Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 463
Netizens-Digest Sunday, April 6 2003 Volume 01 : Number 463
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re[2]: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Re[2]: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
[netz] The year is 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 00:17:23 +0200
From: Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>
Subject: Re[2]: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
RH> In Switzerland there are those who are saying their government should
RH> be neutral which means not going along with what the US is doing.
Neutrality is just kind of alibi behavior. So, you can later say they
you were right. That means not to decide. That means to support
totalitarian states. Switzerland was always making BAD (and WRONG)
decisions. They kept stolen money from Jews in their banks and even
didn't want to freeze fascist accounts after the war.
RH> To criticize ones government is part of being a citizen.
Sure, but if one has it's own overview of the situation. And I am
afraid it's almost impossible to have overview in case of war on Iraq.
You know some facts about Saddam and his regime and you know facts
about US government, but you don't really know what's happening right
now. You watch war in real time, but it's so far, it's like another TV
show for hungry TV consumers. And actually, believe me, that most of
demonstration in Europe are taking place only because of
anti-Americanism of some Europeans. It's not about their stand against
the war, it's clearly about being anti-American (i.e. anti-US). And I
wouldn't be a least bit surprised that they hate all Americans with no
difference. Possible that they would hate you, too if they knew you.
BTW: That's the exactly same fundamentalism as Islamic one.
Fundamentalism sucks.
dan
- --------------------------
email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
ICQ: 17932727
*- world is like a banana, sweet & yellow -*
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 00:24:42 +0200
From: Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>
Subject: Re[2]: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
RH> And when I last looked, the editorial was *no* longer accessible online
RH> at the Times of India, though I don't know whether that was temporary
RH> or permanent.
This could be interesting as potential censorship, but not the
editorial itself as it's just another anti-war editorial... If I was
supposed to post those from European writers or actors or whoever,
Netizens list would be lost in so many views.
I agree with Howard that you can discuss war on Iraq in specific
forums or on specific mailing lists on this topic, but it's clearly
irrelevant to discuss it here. It doesn't have anything to do with
Netizens. And I am not a bit interested how they named their editorial
in India.
dan
- --------------------------
email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
ICQ: 17932727
*- "ye shall not rob from the house i have built" thief1 -*
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 13:59:07 -0400
From: Mark Lindeman <lindeman@bard.edu>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
>
>
>Hello Mark: You talk about renaming the list "co-dependents?" I thought our initial
>intention was to communicate in a respectful manner, but if you want a good example
>of co-dependency, read what you wrote in the last paragraph of your posting.
>Luis
>
Luis, if I'm not mistaken, that was precisely the point of the last
paragraph of my posting. If it was in any way disrespectful, I
certainly included myself in the disrespect.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 15:26:24 -0400
From: Mark Lindeman <lindeman@bard.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Ronda,
This discussion is helpful for me, and maybe in a few more iterations I
will start to grasp exactly what you have in mind. I also have a query
for Howard:
>Michael saw the participation of people in extending access to those
>for whom such access was difficult, and the active participation of
>people in the issues of developing the Internet as part of being
>a netizen.
>
>He also wrote about the hope that the Internet would make it possible
>for people to be able to participate in and have power over the
>affairs that affected their lives because of the Internet.
>
This is a reasonable goal. But I don't see how you reason from it to
your perspective on the scope of the Netizens list (in part because I'm
still unclear on the latter). It seems to me that many things should be
legitimate concerns of netizens that are not necessarily fruitful topics
on this particular list. (As Howard said in response to one of your
later points, "It's important to discuss them. It is a complete
misunderstanding of the medium and the technology to say they all must
be discussed in the same place. ")
Larry and Howard, especially, contributed to some interesting
conversations about how the Internet could be used to enhance people's
political participation. And I certainly don't think that anything that
refers to the war in Iraq is automatically beyond the pale. I actually
agree with you that the Times of India editorial is of interest to the
list, although I can't agree with its implication that any netizen who
fails to oppose the war must have fallen prey to "mindless militarism"
and "chauvinism." I think we should actively resist any implications
that netizenship is isomorphic with a particular position on the war.
Indeed, active efforts to create a public space for disagreement with
each other, not only with our governments, are what I took to be a core
of the netizen project. Although I don't believe we should fully air
_all_ those disagreements here, I don't think we should suppress them.
I think we should acknowledge them and focus on other issues about the
Net itself.
So, if I posted an article about how netizens should unite to "end the
killing of unborn babies around the world," or to "defend and extend
reproductive choice around the world," I'd probably be at pains to point
out that while list members might disagree about the political issue,
there was something that I considered especially interesting or
discussion-worthy about the proposed use of the Net. That is actually
pretty much what you, Ronda, did when you posted the Times of India
editorial -- although under the circumstances, I wish you had done more
to say in effect, "Look, this isn't just another anti-war message."
>It is interesting that in NYC at least, and in general as far as
>I see in the US, there are very few online discussion forums that
>support broad ranging discussion on the build up to the war and the
>war itself. There are a few, but there is also fear I have seen
>expressed of people feeling they can express their true feelings
>online given the repression that is carried out against others
>by the governments in question.
>
>This too is of concern to netizens and the netizens list.
>
If there is an absence of forums for broad discussion of the war, that
probably _is_ of interest to the netizens list -- certainly if some of
us believe that the absence owes to fear of government reprisals. It
doesn't mean, to me, that this list has to become that forum for broad
discussion of the war. Is this distinction reasonable to you?
Certainly my e-mail traffic indicates that many people are using the net
for political discussion of the war. And I've seen various on-line
forums that seem to have some real debate.
>At the time, 10 years ago, 1992-3, there was the plan to privatize
>the US portion of the Internet. A number of those who wrote Michael
>opposed the US government privatizing the NSF net.
>
>There are other chapters in Netizens about the role of the Net in
>influencing how the press functions, the role of the Net in
>influencing how government makes policy.
>
>These are part of the concept that was being developed.
>
>I think this is a broader focus than the one you propose.
>
>Do you agree or not?
>
Howard replied, "No. From thirty years of experience in lists/online
forums, it's too broad a subject for meaningful discussion on a single
list." I think the "no" means yes, he agrees that this focus is broader
than the one he proposes -- and no, he doesn't support your proposal (if
I may call it that).
However, Howard has contributed to discussions on the role of the Net in
influencing how the press functions, and (as I mentioned above) on the
role of the Net in influencing how government makes policy. It's not
clear to me whether he really thinks that those discussions, too, are
too broad for the list. His desire to exclude specific debate about the
merits of the war is clearer to me. But Howard may be arguing, in
effect, that the appropriate domain of the netizens list is the Net
itself (more specifically, the "Guard" role he described, which does
seem to exclude these discussions) -- which is plausible, although I
find your proposal equally plausible.
(The topic of privatizing the NSF net, whatever else we make of it, does
seem to be an appropriate topic of discussion even on a rather narrow
view of the list's scope. Howard, do you agree with me there?)
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 16:21:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Mark - was the conference you attended of interest?
On Sun, 6 Apr 2003, Mark Lindeman wrote:
> Ronda,
>
> This discussion is helpful for me, and maybe in a few more iterations I
> will start to grasp exactly what you have in mind. I also have a query
> for Howard:
>
> >Michael saw the participation of people in extending access to those
> >for whom such access was difficult, and the active participation of
> >people in the issues of developing the Internet as part of being
> >a netizen.
> >
> >He also wrote about the hope that the Internet would make it possible
> >for people to be able to participate in and have power over the
> >affairs that affected their lives because of the Internet.
> >
> This is a reasonable goal. But I don't see how you reason from it to
> your perspective on the scope of the Netizens list (in part because I'm
> still unclear on the latter). It seems to me that many things should be
> legitimate concerns of netizens that are not necessarily fruitful topics
> on this particular list. (As Howard said in response to one of your
> later points, "It's important to discuss them. It is a complete
> misunderstanding of the medium and the technology to say they all must
> be discussed in the same place. ")
What is the scope of the discussion that you are saying is inappropriate
for the Netizens list?
>
> Larry and Howard, especially, contributed to some interesting
> conversations about how the Internet could be used to enhance people's
> political participation. And I certainly don't think that anything that
> refers to the war in Iraq is automatically beyond the pale. I actually
> agree with you that the Times of India editorial is of interest to the
> list, although I can't agree with its implication that any netizen who
> fails to oppose the war must have fallen prey to "mindless militarism"
> and "chauvinism." I think we should actively resist any implications
> that netizenship is isomorphic with a particular position on the war.
> Indeed, active efforts to create a public space for disagreement with
> each other, not only with our governments, are what I took to be a core
> of the netizen project. Although I don't believe we should fully air
> _all_ those disagreements here, I don't think we should suppress them.
> I think we should acknowledge them and focus on other issues about the
> Net itself.
I am glad you find the article from the Times of India of interest.
It was called "Netizens Unite" and asked that there be online discussion.
That was in some way an interesting prototype, with its problems,
of some of what Michael and I have found special about the Internet.
People who were in favor of the war also posted to the online
forum at the Times of India. So it didn't insult people for their
views, but it did suggest that netizens have a broader viewpoint
than only what is good for certain national entities.
Why this is called insulting to anyone on the netizens list is
hard to comprehend.
(...)
>
> there was something that I considered especially interesting or
> discussion-worthy about the proposed use of the Net. That is actually
> pretty much what you, Ronda, did when you posted the Times of India
> editorial -- although under the circumstances, I wish you had done more
> to say in effect, "Look, this isn't just another anti-war message."
I appreciate your comments about this Mark.
However, there doesn't seem to be much regard for me or for my posts if
they are only labeled as "another anti-war message."
I would hope those on the list would recognize that and look at
what is the point of the post, and ask if they don't understand.
I shouldn't have to make excuses or be attacked for what I post.
I don't attack others.
The netizens list is not about attacking people for what they post
or censoring posts about "Netizens Unite".
I didn't post the article earlier because I didn't have the time
then to take up the attacks that it was clear would come.
But the article is significantly relevant to what Michael had
found regarding the role the Net was playing in the larger
society and for the users who wrote him.
We can talk about this. However, that is not possible if it
is labeled and dismissed.
The Netizens list is not for a McCarthyism type of response to
something that is challenging the U.S. government activity in
making war in Iraq.
It is serious enough that that is happening in the US at present.
Those promoting the war are encouraged and rewarded.
But the war is a problem both internally and externally in the US
and this is a serious question for netizens.
If there is the question on the netizens list of how to look at
this question, that could be constructive. But if there is
the effort to label those who raise the question as a problem,
then there is a serious form of censorship going on on the
netizens list.
>
> >It is interesting that in NYC at least, and in general as far as
> >I see in the US, there are very few online discussion forums that
> >support broad ranging discussion on the build up to the war and the
> >war itself. There are a few, but there is also fear I have seen
> >expressed of people feeling they can express their true feelings
> >online given the repression that is carried out against others
> >by the governments in question.
> >
> >This too is of concern to netizens and the netizens list.
> >
> If there is an absence of forums for broad discussion of the war, that
> probably _is_ of interest to the netizens list -- certainly if some of
> us believe that the absence owes to fear of government reprisals. It
> doesn't mean, to me, that this list has to become that forum for broad
> discussion of the war. Is this distinction reasonable to you?
>
I wasn't saying that the netizens list was where the discussion should
necessarily go on, but references to the discussion and articles
from the discussion that can be of interest to those on the list
are important.
However, the opposite has happened.
> Certainly my e-mail traffic indicates that many people are using the net
> for political discussion of the war. And I've seen various on-line
> forums that seem to have some real debate.
It would be good if you list some of these.
>
> >At the time, 10 years ago, 1992-3, there was the plan to privatize
> >the US portion of the Internet. A number of those who wrote Michael
> >opposed the US government privatizing the NSF net.
> >
> >There are other chapters in Netizens about the role of the Net in
> >influencing how the press functions, the role of the Net in
> >influencing how government makes policy.
> >
> >These are part of the concept that was being developed.
> >
> >I think this is a broader focus than the one you propose.
> >
> >Do you agree or not?
> >
> Howard replied, "No. From thirty years of experience in lists/online
> forums, it's too broad a subject for meaningful discussion on a single
> list." I think the "no" means yes, he agrees that this focus is broader
> than the one he proposes -- and no, he doesn't support your proposal (if
> I may call it that).
What is too braod a discussion?
The whole point of the development of the Net, from my study, is
that the broad focus on many early mailing lists, and on later
usenet newsgroups etc. was what helped to understand the particulars
of the issue that was important to identify.
If you limit discussion to a very narrow range, you lose the
ability to understand any difficult problem.
>
> However, Howard has contributed to discussions on the role of the Net in
> influencing how the press functions, and (as I mentioned above) on the
> role of the Net in influencing how government makes policy. It's not
> clear to me whether he really thinks that those discussions, too, are
> too broad for the list. His desire to exclude specific debate about the
> merits of the war is clearer to me. But Howard may be arguing, in
> effect, that the appropriate domain of the netizens list is the Net
> itself (more specifically, the "Guard" role he described, which does
> seem to exclude these discussions) -- which is plausible, although I
> find your proposal equally plausible.
But Howard's view of the list is not the view of the list that
Michael proposed.
I am currently reading the Macy Conferences on Cybernetics held
from 1942-1954 (around those years.)
They were interdisciplinary conferences including engineers,
scientists, psychologists, anthropologists, etc.
What they realized is that they had to recognize that people
from different disciplines had different languages and ways
of exploring a similar question.
I am glad Howard is interested in a list that is not merely a
technical list.
But then it is important not to restrict the list to the kinds
of concerns that technical lists are restricted to.
It is fine to suggest how the list could limit itself, but
also to hear from others and consider what they are saying
and ask.
That so far isn't happening.
>
> (The topic of privatizing the NSF net, whatever else we make of it, does
> seem to be an appropriate topic of discussion even on a rather narrow
> view of the list's scope. Howard, do you agree with me there?)
And the privatizing of the Internet's infrastructure now.
>
> Mark
>
>
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 17:26:56 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: [netz] The year is 2003
At 4:21 PM -0400 4/6/03, Ronda Hauben wrote:
>Mark - was the conference you attended of interest?
>
>
>On Sun, 6 Apr 2003, Mark Lindeman wrote:
>
>> Ronda,
>>
>> This discussion is helpful for me, and maybe in a few more iterations I
>> will start to grasp exactly what you have in mind. I also have a query
>> for Howard:
>>
>> >Michael saw the participation of people in extending access to those
>> >for whom such access was difficult, and the active participation of
>> >people in the issues of developing the Internet as part of being
>> >a netizen.
>> >
>> >He also wrote about the hope that the Internet would make it possible
>> >for people to be able to participate in and have power over the
>> >affairs that affected their lives because of the Internet.
>> >
>> This is a reasonable goal. But I don't see how you reason from it to
>> your perspective on the scope of the Netizens list (in part because I'm
>> still unclear on the latter). It seems to me that many things should be
>> legitimate concerns of netizens that are not necessarily fruitful topics
>> on this particular list. (As Howard said in response to one of your
>> later points, "It's important to discuss them. It is a complete
>> misunderstanding of the medium and the technology to say they all must
> > be discussed in the same place. ")
>
>
>>
>> Larry and Howard, especially, contributed to some interesting
>> conversations about how the Internet could be used to enhance people's
>> political participation. And I certainly don't think that anything that
>> refers to the war in Iraq is automatically beyond the pale. I actually
>> agree with you that the Times of India editorial is of interest to the
>> list, although I can't agree with its implication that any netizen who
>> fails to oppose the war must have fallen prey to "mindless militarism"
>> and "chauvinism."
>I think we should actively resist any implications
> > that netizenship is isomorphic with a particular position on the war.
And I must say that Ronda actively implies that only a particular
position on war is compatible with netizenship. While admittedly I
don't feel this is the place to discuss the war, I wouldn't feel
comfortable bringing up alternative views.
Part of the reason for that is that the focus on the war has been to
continue to talk about how indignant people are and how evil the
American government seems to be, but very little specific discussion
on how to affect change other than to continue to talk about
indignation and dissatisfaction.
> > Indeed, active efforts to create a public space for disagreement with
>> each other, not only with our governments, are what I took to be a core
>> of the netizen project. Although I don't believe we should fully air
>> _all_ those disagreements here, I don't think we should suppress them.
>> I think we should acknowledge them and focus on other issues about the
>> Net itself.
>
>
>I am glad you find the article from the Times of India of interest.
>
>It was called "Netizens Unite" and asked that there be online discussion.
>
>That was in some way an interesting prototype, with its problems,
>of some of what Michael and I have found special about the Internet.
>
>People who were in favor of the war also posted to the online
>forum at the Times of India. So it didn't insult people for their
>views, but it did suggest that netizens have a broader viewpoint
>than only what is good for certain national entities.
And I don't necessarily agree with that, in the absence of viable
supranational bodies. Literally on a daily basis, I cooperate with
people worldwide through the net. But I judge my actions in terms of
national interest, to which, of course, the interests of other
nations and nationals may contribute.
This isn't jingoistic unilateralism. It's a recognition that I don't
see any viable alternatives at present. I see the long-term role of
netizenship as helping create alternative mechanisms, rather than
raving on about how bad the US may or may not be.
>
>
>Why this is called insulting to anyone on the netizens list is
>hard to comprehend.
See above.
>
>(...)
>
>>
>> there was something that I considered especially interesting or
>> discussion-worthy about the proposed use of the Net. That is actually
>> pretty much what you, Ronda, did when you posted the Times of India
>> editorial -- although under the circumstances, I wish you had done more
>> to say in effect, "Look, this isn't just another anti-war message."
>
>I appreciate your comments about this Mark.
>
>However, there doesn't seem to be much regard for me or for my posts if
>they are only labeled as "another anti-war message."
>
>I would hope those on the list would recognize that and look at
>what is the point of the post, and ask if they don't understand.
I responded repeatedly with specific suggestions about how the Times
information might be made available for a longer term, and how that
information might feed into nongovernmental information sources. I
remember no comment of yours in response.
>
>I shouldn't have to make excuses or be attacked for what I post.
>
>I don't attack others.
As long as you equate netizen to your position, and imply that
disagreement about war somehow makes someone a non-netizen, it comes
across as an attack.
>
>The netizens list is not about attacking people for what they post
>or censoring posts about "Netizens Unite".
>
>
>
>But the war is a problem both internally and externally in the US
>and this is a serious question for netizens.
In my opinion, the war is no more or less a worldwide problem than
public health issues, than fourth world debt relief, than attacks on
the net, to the problems of intellectual property, to the balance
between pricvacy and accountability. Yet you only seem willing to
discuss the war. I have raised posts about every one of these issues
and you either seem to find a way to bring it back to the war, or not
participate in the discussion of these issues.
>
>If there is the question on the netizens list of how to look at
>this question, that could be constructive. But if there is
>the effort to label those who raise the question as a problem,
>then there is a serious form of censorship going on on the
>netizens list.
>
>>
>> >It is interesting that in NYC at least, and in general as far as
>> >I see in the US, there are very few online discussion forums that
>> >support broad ranging discussion on the build up to the war and the
>> >war itself. There are a few, but there is also fear I have seen
>> >expressed of people feeling they can express their true feelings
>> >online given the repression that is carried out against others
>> >by the governments in question.
>> >
>> >This too is of concern to netizens and the netizens list.
>> >
>> If there is an absence of forums for broad discussion of the war, that
>> probably _is_ of interest to the netizens list -- certainly if some of
>> us believe that the absence owes to fear of government reprisals. It
>> doesn't mean, to me, that this list has to become that forum for broad
> > discussion of the war. Is this distinction reasonable to you?
Then isn't it reasonable for the list to talk about how such forums
could be created? And whether there is credible evidence of
government reprisals? I've been quite explicit about my objections to
certain aspects of politicomilitary policy, and the Men in Black
haven't mentioned any concern.
> >
>
>I wasn't saying that the netizens list was where the discussion should
>necessarily go on, but references to the discussion and articles
>from the discussion that can be of interest to those on the list
>are important.
>
>However, the opposite has happened.
>
>> Certainly my e-mail traffic indicates that many people are using the net
>> for political discussion of the war. And I've seen various on-line
>> forums that seem to have some real debate.
>
>It would be good if you list some of these.
>
>>
>> >At the time, 10 years ago, 1992-3, there was the plan to privatize
>> >the US portion of the Internet. A number of those who wrote Michael
>> >opposed the US government privatizing the NSF net.
>> >
>> >There are other chapters in Netizens about the role of the Net in
>> >influencing how the press functions, the role of the Net in
> > >influencing how government makes policy.
>> >
>> >These are part of the concept that was being developed.
>> >
>> >I think this is a broader focus than the one you propose.
>> >
>> >Do you agree or not?
>> >
>> Howard replied, "No. From thirty years of experience in lists/online
>> forums, it's too broad a subject for meaningful discussion on a single
>> list." I think the "no" means yes, he agrees that this focus is broader
>> than the one he proposes -- and no, he doesn't support your proposal (if
>> I may call it that).
>
>What is too braod a discussion?
>
>The whole point of the development of the Net, from my study, is
>that the broad focus on many early mailing lists, and on later
>usenet newsgroups etc. was what helped to understand the particulars
>of the issue that was important to identify.
>
>If you limit discussion to a very narrow range, you lose the
>ability to understand any difficult problem.
No, Ronda. Trying to keep this technical, you seem to have great
difficulty in understanding that new forms of communication have
evolved, quite successfully, as the Net grew. Something that worked
well in a colonial town meeting doesn't necessarily scale to a major
industrialized representative democracy."
I participate daily in productive discussions of all manner of
technical and nontechnical discussions on the net. I simply don't
see many of the contemporary processes as broken.
I agree there is a need to broaden the scope to people with limited
access, but I also have to recognize the practical issues of
scalability.
>
>>
>> However, Howard has contributed to discussions on the role of the Net in
>> influencing how the press functions, and (as I mentioned above) on the
> > role of the Net in influencing how government makes policy. It's not
>> clear to me whether he really thinks that those discussions, too, are
> > too broad for the list.
Going back to my guard channel analogy, it's worth identifying the
issues, and either creating or referring to specific "committees"
that can come back with specific, implementable proposals.
>His desire to exclude specific debate about the
>> merits of the war is clearer to me. But Howard may be arguing, in
>> effect, that the appropriate domain of the netizens list is the Net
>> itself (more specifically, the "Guard" role he described, which does
>> seem to exclude these discussions) -- which is plausible, although I
>> find your proposal equally plausible.
>
>But Howard's view of the list is not the view of the list that
>Michael proposed.
>
>I am currently reading the Macy Conferences on Cybernetics held
>from 1942-1954 (around those years.)
>
>They were interdisciplinary conferences including engineers,
>scientists, psychologists, anthropologists, etc.
>
>What they realized is that they had to recognize that people
>from different disciplines had different languages and ways
>of exploring a similar question.
Yes. But I suggest you examine things not from 1942-1954, or
Licklider's work, and instead see what is working -- in, for example,
public health. With a contemporary set of successful techniques, one
can think of how to extend them to broader contexts, rather than
insisting that only the original methods are applicable -- at a time
when all the participants could sit in a small room (as in the
Network Working Group).
>
>I am glad Howard is interested in a list that is not merely a
>technical list.
>
>But then it is important not to restrict the list to the kinds
>of concerns that technical lists are restricted to.
>
>It is fine to suggest how the list could limit itself, but
>also to hear from others and consider what they are saying
>and ask.
>
>That so far isn't happening.
>
>>
>> (The topic of privatizing the NSF net, whatever else we make of it, does
>> seem to be an appropriate topic of discussion even on a rather narrow
>> view of the list's scope. Howard, do you agree with me there?)
I think so -- I'm just a little confused about what to say about a
relatively long-ago event.
>
>And the privatizing of the Internet's infrastructure now.
Certainly on topic when the terms of discussion are clear--a fine
starting place. If the net is not privatized, how is it funded?
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #463
******************************
