Off topic, Gore and the internet (don't read if not interested)

[Corky Scott]

To be merciful, I've changed the subject heading so that those who
don't care to read any more about this subject can simply delete it or
skip over without opening it.

I figured that there had to be more to Gore's one liner. Politicians
don't normally feed ammunition to the opposition so I looked around to
find some information on exactly what it was Gore did in regards the
development of the internet. His contributions appear to be
considerable. Following is a quote from a website listing them:

*** Begin Quote ***

Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine. What Al Gore claimed was:

During my service in the United States Congress I took the
initiative in creating the Internet.

A statement that is, in fact, true. All any politician can do to
assist in any venture is to get a bill written to provide funding. Al
Gore did that. At the time, he was considered a space case by his
fellow Senators for insisting that the Internet would be important.
Phillip Hallam-Baker of the web development team at CERN said:

In the early days of the Web, he was a believer, not after the
fact when our success was already established -- he gave us help when
it counted. He got us the funding to set up at MIT after we got kicked
out of CERN for being too successful. He also personally saw to it
that the entire federal government set up Web sites. Before the White
House site went online, he would show the prototype to each agency
director who came into his office. At the end he would click on the
link to their agency site. If it returned 'Not Found' the said
director got a powerful message that he better have a Web site before
he next saw the veep.

....and the creators of TCP/IP said this:

Al Gore and the Internet

By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf

Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance
of the Internet and to promote and support its development.

No one person or even small group of persons exclusively
"invented" the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing
collaboration among people in government and the university community.
But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core
protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP
Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President.
No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater
contribution over a longer period of time.

Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on
his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I
took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some
people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the
Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while
serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and
beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the
matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long
before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our
perspective.

As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of
high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth
and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first
elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to
have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and
scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an
unproven and controversial concept. Our work on the Internet started
in 1973 and was based on even earlier work that took place in the
mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we know it today, was not
deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages
of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership
by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed
computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on
how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like
coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters
and other crises.

As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to
consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and
unconnected networks into an "Interagency Network." Working in a
bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan and George Bush's
administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance
Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This "Gore Act" supported
the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that
became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond
the field of computer science.

As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and
out, as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the
government agencies that spawned it. He served as the major
administration proponent for continued investment in advanced
computing and networking and private sector initiatives such as Net
Day. He was and is a strong proponent of extending access to the
network to schools and libraries. Today, approximately 95% of our
nation's schools are on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed
political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when
the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven operation.

There are many factors that have contributed to the Internet's
rapid growth since the later 1980s, not the least of which has been
political support for its privatization and continued support for
research in advanced networking technology. No one in public life has
been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for
a thriving Internet than the Vice President. Gore has been a clear
champion of this effort, both in the councils of government and with
the public at large.

The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of
the value of high speed computing and communication and for his
long-term and consistent articulation of the potential value of the
Internet to American citizens and industry and, indeed, to the rest of
the world.

*** End Quote ***

So it appears that Gore championed the internet, going against the
tide at the time. His statement "I initiated the creation of the
internet" would seem to be based in fact, since he was the lone
supporter in it's early stages. This is why he's being given the
award mentioned in some of the posts.

Corky Scott

[Sport Pilot]

Corky Scott wrote:
> To be merciful, I've changed the subject heading so that those who
> don't care to read any more about this subject can simply delete it or
> skip over without opening it.
>
> I figured that there had to be more to Gore's one liner. Politicians
> don't normally feed ammunition to the opposition so I looked around to
> find some information on exactly what it was Gore did in regards the
> development of the internet. His contributions appear to be
> considerable. Following is a quote from a website listing them:
>
> *** Begin Quote ***
>
> Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine. What Al Gore claimed was:
>
> During my service in the United States Congress I took the
> initiative in creating the Internet.
>
> A statement that is, in fact, true. All any politician can do to
> assist in any venture is to get a bill written to provide funding. Al
> Gore did that. At the time, he was considered a space case by his
> fellow Senators for insisting that the Internet would be important.
> Phillip Hallam-Baker of the web development team at CERN said:
>
> In the early days of the Web, he was a believer, not after the
> fact when our success was already established -- he gave us help when
> it counted. He got us the funding to set up at MIT after we got kicked
> out of CERN for being too successful. He also personally saw to it
> that the entire federal government set up Web sites. Before the White
> House site went online, he would show the prototype to each agency
> director who came into his office. At the end he would click on the
> link to their agency site. If it returned 'Not Found' the said
> director got a powerful message that he better have a Web site before
> he next saw the veep.
>
> ...and the creators of TCP/IP said this:
>
> Al Gore and the Internet
>
> By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf
>
> Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance
> of the Internet and to promote and support its development.
>
> No one person or even small group of persons exclusively
> "invented" the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing
> collaboration among people in government and the university community.
> But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core
> protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP
> Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President.
> No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater
> contribution over a longer period of time.
>
> Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on
> his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I
> took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some
> people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the
> Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while
> serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and
> beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the
> matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long
> before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our
> perspective.
>
> As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of
> high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth
> and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first
> elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to
> have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and
> scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an
> unproven and controversial concept. Our work on the Internet started
> in 1973 and was based on even earlier work that took place in the
> mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we know it today, was not
> deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages
> of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership
> by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed
> computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on
> how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like
> coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters
> and other crises.
>
> As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to
> consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and
> unconnected networks into an "Interagency Network." Working in a
> bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan and George Bush's
> administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance
> Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This "Gore Act" supported
> the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that
> became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond
> the field of computer science.
>
> As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and
> out, as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the
> government agencies that spawned it. He served as the major
> administration proponent for continued investment in advanced
> computing and networking and private sector initiatives such as Net
> Day. He was and is a strong proponent of extending access to the
> network to schools and libraries. Today, approximately 95% of our
> nation's schools are on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed
> political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when
> the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven operation.
>
> There are many factors that have contributed to the Internet's
> rapid growth since the later 1980s, not the least of which has been
> political support for its privatization and continued support for
> research in advanced networking technology. No one in public life has
> been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for
> a thriving Internet than the Vice President. Gore has been a clear
> champion of this effort, both in the councils of government and with
> the public at large.
>
> The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of
> the value of high speed computing and communication and for his
> long-term and consistent articulation of the potential value of the
> Internet to American citizens and industry and, indeed, to the rest of
> the world.
>
> *** End Quote ***
>
> So it appears that Gore championed the internet, going against the
> tide at the time. His statement "I initiated the creation of the
> internet" would seem to be based in fact, since he was the lone
> supporter in it's early stages. This is why he's being given the
> award mentioned in some of the posts.
>
> Corky Scott

This originated from Gore Campaign headquarters, I know because that is
where I first read it back in 2000! First it says that no one man
invented the internet, which is not true, Larry Roberts is credited for
inventing the internet!

Show me be bills Gore supposedly wrote! It says "Gore secured the
passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in
1991." Show me who wrote this, and how did Gore secure it? If he
created the internet, why did he not create this one bill? Did you
know that many in the industry considered this bill a hindrance? Did
you know the military released the internet to use by universitys way
back in the 70's? Did you know you could buy a dial up service and log
on the internet in the 80's?

[Corky Scott]

On 2 Jun 2005 11:45:32 -0700, "Sport Pilot" > wrote:

>This originated from Gore Campaign headquarters, I know because that is
>where I first read it back in 2000! First it says that no one man
>invented the internet, which is not true, Larry Roberts is credited for
>inventing the internet!

Lordy Sport Pilot, I weary of the chase. No, this did not originate
from the Gore Campaign Headquarters, what I copied and pasted was
written by two individuals who helped develop the internet.

In addition, Larry you only have to google "History of the internet"
to find that while Larry Roberts figured strongly in the initial
development of the internet, he was not the only one. See below:

*** Begin Quote ***

Origins of the Internet

The first recorded description of the social interactions that could
be enabled through networking was a series of memos written by J.C.R.
Licklider of MIT in August 1962 discussing his "Galactic Network"
concept. He envisioned a globally interconnected set of computers
through which everyone could quickly access data and programs from any
site. In spirit, the concept was very much like the Internet of today.
Licklider was the first head of the computer research program at
DARPA, 4 starting in October 1962. While at DARPA he convinced his
successors at DARPA, Ivan Sutherland, Bob Taylor, and MIT researcher
Lawrence G. Roberts, of the importance of this networking concept.

Leonard Kleinrock at MIT published the first paper on packet switching
theory in July 1961 and the first book on the subject in 1964.
Kleinrock convinced Roberts of the theoretical feasibility of
communications using packets rather than circuits, which was a major
step along the path towards computer networking. The other key step
was to make the computers talk together. To explore this, in 1965
working with Thomas Merrill, Roberts connected the TX-2 computer in
Mass. to the Q-32 in California with a low speed dial-up telephone
line creating the first (however small) wide-area computer network
ever built. The result of this experiment was the realization that the
time-shared computers could work well together, running programs and
retrieving data as necessary on the remote machine, but that the
circuit switched telephone system was totally inadequate for the job.
Kleinrock's conviction of the need for packet switching was confirmed.

*** End Quote ***

Trust me, there is LOTS more I could have posted, none of which
mentions Larry Roberts' name, but does mention the many other people
who had a hand in developing the internet. It was a group effort and
according to the information above, Larry Roberts wasn't the first to
begin it.

I doubt that you'd believe that Gore helped the development of the
internet along if God were to tell you it was true. So I'm done with
this. (sound of cheering and applause) Yes, sorry I dragged it out
so long.

Corky Scott

PS, so what are you building Sport Pilot?

[Sport Pilot]

Corky Scott wrote:
> On 2 Jun 2005 11:45:32 -0700, "Sport Pilot" > wrote:
>
> >This originated from Gore Campaign headquarters, I know because that is
> >where I first read it back in 2000! First it says that no one man
> >invented the internet, which is not true, Larry Roberts is credited for
> >inventing the internet!
>
> Lordy Sport Pilot, I weary of the chase. No, this did not originate
> from the Gore Campaign Headquarters, what I copied and pasted was
> written by two individuals who helped develop the internet.
>
> In addition, Larry you only have to google "History of the internet"
> to find that while Larry Roberts figured strongly in the initial
> development of the internet, he was not the only one. See below:
>
> *** Begin Quote ***
>
> Origins of the Internet
>
> The first recorded description of the social interactions that could
> be enabled through networking was a series of memos written by J.C.R.
> Licklider of MIT in August 1962 discussing his "Galactic Network"
> concept. He envisioned a globally interconnected set of computers
> through which everyone could quickly access data and programs from any
> site. In spirit, the concept was very much like the Internet of today.
> Licklider was the first head of the computer research program at
> DARPA, 4 starting in October 1962. While at DARPA he convinced his
> successors at DARPA, Ivan Sutherland, Bob Taylor, and MIT researcher
> Lawrence G. Roberts, of the importance of this networking concept.
>
> Leonard Kleinrock at MIT published the first paper on packet switching
> theory in July 1961 and the first book on the subject in 1964.
> Kleinrock convinced Roberts of the theoretical feasibility of
> communications using packets rather than circuits, which was a major
> step along the path towards computer networking. The other key step
> was to make the computers talk together. To explore this, in 1965
> working with Thomas Merrill, Roberts connected the TX-2 computer in
> Mass. to the Q-32 in California with a low speed dial-up telephone
> line creating the first (however small) wide-area computer network
> ever built. The result of this experiment was the realization that the
> time-shared computers could work well together, running programs and
> retrieving data as necessary on the remote machine, but that the
> circuit switched telephone system was totally inadequate for the job.
> Kleinrock's conviction of the need for packet switching was confirmed.
>
> *** End Quote ***
>
> Trust me, there is LOTS more I could have posted, none of which
> mentions Larry Roberts' name, but does mention the many other people
> who had a hand in developing the internet. It was a group effort and
> according to the information above, Larry Roberts wasn't the first to
> begin it.
>
> I doubt that you'd believe that Gore helped the development of the
> internet along if God were to tell you it was true. So I'm done with
> this. (sound of cheering and applause) Yes, sorry I dragged it out
> so long.
>
> Corky Scott
>
> PS, so what are you building Sport Pilot

That is the second time at least part of this has been posted. So now
we are going in circles. I suggest we stop this circle and kill this
thread. PLONK

[Morgans]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote
>
> It's not my job to be usenet cop here, but it was the "clear
> subject" that bugged me. If not for that, I wouldn't have
> posted. I'll forgive the OT transgressions most of the time
> - we're all subject to topic drift and the desire to finish
> the discussion even where it has drifted.

Which is what he did, and made it very easy to see that it was off topic, to
not draw people in that were looking for on topic posts.

How cool is that? Very, because anyone that wishes to ignore off topic
posts can filter by using OT as the key word. It sounds like this is
something you should consider. (very strongly urge)

So in conclusion, give it a break!
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

Corky Scott wrote:

> Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on
> his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I
> took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some
> people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the
> Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while
> serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and
> beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the
> matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long
> before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our
> perspective.

> So it appears that Gore championed the internet, going against the
> tide at the time. His statement "I initiated the creation of the
> internet" would seem to be based in fact, since he was the lone
> supporter in it's early stages. This is why he's being given the
> award mentioned in some of the posts.
>
> Corky Scott

So, Corky, do you know see why I also put "invented" in quotes or does
it still escape you?


Matt

[Vaughn]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> To be merciful, I've changed the subject heading so that those who
> don't care to read any more about this subject can simply delete it or
> skip over without opening it.

I can't believe this! That election is over and another has happened since
then.

Let's talk about airplanes.

Vaughn (a guy who has never voted for "W")

[Rich S.]

"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> Vaughn (a guy who has never voted for "W")

That's what YOU think! Hahahahahahaha. . .

Rich S.

[Rob Cherney]

On 2 Jun 2005 11:45:32 -0700, "Sport Pilot" > wrote:

>Show me be bills Gore supposedly wrote! It says "Gore secured the
>passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in
>1991."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d102:SN00272:|TOM:/bss/d102query.html|

Enjoy the reading.


Rob-
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Cherney e-mail: rcherney(at)comcast(dot)net

[Jerry Springer]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote:
>
>
>>Which is what he did, and made it very easy to see that it was off topic, to
>>not draw people in that were looking for on topic posts.
>
>
> No one should have to filter out off topic posts. They are
> supposed to be filtered out by the usenet charter for the
> group.
>
>
>>How cool is that? Very, because anyone that wishes to ignore off topic
>>posts can filter by using OT as the key word. It sounds like this is
>>something you should consider. (very strongly urge)
>
>
> You are way off base in suggesting that it's OK to post OT
> in a group. It's not. It's a violation of the terms of
> service of the ISP used to access the group.
>
>
> T o d d P a t t i s t
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
> ___
> Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
> Share what you learn.

Give it up, there is not a non moderated newsgroup out there that
does not have OT content. You with your arguing about it contribute
to it just like any other post. Where does the charter say if someone
posts OT content someone else should jump in and argue with the people
posting OT content? :-)You should know that RAH has always
had many OT discussions. Pilots are a very diverse opinionated group
of people. IMO Al Gore said just exactly what he meant to say and
said it in just a way to leave the impression that he created the
internet.

Jerry

[Sport Pilot]

Rob Cherney wrote:
> On 2 Jun 2005 11:45:32 -0700, "Sport Pilot" > wrote:
>
> >Show me be bills Gore supposedly wrote! It says "Gore secured the
> >passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in
> >1991."
>
> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d102:SN00272:|TOM:/bss/d102query.html|
>
> Enjoy the reading.
>
>
> Rob-
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Robert Cherney e-mail: rcherney(at)comcast(dot)net

Reading the bill only proves my point. This is not about the internet,
this is only about computer and network use in the government. In 1991
the internet was in commercial use, without Gore's help.

[[email protected]]

Morgans wrote:
>
>
> How cool is that? Very, because anyone that wishes to ignore off topic
> posts can filter by using OT as the key word.

Nonsense.

No filter rule will do that using the interface through which
I read and post. I see no reason why I should use inferior software
to mitigate someone else's decision to abrogate netiiquette.

--

FF

[Montblack]

wrote)
> No filter rule will do that using the interface through which
> I read and post. I see no reason why I should use inferior software
> to mitigate someone else's decision to abrogate netiiquette.


"...mitigate someone else's decision to abrogate netiiquette." - I liked
this <g>.

What's that grammer term when phrasing rolls off the tounge? Dances on the
ear?


(OT thread)
I've got a number of (inferior) options :-)

Skim each posts quickly.
Don't read the thread when I see it.
Filter the thread.
Killfile the posters - I let them out of jail after about a month
Open first post and <click> Mark Conversation as Read <g>
Let the boys blow off some steam, and simply walk around?
I'm sure there's more ....

Sometimes (???), with hangar flying, people adopt a Terrier-on-a-pant-cuff
sensibility with their postings. I figure oh well, and head off to read why
turbines won't work with PPC trikes, instead.

(My newsreader)
I use M$ IE OE 6.0 for newsgroups. I delete all posts a couple of times per
day. I like 30 fresh posts to read, then they're gone. I do not like 200,
300, 400, 500 posts in my preview window. Too overwhelming - even if I've
read half of them.

(Newsgroup/Properties/Local File/Delete) I'll go to Google/Groups if I need
to pull something deleted back up.


Montblack

[Rob Cherney]

On 3 Jun 2005 10:26:36 -0700, "Sport Pilot" > wrote:

>Reading the bill only proves my point. This is not about the internet,
>this is only about computer and network use in the government.

Not exactly. While the bill was geared toward a research and
education network, there were specific requirements regarding
commercialization.

> In 1991 the internet was in commercial use, without Gore's help.

True enough.

But on the other hand, Gore can be credited with giving the technology
the visibility in Congress that it deserved--right at the point in
time where there was critical mass. We won't ever know fast or slow
the technolgoy would have developed without his efforts.

To quote a former high-profile senator who was there at the time:

"In all fairness, it's something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore
is not the father of the Internet, but in all fairness Gore is the
person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure
that we got to an Internet. And the truth is--and I worked with him
starting in 1978 when I got there--we were both part of a 'futures
group.' The fact is, in the Clinton administration the world we had
talked about in the '80s began to actually happen. You can see it in
your own life, between the Internet, the computer, the cellphone."

That senator was Newt Gingrich.

That's it for me and this subject. I need to get back to refinishing
a prop.

Rob-
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Cherney e-mail: rcherney(at)comcast(dot)net

[[email protected]]

Rob Cherney wrote:
> ...
> That senator was Newt Gingrich.


Great story but Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House.

--

FF

[Bob Kuykendall]

> Great story but Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House

Well, sort of. He had already retired from his post as Speaker at the
time of the 1 September 2000 CSPAN broadcast of an American Political
Science Association colloquium where he delivered these remarks:

: In all fairness, it's something Gore had worked
: on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the
: Internet, but in all fairness Gore is the person
: who, in the Congress, most systematically
: worked to make sure that we got to an Internet.

[Morgans]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote
>
> No one should have to filter out off topic posts. They are
> supposed to be filtered out by the usenet charter for the
> group.

OK, now get back to reality.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

T o d d P a t t i s t >
:

> Jerry Springer > wrote:
>
>>Give it up, there is not a non moderated newsgroup out there that
>>does not have OT content.
>
> Agreed, and I'd never have posted if the thread hadn't been
> so blatantly labeled as being noncompliant
>
>>You with your arguing about it contribute
>>to it just like any other post.
>
> No, its on-topic to discuss the rules of the newsgroup.
>
>>Where does the charter say if someone
>>posts OT content someone else should jump in and argue with the people
>>posting OT content? :-)
>
> It doesn't. It says what subject matter is allowed. ISP's
> are required to use terms of service that require their
> members to comply with the charter.


, no they aren't..

Anyone unhappy with
> consistent repeated violations of the TOS can complain and
> the ISP should then act.

Try komplaining to mine, sunshine...


Bertie

[Rob Cherney]

On 3 Jun 2005 18:51:56 -0700, wrote:
>
>Great story but Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House.

Thanks for keeping me honest. I should have known that and I stand
corrected.

Rob-
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Cherney e-mail: rcherney(at)comcast(dot)net

[Bertie the Bunyip]

T o d d P a t t i s t >
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
>>> It doesn't. It says what subject matter is allowed. ISP's
>>> are required to use terms of service that require their
>>> members to comply with the charter.
>>
>>
>>, no they aren't..
>
> If they don't, and the members from that ISP repeatedly
> violate the charters of usenet, then access to the group is
> cut off.
>

Nope.


>>Try komplaining to mine, sunshine...
>
> I have no plan to do so. This is a gentle reminder, even if
> you plan to ignore your responsibilities.

My responsibility is to behave ccording to the user's agreement of my
provider.

Period.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Richard Riley >
:

> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 08:42:41 -0400, T o d d P a t t i s t
> > wrote:
>
>:Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>:
>:
>:>> It doesn't. It says what subject matter is allowed. ISP's
>:>> are required to use terms of service that require their
>:>> members to comply with the charter.
>:>
>:>
>:>, no they aren't..
>:
>:If they don't, and the members from that ISP repeatedly
>:violate the charters of usenet, then access to the group is
>:cut off.
>
> Todd, after some of the wars that have run through the various Rec.Av
> groups, your claim is - well, quaint. Amusing. Charming. Like a 4
> year old girl explaining to the mailman that kissing a boo-boo makes
> it better. And while somewhere on paper it may be correct, here in
> the real world it's about as true as Ptolemy. You can cite charters -
> we've dealt with lawsuits.
>:
>:>Try komplaining to mine, sunshine...
>:
>:I have no plan to do so. This is a gentle reminder, even if
>:you plan to ignore your responsibilities.
>
> Some ISP somewhere might yank your access for being off topic. Maybe.
> But I doubt it. Alt.net - where Bertie is posting from - most
> certainly won't, that's one of the reasons they exist.


God bless 'em. Sniff!


Mine - the
> cursed Adelphia at the moment - won't. Google won't. AOL won't.
> They might if you were genuinely spamming the usenet - but spam on
> usenet is pretty much suppressed technically these days.


I'm tempted to introduce him to some... interesting people, but I haven't
the time. I gotta go make a wing.



Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>
> My responsibility is to behave ccording to the user's agreement of my
> provider.
>
> Period.

Your right and Google could construe this paragraph in a way that they could
cut you off.

"
a.. interfere with or disrupt the Service or servers or networks connected
to the Service, or disobey any requirements, procedures, policies or
regulations of networks connected to the Service;
"

Not that they will. Gone are the days that providers gave a crap about
USENET.

As as example I was having problems with my providers USENET feed a week or
so ago. I had to go through 4 customer service people before I found one
that even knew they had USENET server even after I gave them the name and
IP address of the server.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet>
sednews:qx_oe.25803$DC2.25072@okepread01:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>
>> My responsibility is to behave ccording to the user's agreement of my
>> provider.
>>
>> Period.
>
> Your right and Google could construe this paragraph in a way that they
> could cut you off.

Google could try!


>
> "
> a.. interfere with or disrupt the Service or servers or networks
> connected to the Service, or disobey any requirements, procedures,
> policies or regulations of networks connected to the Service;
> "
>
> Not that they will. Gone are the days that providers gave a crap about
> USENET.

those were the days. Sigh.
>
> As as example I was having problems with my providers USENET feed a
> week or so ago. I had to go through 4 customer service people before I
> found one that even knew they had USENET server even after I gave
> them the name and IP address of the server.
>
He he. Yeah. I think most people only have contact with each pther through
Ebay nowadays.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

T o d d P a t t i s t >
:

> Richard Riley > wrote:
>
>>Todd, after some of the wars that have run through the various Rec.Av
>>groups, your claim is - well, quaint. Amusing. Charming. Like a 4
>>year old girl explaining to the mailman that kissing a boo-boo makes
>>it better. And while somewhere on paper it may be correct, here in
>>the real world it's about as true as Ptolemy. You can cite charters -
>>we've dealt with lawsuits.
>
> Lawsuits - so what? All I'm pointing to is the rules. It
> would be nice if people abide by them.

That's the point, the rules are only what the consensus of providers say
they are. and that's not written in stone anywhere..



Bertie

[[email protected]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> ...
>
> That's the point, the rules are only what the consensus of providers say
> they are. and that's not written in stone anywhere..
>

Consensus of users, not providers. UseNet has a defined process
whereby users vote to establish groups.

--

FF

[Robert Bonomi]

In article . com>,
> wrote:
>
>
>Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> That's the point, the rules are only what the consensus of providers say
>> they are. and that's not written in stone anywhere..
>>
>
>Consensus of users, not providers. UseNet has a defined process
>whereby users vote to establish groups.

Fred, you should *know* better than to assert that.

That 'consensus of users' is meaningful *ONLY* because there is a consensus
of providers to listen to the opinions of the users when expressed that way..

Nothing _requires_ that they do so.

*LOTS* of stuff happens _without_ going through that process, either.
e.g. the _entire_ "microsoft.*" hierarchy.

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >,
Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>T o d d P a t t i s t >
:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> It doesn't. It says what subject matter is allowed. ISP's
>>>> are required to use terms of service that require their
>>>> members to comply with the charter.
>>>
>>>
>>>, no they aren't..
>>
>> If they don't, and the members from that ISP repeatedly
>> violate the charters of usenet, then access to the group is
>> cut off.
>>
>
>Nope.
>

Yup. *LOTS* of places drop _everything_ from alt.net on the floor for
that precise reason.

>>>Try komplaining to mine, sunshine...
>>
>> I have no plan to do so. This is a gentle reminder, even if
>> you plan to ignore your responsibilities.
>
>My responsibility is to behave ccording to the user's agreement of my
>provider.

That is the extent of your _legal_ responsibility, yes.

"moral" responsibility extends to include recognizing that _other_people_
make their resourses available to you "at no cost" on the expectation that
you will use those resources _only_ for the intended purposes.

Alt.net, corporately, doesn't think that that "respect for other's property"
is important.

Alt.net users have rather spotty propogation of their postings as a result.

Everybody ends up happy.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

T o d d P a t t i s t >
:

> "karel" > wrote:
>
>>As I pointed out before, I never saw a charter for
>>this place news://rec.aviation.homebuilt
>>strange though I found that.
>
> It's not unusual for the charter for a usenet group to be
> lost, but to be formed in the first place required a charter
> and a vote. The charter for r.a.h came from the original
> charter for rec.aviation before it split.
>
>>Much stranger is it to find people like Todd Pattist
>>(who has appeared well-educated and polite)
>>referring to "rules" unsubstantiated
>
> The rules of all usenet forums include a requirement that
> people stay on-topic and not post commercial messages
> unless the charter specifically permits such.
>
>>Most forums I follow have a charter, posted weekly,
>>ut I never saw such a thing round here
>
> That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, nor does it mean you can
> post commercial messages, nor post off-topic. I agree we
> can dispute what on-topic means in the absence of research
> to find the lost charter, but Gore's claims or non-claims
> relative to the Internet are not going to be on-topic. under
> rec.aviation's old charter or r.a.h's split off charter.
>
>>And do not believe providers can impose rules.
>
> They can't. They can only be required to restrict their own
> customers and they can only be cut off from access to usenet
> if they fail to do so.

Bull****. Mine will alllow m to post anything I want here, including
binaries and "the Cabal" won't touch them for it.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

egroups.com:

>
>
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> That's the point, the rules are only what the consensus of providers say
>> they are. and that's not written in stone anywhere..
>>
>
> Consensus of users, not providers. UseNet has a defined process
> whereby users vote to establish groups.

Really..

Do tell them that over at nanau. Do.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

(Robert Bonomi)
:

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>T o d d P a t t i s t >
:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> It doesn't. It says what subject matter is allowed. ISP's
>>>>> are required to use terms of service that require their
>>>>> members to comply with the charter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>, no they aren't..
>>>
>>> If they don't, and the members from that ISP repeatedly
>>> violate the charters of usenet, then access to the group is
>>> cut off.
>>>
>>
>>Nope.
>>
>
> Yup. *LOTS* of places drop _everything_ from alt.net on the floor for
> that precise reason.
>
>>>>Try komplaining to mine, sunshine...
>>>
>>> I have no plan to do so. This is a gentle reminder, even if
>>> you plan to ignore your responsibilities.
>>
>>My responsibility is to behave ccording to the user's agreement of my
>>provider.
>
> That is the extent of your _legal_ responsibility, yes.
>
> "moral" responsibility extends to include recognizing that
> _other_people_ make their resourses available to you "at no cost" on
> the expectation that you will use those resources _only_ for the
> intended purposes.

Yes, obviously. And I adhere to that religiously. Even to the point of
feeling slightly guilty about continuing this thread.
This is one of the few truly useful groups on usenet, but that's because
it's participants aren't a bunch of whiney netkkops, amongst other reasons!

>
> Alt.net, corporately, doesn't think that that "respect for other's
> property" is important.

Actually, they do.

>
> Alt.net users have rather spotty propogation of their postings as a
> result.

No, they don't. I can post to any newsgroup form this or any of the other
providers i use.

>
> Everybody ends up happy.

I know I am!


Bertie
>
>

[[email protected]]

Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article . com>,
>
> ...
>
> That 'consensus of users' is meaningful *ONLY* because there is a consensus
> of providers to listen to the opinions of the users when expressed that way..
>
> Nothing _requires_ that they do so.
>

Good point.

--

FF

"It's good to be the System Administrator, but it is better to
sit next to him."

[alexy]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>T o d d P a t t i s t >

>> They can't. They can only be required to restrict their own
>> customers and they can only be cut off from access to usenet
>> if they fail to do so.
>
>Bull****. Mine will alllow m to post anything I want here, including
>binaries and "the Cabal" won't touch them for it.

Reread what Todd said. The fact of what your ISP will likely do in no
way contradicts his statement. He is talking about what CAN happen in
theory, and you are talking about what most likely WILL happen in
practice.

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >,
Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
(Robert Bonomi)
:
>
>> Yup. *LOTS* of places drop _everything_ from alt.net on the floor for
>> that precise reason.
>>
[[.. munch ..]]
>>
>> Alt.net, corporately, doesn't think that that "respect for other's
>> property" is important.
>
>Actually, they do.
>
>>
>> Alt.net users have rather spotty propogation of their postings as a
>> result.
>
>No, they don't. I can post to any newsgroup form this or any of the other
>providers i use.

You know not that of which you speak.

Yes, you can post anything from alt.net.

No, anything you post _from_ alt.net does not get "everywhere".

Several major news-servers do drop *everything* originating from alt.net on
the floor. For users on those systems, "alt.net" simply does not exist.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

alexy >
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>T o d d P a t t i s t >
>
>>> They can't. They can only be required to restrict their own
>>> customers and they can only be cut off from access to usenet
>>> if they fail to do so.
>>
>>Bull****. Mine will alllow m to post anything I want here, including
>>binaries and "the Cabal" won't touch them for it.
>
> Reread what Todd said. The fact of what your ISP will likely do in no
> way contradicts his statement. He is talking about what CAN happen in
> theory, and you are talking about what most likely WILL happen in
> practice.

No, I'm talking about what can happen in theory. Believe me, it's been
tried.

Try looking up my handle and "New Zealand Herald", for instance. After this
was published, the NZ gov't actually tried to get Altopia to give me up.
Result? I still have that selfsame account and a half dozen others.

Todd is talking out of his ass.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

T o d d P a t t i s t >
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>Yes, obviously. And I adhere to that religiously. Even to the point of
>>feeling slightly guilty about continuing this thread.
>
> Then my point has been made.

Well, only of you pare it down to my good sense and morals.


But as to the rest, you're full of ****.


Bertie
>
> T o d d P a t t i s t
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
> ___
> Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
> Share what you learn.
>

[Bertie the Bunyip]

(Robert Bonomi)
:

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
(Robert Bonomi)
:
>>
>>> Yup. *LOTS* of places drop _everything_ from alt.net on the floor
>>> for that precise reason.
>>>
> [[.. munch ..]]
>>>
>>> Alt.net, corporately, doesn't think that that "respect for other's
>>> property" is important.
>>
>>Actually, they do.
>>
>>>
>>> Alt.net users have rather spotty propogation of their postings as a
>>> result.
>>
>>No, they don't. I can post to any newsgroup form this or any of the
>>other providers i use.
>
> You know not that of which you speak.
>
> Yes, you can post anything from alt.net.
>
> No, anything you post _from_ alt.net does not get "everywhere".




> Several major news-servers do drop *everything* originating from
> alt.net on the floor. For users on those systems, "alt.net" simply
> does not exist.

Bwawhhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahh!





Bertie
>

[Rich Ahrens]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, obviously. And I adhere to that religiously. Even to the point of
>>feeling slightly guilty about continuing this thread.
>
>
> Then my point has been made.

But evidently not to yourself, as you continue your off-topic
metadiscussion here. You didn't even have the courtesy to revise the
subject to reflect your hijack of the thread to netkopping.

[alexy]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>alexy >
:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>>>T o d d P a t t i s t >
>>
>>>> They can't. They can only be required to restrict their own
>>>> customers and they can only be cut off from access to usenet
>>>> if they fail to do so.
>>>
>>>Bull****. Mine will alllow m to post anything I want here, including
>>>binaries and "the Cabal" won't touch them for it.
>>
>> Reread what Todd said. The fact of what your ISP will likely do in no
>> way contradicts his statement. He is talking about what CAN happen in
>> theory, and you are talking about what most likely WILL happen in
>> practice.
>
>No, I'm talking about what can happen in theory. Believe me, it's been
>tried.
>
>Try looking up my handle and "New Zealand Herald", for instance.
Wow. Sounds like a real class act. I'm impressed.

> After this
>was published, the NZ gov't actually tried to get Altopia to give me up.
>Result? I still have that selfsame account and a half dozen others.
Oh, I see. Your ISP did not give you up, so in theory, it can't
happen. I must have missed that day in logic class!

>Todd is talking out of his ass.
Or at least wasting bandwidth, since I seriously doubt that his
comments will change anyone's posting behavior.

>
>Bertie

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

[Rich Ahrens]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>
>>But evidently not to yourself, as you continue your off-topic
>>metadiscussion here.
>
> It's not off-topic. Discussion of the group and its rules
> is on-topic. Gore/politics are OT.

Says you. There are groups where such metadiscussion is specifically
off-topic by charter or moderation requires a META: in the subject line
of such discussion. Show me where in the charter of RAH it says that
playing netkopp is on topic.

>>You didn't even have the courtesy to revise the
>>subject to reflect your hijack of the thread to netkopping.
>
> The subject line states "Off topic" and I'm discussing that
> part of the subject line.

So what? It also says "read", so by your argument I could lead this off
into the weeds on a discussion of literacy and the subject line would
still be accurate. Nonsense. The subject line is clear to any reasonable
reader as focusing on Gore and the internet. You've hijacked it into a
netkopping thicket.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

alexy >
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>alexy >
:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>
>>>>T o d d P a t t i s t >
>>>
>>>>> They can't. They can only be required to restrict their own
>>>>> customers and they can only be cut off from access to usenet
>>>>> if they fail to do so.
>>>>
>>>>Bull****. Mine will alllow m to post anything I want here, including
>>>>binaries and "the Cabal" won't touch them for it.
>>>
>>> Reread what Todd said. The fact of what your ISP will likely do in no
>>> way contradicts his statement. He is talking about what CAN happen in
>>> theory, and you are talking about what most likely WILL happen in
>>> practice.
>>
>>No, I'm talking about what can happen in theory. Believe me, it's been
>>tried.
>>
>>Try looking up my handle and "New Zealand Herald", for instance.
> Wow. Sounds like a real class act. I'm impressed.

Thenkew

>
>> After this
>>was published, the NZ gov't actually tried to get Altopia to give me up.
>>Result? I still have that selfsame account and a half dozen others.
> Oh, I see. Your ISP did not give you up, so in theory, it can't
> happen. I must have missed that day in logic class!

Obviously you missed the reading class as well. Where, exactly, di I say it
couldn't happen?

Besides, that wasn't the point. It didn't happen, Altopia wasn't forced by
anyone to do so and altopia is not any more restricted in propogation that
AOL is.

Not even by NZ servers.


>
>>Todd is talking out of his ass.
> Or at least wasting bandwidth, since I seriously doubt that his
> comments will change anyone's posting behavior.
>

True

[Bertie the Bunyip]

T o d d P a t t i s t >
:

> alexy > wrote:
>
>>Or at least wasting bandwidth, since I seriously doubt that his
>>comments will change anyone's posting behavior.
>
> Actually, it's worked before to change posting behavior. Not
> a huge change, but a slight improvement - enough for me to
> notice. I'm not hair trigger on OT or commercial posting,
> but occasionally it goes far enough beyond the limits for me
> to decide it's worthwhile making a comment. Usually that
> happens when even the participants are feeling guilty, often
> signified by a thread title change.
>
> Surprisingly, in most of the groups I frequent (mostly
> rec.aviation) the people are pretty reasonable. Sometimes
> one of these comments is just enough to bring out some
> otherwise silent supporters.
>
> I think the last time I posted one of these messages was
> more than a year ago.
>

Good grief., A nancy Netiquitte with a purpose.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

T o d d P a t t i s t >
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>Well, only of you pare it down to my good sense and morals.
>
> That's enough for me.
>

apparenlty not.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

asdf

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Corky Scott wrote:
>
> > Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on
>
>> his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I
>> took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some
>> people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the
>> Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while
>> serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and
>> beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the
>> matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long
>> before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our
>> perspective.
>
>
>> So it appears that Gore championed the internet, going against the
>> tide at the time. His statement "I initiated the creation of the
>> internet" would seem to be based in fact, since he was the lone
>> supporter in it's early stages. This is why he's being given the
>> award mentioned in some of the posts.
>>
>> Corky Scott
>
>
> So, Corky, do you know see why I also put "invented" in quotes or does
> it still escape you?
>
>
> Matt