I don't really think this is the right place for this, either.

However, the context was the frustration over not being able to
gate a discussion list to USENET -- particularly since I purchased
the list specifically TO gate it to USENET.  So now we're faced
with two problems we did not think we would have to encounter --
we'll have to start out with the whole USENET voting process,
which leaves plenty of room for innuendo and politics; and the
other problem (the bigger one) is that the American U gateway is
dying.

In the context of diminishing access to resources, the person who
already has them can have a virtual monopoly.  One of the
questions that continually comes up is "why do you want another
usenet site when there are so many."  Part of the answer is that
they are all run by the same person.

It's an issue that I really don't want to have to go into.  I
would much rather say -- let him run his lists his way, and we'll
run ours our way (participatory democracy).  But we don't get the
opportunity to offer a comparable alternative.

In that context, this is problematic:

To put this all behind us, we need to be able to have our own
sites without having to deal with him at all.  He can go his way,
we can go ours.  But the only way to GET such a list is to
publicly demonstrate that HIS lists are not enough.  Which leads
inevitably to pretty unpleasant situations -- as you just saw
here.

Here is just one example:

In Roger's FAQs and his internet correspondence he will say that
he runs "moderated" sites.  And the powers-that-be that read that
will assume that he is talking about moderator(s) reading posts
before they are sent out.  No.  His sites are managed by
moderating AFTER the posts are sent out, which is normally called
"retro-moderating".  This distinction is important, because I am
trying to gate a moderated list that is moderated in the standard
sense of the term - that is, I am trying to offer a different
product.  By (perhaps unintentionally) misleading his audience as
to the nature of HIS lists, he makes it harder for me to provide
an alternative, because the Powers That Be respond, when I say "We
need a moderated list", with "but there are already moderated
lists on your subject."

I'm having enough trouble trying to get a USENET site without
having to deal with disinformation being spread and no way to
correct it.

As far as I am concerned, this can be the last word on the subject
and I'm sorry for taking your time.  But I had to respond to
things that were said that were just not correct.

The LARGER problem is one that all of us on Internet will have to
face at one point or another -- which is how to distribute access
to an increasingly scarce resource -- who does the distributing,
what are the standards, and how do you control for disinformation?

Thanks to L-Soft, I can offer a different kind of a product with
regard to discussion lists.  But I am blocked from doing the same
with a USENET site.  Those of you who think you don't need USENET
are apparently not dealing with the same set of constituents I am.

With the closing down of the American U site, it becomes even THAT
much harder to offer an alternative to an existing gated list.
The answer to the free-listsite monopoly was to pay for a listsite
-- and thank you L-Soft for offering reasonably priced, competent
sites.  Pity there isn't something similar for USENET.

It may eventually be a moot point as our constituents get
computers with better capabilities and can work off the WEB as
easily as they can read USENET.  Right now, though, it matters.

Mary Schweitzer
http://pw1.netcom.com/~schweit2/home.html