>Take the time to post a personal flame to: ephillip@nyx.cs.du.edu

As mentioned above -- inciting a flame attack and/or trying to flood
someone's email box with clearly unwanted messages might be considered
harassment, squandering of network resources, and/or unauthorized use
of computing facilities.  Please do not intentionally flood any email
mailbox or subject anyone to harassing and/or unwanted email messages.

Finally, as someone who has been around for quite some time, let me
suggest that if someone wants to pretend to be the network etiquette
police then they better think about what the people who fund network
access and message transport services would think about the excessive
waste of taxpayer and privately donated dollars underwriting sending
of personal mail, recreational, and nonscientific/nonacademic traffic.

Access to the original ARPANET was restricted to people with current
government contracts and an active need for email, telnet, and ftp
access to remote sites in the completion of their government contract
work.  Perhaps it is time we fully withdraw direct government support
and indirect government subsidies (tax deductions for private money
contributed to usenet facilities/operations) and/or kick all of the
bozos who do not have a legitimate need for access off the network.

In my opinion the vast majority of the traffic carried by usenet over
government subsidized transport media should not be funded by any of
my taxpayer dollars -- rather the charges for each and every one of
your nonscientific/nonacademic messages should be billed back to you
as an individual and not absorbed by the general public.  However,
while usenet is getting a free ride on the back of the taxpayers in
countries around the world, let us not fall into the trap of thinking
any one individual or small group of individuals have the right to 
regulate network message content -- to believe otherwise is tantamount
to endorsing the evil concepts of censorship and the thought police.

Perhaps a more appropriate approach in the present case would be for
a few concerned network citizens to send polite private email messages
to the originator of the original commercial posting informing the
originator that it is customary to confine commercial postings to the
few new product announcement and/or forsale newsgroups -- and offer
to provide any technical assistance which may be necessary to cancel
the original message and repost the solicitation to more appropriate
newsgroups.  Note that such a message should probably be in the form
of an advisory message rather than a hard and fast statement that the
thought police have descended upon this poor user's doorstep with a
warrant for the arrest and execution of a network etiquette felon.

In the words of a local LA area hero "Can't we all get along?" -- we
don't need another flamefest in Los Angeles -- and we do not need
another flamefest about commercial access to usenet transport media.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander-James Annala
Principal Investigator
Neuroscience Image Analysis Network
HEDCO Neuroscience Building, Fifth Floor
University of Southern California
University Park
Los Angeles, CA 90089-2520
------------------------------------------------------------------------------