Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 314
Netizens-Digest Monday, July 5 1999 Volume 01 : Number 314
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Breaking the News
[netz] Re: Breaking the News
Re: [netz] Re: Breaking the News
Re: [netz] Re: Breaking the News
[netz] Lurker decloaks
[netz] Re: Breaking the News
Re: [netz] Re: Breaking the News
Re: [netz] Re: Breaking the News
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 01:39:39 +0200
From: Carsten Laekamp <carsten.laekamp@wanadoo.fr>
Subject: Re: [netz] Breaking the News
On Thu, Jul 01, 1999 at 04:39:25PM +0000, Kerry Miller wrote:
>
>
> > am sending this as well to John asking him *not* to post such
> > things on the Netizens list.
> >
>
> Can you distinguish between a sig and an ad? John posts lots of
> good stuff, but of course if one is commerce-minded, one calls
> them loss-leaders or come-ons for his newsletter, and his entire
> message is therefore spam.
Well, his sigs then often precede the "real" message. I was going
to complain too, this time, because I'm fed up with the thing series
of online courses, when I saw Ronda's message. It is really ironical
that the _Netizens_ list should constantly serve to promote private
business. I must say that I was never able to appreciate any good
stuff John may have sent because of that spam, which has got nothing
to do with a newsletter, which is in other parts of his messages,
as far as I can tell.
BTW: I didn't subscribe to his newsletter and am getting it anyway,
through this list. Guess that's spam too, whatever way you look at it.
- --
Carsten Läkamp
carsten.laekamp@wanadoo.fr
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 21:11:46 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Breaking the News
> It is really ironical
> that the _Netizens_ list should constantly serve to promote private
> business.
It s even more ironical that the list should have a hundred
subscribers who never say anything!
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 22:37:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Breaking the News
kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) writes:
karsten.laekamp@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>> It is really ironical
>> that the _Netizens_ list should constantly serve to promote private
>> business.
>It s even more ironical that the list should have a hundred
>subscribers who never say anything!
Kerry, the point is if it is inappropriate for Walker to post his
ads on the Netizens list, he shouldn't be posting them. Even
if no one complained. What's the point of counting the number
of complaints as a way of avoiding the issue, which is what
Karsten pointed out that Netizens mailing list was created for a
public purpose and Walker is using it to promote his private
interest.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 23:02:55
From: John Walker <jwalker@networx.on.ca>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Breaking the News
At 10:37 PM 7/4/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Kerry, the point is if it is inappropriate for Walker to post his
>ads on the Netizens list, he shouldn't be posting them. Even
>if no one complained. What's the point of counting the number
>of complaints as a way of avoiding the issue, which is what
>Karsten pointed out that Netizens mailing list was created for a
>public purpose and Walker is using it to promote his private
>interest.
>
>Ronda
>
>
In case anyone is wondering the count so far is about 3 to 1 for the
excerpts.
Karsten, if you were getting the newsletter itself you would certainly
know it. It's about 40 pages of information about the 'Net....per day.
Ronda, your post is.....interesting.
I will reply privately on one point.
On-line Learning Series of Courses
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker/course.htm
Member: Association for International Business
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ _/
_/ John S. Walker _/
_/ Publisher, CSS Internet News (tm) _/
_/ (Internet Training and Research) _/
_/ PO Box 57247, Jackson Stn., _/
_/ Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8P 4X1 _/
_/ Email jwalker@hwcn.org _/
_/ http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker _/
_/ _/
_/ "To Teach is to touch a life forever" _/
_/ On the Web one touch can reach so far! _/
_/ _/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 23:58:32 -0400
From: "Al Sessions" <cedar@telenet.net>
Subject: [netz] Lurker decloaks
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Kerry Miller <kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca>
To: <netizens@columbia.edu>
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 1999 5:11 PM
Subject: [netz] Re: Breaking the News
>
>
> > It is really ironical
> > that the _Netizens_ list should constantly serve to promote private
> > business.
>
> It s even more ironical that the list should have a hundred
> subscribers who never say anything!
Entirely true. I was sitting around contemplating a rant about about long
sigs. Long sigs which, in my unsolicited opinion, *are* most definately
spam. Then I realised that I have never made a contribution to this list.
Here it is...yes, its spam. Yes, if we don't like it we should make an
effort to change the topic. Its kinda lame to put this much effort into a
critique of someone elses posts, at least he posts.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 01:17:17 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Breaking the News
> the point is if it is inappropriate for Walker to post his
> ads on the Netizens list, he shouldn't be posting them. Even
> if no one complained. What's the point of counting the number
> of complaints as a way of avoiding the issue, which is what
> Karsten pointed out that Netizens mailing list was created for a
> public purpose and Walker is using it to promote his private
> interest.
>
My idea is that 'appropriate' is not an absolute value, but a
*relative one -- appropriate to what? If there is no context of other
mail, then the list is only an empty space in which *anything goes --
or (better, relativistically speaking) might as well go for all the
difference it makes.
Apart from the undeniable fact that its your list to turn on and off at
will, there is the question of how autocratic you choose to be, and
this will be a reflection of how autocratically you see the net
functioning as a whole. My impression is that you prefer to see the
net operating in a self-regulating ('autopoietic') manner; otherwise
wouldnt vetting each post for 'propriety' before it circulates to the
list be the *effective way to preserve the purpose of the list?
But the net in general and doubtless this list in particular has a
good many subscribers who do not know what is appropriate and
what is not -- and it is by watching to see what others do can we
learn. If you want usto learn to be autocrats and absolutists, by all
means, show us autocracy in action. If you want us to decide for
themselves what is 'proper' (literally, behaviour they can *own), then
it seems to me *the list has to let us learn by experimentation*.
Imo, this position has two compelling implications. One is that
experimentation has to occur; no one learns entirely vicariously
(despite the best book-learned propaganda). The net is not TV;
subscribers who prefer a blank screen to making even the most
tentative of contributions can be unsubscribed: what will they miss?
Two, your response to a post like John's is *at least* as informative
by its style as by its content. Okay, you dont think he should add
trailers for his newsletters to his every post; but is "DONT DO IT"
quite the same as "Apart from the forwarded articles, have you
thought that people here might be tired of your spam?"
So I'm not proposing that we count complaints; I'd much rather
count some real traffic. But failing that, I dont see why keeping
netizens pure but empty is better than its being busily/ businessly
corrupt, which provides us an opportunity for education. At least
JW is working at his self-realization; where is everybody else?
(Gloriously assumed, perhaps?)
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 08:46:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Breaking the News
>From owner-netizens@columbia.edu Sun Jul 4 23:28:09 1999
Received: from mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu (cu9478@mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.35.143])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id XAA04582
for <ronda@panix.com>; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 23:28:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA08420
for netizens-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 23:03:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from bee.bestnet.org (bee.bestnet.org [205.189.60.7])
by mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA08416
for <netizens@columbia.edu>; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 23:03:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lizard (os2user@localhost)
by bee.bestnet.org (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 2.01/1.0) with SMTP id XAB019.97
for <netizens@columbia.edu>; Sun, 4 Jul 1999 23:01:09 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19990704230255.49cf6850@networx.on.ca>
X-Sender: jwalker@networx.on.ca
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (16)
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 23:02:55
To: netizens@columbia.edu
From: John Walker <jwalker@networx.on.ca>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Breaking the News
In-Reply-To: <199907050237.WAA07778@panix3.panix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-netizens@columbia.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: netizens@columbia.edu
Status: R
From: John Walker <jwalker@networx.on.ca>
>
>>Kerry, the point is if it is inappropriate for Walker to post his
>>ads on the Netizens list, he shouldn't be posting them. Even
>>if no one complained. What's the point of counting the number
>>of complaints as a way of avoiding the issue, which is what
>>Karsten pointed out that Netizens mailing list was created for a
>>public purpose and Walker is using it to promote his private
>>interest.
>
>In case anyone is wondering the count so far is about 3 to 1 for the
>excerpts.
>Karsten, if you were getting the newsletter itself you would certainly
>know it. It's about 40 pages of information about the 'Net....per day.
The point is John that your excerpts carry your ads. That is the
point *not* that you are posting only excerpts.
Why don't you acknowledge the point. And the Netizens list is
not a place for ads for private business interests. With
your philosophy of using public facilities to promote your private
interests, we end up with no public facilities any longer.
That's what happening all over America today - I don't know how
wide spread the disease is in the rest of the world, but in
the U.S. it is rampant and the Netizens list was to be a place
to challenge the disease *not* to promote and spread it.
>Ronda, your post is.....interesting.
If that were true then you would public say what was interesting.
>I will reply privately on one point.
Its fine that you post publicly and that this discussion is held
publicly.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 09:37:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Breaking the News
>From owner-netizens@columbia.edu Mon Jul 5 00:20:38 1999
Received: from mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu (cu9478@mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.35.143])
by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id AAA07945
for <ronda@panix.com>; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 00:20:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id AAA15633
for netizens-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 00:15:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from jubilee.ns.sympatico.ca (jubilee.ns.sympatico.ca [142.177.1.6])
by mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA15615
for <netizens@columbia.edu>; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 00:15:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from LOCALNAME ([142.177.72.47]) by jubilee.ns.sympatico.ca
(Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO203-101c)
ID# 607-60695U69000L69000S0V35) with SMTP id AAA22957
for <netizens@columbia.edu>; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 01:15:51 -0300
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
To: netizens@columbia.edu
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 01:17:17 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: [netz] Re: Breaking the News
In-reply-to: <199907050237.WAA07778@panix3.panix.com>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v3.01d)
Message-ID: <19990705041550.AAA22957@LOCALNAME>
Sender: owner-netizens@columbia.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: netizens@columbia.edu
Status: R
kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) writes:
>> the point is if it is inappropriate for Walker to post his
>> ads on the Netizens list, he shouldn't be posting them. Even
>> if no one complained. What's the point of counting the number
>> of complaints as a way of avoiding the issue, which is what
>> Karsten pointed out that Netizens mailing list was created for a
>> public purpose and Walker is using it to promote his private
>> interest.
>
> My idea is that 'appropriate' is not an absolute value, but a
>*relative one -- appropriate to what? If there is no context of other
>mail, then the list is only an empty space in which *anything goes --
> or (better, relativistically speaking) might as well go for all the
>difference it makes.
Kerry this is hard for me to comprehend. I'm not talking about any
abstract post. I'm talking about John's Walker's periodical posting
to spread his ads and to do so with some kind of excerpts about
net goings on.
If he cares about net happenings he will do a newsletter about
net hapenings and he won't have his ads in it.
There all all sorts of business folks trying to figure out how
to use the Net to serve their businesses and that is not what
the Netizens list is for.
That is the essential issue here. It's not some abstract
question of what is "appropriate" and what is not.
It is that Is there someone posting ads on the Netizens list?
If so then that is a matter to be taken up and dealt with.
And one can find many ways to try to change the topic so as
to cover the fact that one isn't openly saying that one
is willing to welcome ads. The reason one isn't willing to
openly say it is because it is clear that that is *not* appropriate
on the Netizens list.
Kerry are you saying that ads for a business are appropriate
on the Netizens list?
If you are saying that, you should say it openly not by
subterfuge.
The same thing is happening with the creation by the U.S. government
of ICANN to take over control of essential functions of the Internet.
The U.S. governement folks doing it know it is against the law
and not the thing they can openly argue or do, so they are
doing it under all kinds of subterfuge.
c
>Apart from the undeniable fact that its your list to turn on and off at
>will, there is the question of how autocratic you choose to be, and
>this will be a reflection of how autocratically you see the net
No Kerry, this isn't the issue.
It isn't that those opposing the substitution of private interests
for public interests, that those opposing the spreading of ads
in the name of some public interest being served are autocratic.
Again what you are doing is subterfuge.
I spoke up. I didn't delete John Walkers ads.
I was acting as a Netizen on the Netizens list and you are claiming
that that is autocratic.
If that is the case, then you and I have a fundamentally different
understanding of citizenship, of netizenship and of the Netizens
list.
We don't post the Amateur Computerist on the Netizens list and the
Amateur Computerist doesn't have any ads. We post a notice
that it is available. And we don't post any ads for private business
interests when we post the notice that it is available.
I did early on post the Amateur Computerist online in a place
that it was appropriate to post it.
That place has been attacked by business interests and made useless.
I tried to fight it and gave up.
And I also saw why it is necessary to fight against what John
Walker is doing.
>>functioning as a whole. My impression is that you prefer to see the
>>net operating in a self-regulating ('autopoietic') manner; otherwise
>>wouldnt vetting each post for 'propriety' before it circulates to the
>>list be the *effective way to preserve the purpose of the list?
No I don't prefer to see the net operating in a self-regulating
"autopoietic" manner. It is clear to me that with business interests
waging their attack and with them having support from governments
and the press etc that that is not the current way that the
Internet can remain something that makes communciation among
peoples possible.
My study of the Internet shows that the voices of the grassroots have
to have protection on the Net to be able to participate and contribute.
And the U.S. government via IPTO under ARPA gave that protection
early on and the acceptable use policies gave that protection.
With the removal of the U.S. government protection for the grassroots
and the protection by government for business interests to take
over the Internet, the democratic grassroots processes become
impossible.
This is what ICANN shows - they have no interest in hearing from
the grassroots. They have no need for democratic input.
They are serving the vested interests.
ARPA and then IPTO were created to fight the vested interests.
>But the net in general and doubtless this list in particular has a
>good many subscribers who do not know what is appropriate and
>what is not -- and it is by watching to see what others do can we
>learn. If you want usto learn to be autocrats and absolutists, by all
I don't see others on the list who don't know what is appropriate.
I have been on lists that I don't choose to post to.
That is a choice and it doesn't say anything about one not knowing
what is appropriate to do.
So again Kerry you are changing the subject.
The subject I raised was that it was inappropriate for John
Walker to post ads to the Netizens list.
I raised that as a citizen of the Netizen list, as a Netizen.
If others want to discuss that issue that is fine. If they
don't want to discuss that issue that is fine.
And Kerry you are saying that I shouldn't be acting as a citizen
of the Net, as a Netizen.
That I should only be willing to ask for a discussion of others
on this issue.
I didn't ask for a discussion of others. I am not stopping a discussion
of others. But I as a Netizen have stated that it is not
appropriate for John Walker to post ads on the Netizens list.
Someone else posted that it isn't appropriate for John Walker
to be posting his newsletter (or newsletter excerpts on the Netizens
list).
This is appropriate to say. And it isn't a question of how
relative something appropriate is.
>means, show us autocracy in action. If you want us to decide for
>themselves what is 'proper' (literally, behaviour they can *own), then
>it seems to me *the list has to let us learn by experimentation*.
The Netizens list is not a place to make decisions about how
it is ok to post business ads.
If one wants a list to post business ads, one can figure out how
to find or create such a list.
>it seems to me *the list has to let us learn by experimentation*.
>Imo, this position has two compelling implications. One is that
>experimentation has to occur; no one learns entirely vicariously
>(despite the best book-learned propaganda). The net is not TV;
>subscribers who prefer a blank screen to making even the most
>tentative of contributions can be unsubscribed: what will they miss?
The experimentation that you speak of has happening on the Net.
But it has only happened when folks were willing to not allow
business ads and business interests to stop that experimentation.
The history of Usenet and of the Internet is that that experimentation
went on as long as business interests were not allowed to post
their ads. Once they were allowed to take over newsgruops with
their ads those newsgroups became useless.
Similarly the grassroots functions that have made it possible
for the Internet to grow and flourish grew up under a government
enforced acceptable use policy and people online also then
had some strength in fighting the business interests that
were trying to weedle their way past the acceptable use
policy.
If you really want such experimentation you will find a way
to stop the business interests who have now in general been
given a free hand and government protection and in the process
are destroying what is so precious and important about the Internet
and Usenet.
I know of people on Usenet who have fought the battles of Usenet
a long time and they are very frustrated now with what has
been happening. And the business interests are just finding
more and more ways to try to use Usenet to serve their business
interests.
>Two, your response to a post like John's is *at least* as informative
>by its style as by its content. Okay, you dont think he should add
>trailers for his newsletters to his every post; but is "DONT DO IT"
>quite the same as "Apart from the forwarded articles, have you
>thought that people here might be tired of your spam?"
I wasn't commenting about his trailers in my original post.
I was commenting about his posting his newsletter with his
ads on the Netizens list.
No Kerry I am not doing any spam. And your attack on me is making
me wonder why you are not willing to come out openly and say
you want ads on the Netizens list.
It's making me wonder why you have to beat round the bush.
But you won't openly say that you are in favor of ads for private
business interests being posted on the Netizens list.
So you don't think it is appropriate either.
But you are *not* willing to say so openly. Why?
Instead you are making a range of excuses.
Well I will say to John Walker again that I don't feel it is
appropriate to post his excerpts from his newsletter with his
ads on the Netizens list.
And I agree with Carsten that it isn't appropriate to post excerpts
from John Walker's newsletter on the Netizens list.
>So I'm not proposing that we count complaints; I'd much rather
>count some real traffic. But failing that, I dont see why keeping
>netizens pure but empty is better than its being busily/ businessly
>corrupt, which provides us an opportunity for education. At least
>JW is working at his self-realization; where is everybody else?
>(Gloriously assumed, perhaps?)
I welcome real traffic. But real traffic means many people commenting
on the issues, not ads.
So again I guess I was wrong above where I said that you weren't
openly saying ads were ok. You still aren't, but you are saying
now that if there isn't a lot of other conversation, ads
are ok.
So again you don't say that ads are ok, just when there isn't
a lot of other discussion that "ads are ok."
Well ads aren't ok when there is a lot of other discussion or
not a lot of other discussion.
And the Netizens list has played an important role in the current
ICANN battle even if there hasn't been a lot of traffic.
And the ICANN battle is a fitting topic for the Netizens list
as the Netizens list has made it possible to spread knowledge about
the effort of the U.S. government to give private interests
control over essential functions of the Internet.
John Horvath's article "Cone of Silence" grew out of the discussion
on the Netizens list about the need to spread knowledge of what
was happening. And my posts to the Netizens list about the ICANN
battle have helped to spread knowledge about what has been happening.
That is an appropriate function for the Netizens list, *not* a
spam, and *not* an ad.
But John Walker's newsletter posts and ads are *not* an appropriate
function and again if you felt they were you would be openly
and directly saying that rather than trying to cloath that in
other issues and by changing the subject.
So you don't feel they are appropriate either. But you are claiming
the Netizens list is where they should be allowed because maybe
that will educate people.
And I'm disagreeing. My study of the Internet and of Usenet say
what is needed are Netizens who speak up, even if their voice
is a lone voice, and that it has helped when that lone voice
against private business interests has had the protection of
government who used an iron hand to forbid private business
interests.
Private business interests have corrupted the public purpose
in many aspects of society today, and unless one recognizes
that they do not fight any fair battle, that they need to
be forbidden from the places where the public interest is
is being protected, then there is no space left for the public
interest.
>kerry
Ronda
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #314
******************************
