From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The bogus Nixpub Posting
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:58:57 GMT

In <+dbn_#q@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

>tto@aspentec.com writes:

>>As a user, I would like to see more information available.  Thus, I would
>>like to know about sites that does not give free access to first time
>>callers such as John's.  On the other hand, I would also like to see the
>>information organized in a sensible way; and having John publishing a list
>>that largely duplicates Phil's just adds more confusion.

>Finally some rational discourse.

In other words, finally, someone who agrees with you.

>>- [John changing his policy]  We are not dictating your policy, John, just
>>  trying to persuade.  Don't you think that publishing a modem-accessible
>>  number is a good way to advertise?  It would not be too difficult to make
>>  your system secure enough to thwart penetration by first time callers,
>>  would it?  Besides, you don't really think that all of your registered users
>>  would be guarding the secrecy of your numbers with extra diligence, do you?

>What this all winds around to is there is not and will not be
>anonymous  logins on Dixie.  Not really a problem though.  I've
>signed a user up in as little as a couple of hours.  My phone
>and fax numbers are readily  available and will be published in
>any list that dixie is in. I'll fax subscription contracts, and
>have even met new users at a mutually to  pick up the contract and
>payment.  The only people who seriously object to this procedure
>are the deadbeats and Stallmanites who think that all computers
>should be avalable as their personal playground. 

Fine.  You can run your system under any set or rules you want.  Just
don't come whining to us when your choices have consequences (as this
one does).  If you don't like those results in this case, feel free to
start your own list.  I think you'll find that keeping it up to date
takes just a bit more than a few minutes a day.


>>- [OK, OK, so none of you want to change]  So there have to be two lists
>>  after all. [sigh]  But gentlemen, please _cooperate_.  I would rather not
>>  see any unnecessary duplication of information.  So, John, please publish
>>  only sites that are not carried by Phil's.  If you know about a site
>>  that fits Phil's criteria, please forward to him and let him publish it.
>>  Likewise, Phil, please forward any other site to John, even if you do
>>  not agree with that site's policy.

>Here's hoping Phil heeds your arguments. 

And here's hoping he doesn't.

>If not and if there is
>sufficient interest in my maintaining a comprehensive list, it
>will be comprehensive. 

In other words, cooperation isn't your strong suit.  You want it your
way, and that's the way it is.

>It will be available electronically via
>mail server, by fax on PE magazine's fax server and will be
>listed in PE because my readers will want convenient  places
>other than the likes of Compu$erv to pick up code that
>accompanies  PE articles.  

Trying to push the envelope on commercial use of the net again, are
we, John?

>Thing is if Phil does get rational,
>the lazy side of me will make me publicize his list instead. 

Phil is already rational.  It's you who are not, and I trust you're
ready for the lawsuits if you should happen to leave some commercial
service off your list.

>That's the  interesting paradox.  He gets his ego stroked even
>more by suppressing it just a little. 

Perhaps you should try this, instead?  I don't think Phil has an ego
problem, requiring stroking or otherwise.  You, on the other hand ...


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.bbs