Early Usenet(1981-2) Creating the Broadsides for Our Day by Ronda Hauben rh120@columbia.edu ABSTRACT In his book The Rights of Man, Thomas Paine described how the democracy of 5th Century Athens created the governing structures that continue to be admired even in modern times. But Paine believed that modern nations had become too big to sustain such democracy. The creation of ARPANET mailing lists in the 1970's and of Usenet newsgroups in 1979 provide a modern means for the kind of democracy Paine admired. By overcoming the obstacle that size has hitherto represented for continuing the democratic traditions that Athens pioneered, this new technology makes such democracy possible once again. Drawing on an archive of posts from Usenet (1981-1982) which includes some posts from the ARPANET mailing lists, this paper describes how the early Usenet newsgroups and ARPANET mailing lists made it possible to argue out differing views, in particular, views of how technology can set a basis to improve life for people and create the needed new communication forms. This paper also documents how these new media made it possible for participants to work out the principles for the newly developing online community. Just as Paine described the need for discussion and debate to create the foundation for new democratic forms, the discussion and debate on these early Usenet newsgroups and ARPANET mailing lists created the foundation on which the new online democratic social forms could be built. ---------- "Democracy requires a vigorous exchange of ideas and opinions....Newspapers might have served as extensions of the town meeting. Instead they embraced a misguided ideal of objectivity and defined their goal as the circulation of reliable information--the kind of information, that is, that tends not to promote debate but to circumvent it." Christopher Lasch The Revolt of the Elites "Forms grow out of principles and operate to continue the principles they grow from." Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man "They've shown me clearly that electronic communication will change the shape of our world, and that we'll see its effects in our lifetime." (from 10 May 1981, Richard Brodie farewell, as the moderator of the sf-lovers list) I - Joining Usenet In August 1981, the message "Hello Usenet" was broadcast to the sites then on the Usenet network. With this introduction, the Department of Computer Engineering and Science at Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) in Cleveland, Ohio, joined the online network of computer sites that were exploring the potential of online communication. The introductory message proclaimed: "We would like to announce our connection to Usenet." After describing Case Western University and the computer facilities of the Computer Engineering and Science Department, the message explained that once the department got an autodialer modem, "We would be interested in increasing the number of nodes we communicate with, and would like to take a more active part in Usenet communication."(1) When CWRU connected to Usenet, there were already around 50 sites connected mainly via modems and telephone lines so computer users at those sites could share news and views with each other via this new form of computer facilitated communication. (2) Usenet was begun in the Fall of 1979 through the efforts of graduate students Tom Truscott and Jim Ellis at Duke University, in Durham, North Carolina, and Steve Bellovin, a graduate student at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. The original vision that gave birth to Usenet was of a computer network linking together computer users working with the Unix operating system at university and research sites. Unix was a programming environment created by research programmers in 1969 at Bell Labs. By the mid 1970s, university and research sites learned of this powerful computer programming environment and were able to get copies from Bell Labs to use at their sites. Unix, however, came with little documentation and no promise of technical support. Thus those getting copies of Unix had to figure out how to deal with the problems that developed as they worked to use it. During this period, a Unix users group with members at various academic and research sites developed that came to be called Usenix. By 1979 Usenix was having semi annual meetings to make it possible for users to share their problems and their accomplishments. The graduate students who created Usenet hoped that it would become an electronic newsletter linking the various Unix sites so they could maintain communication inbetween Usenix meetings. In the summer of 1980, a graduate student, Mark Horton, brought his site at the University of California in Berkeley onto Usenet. He began to send some of the discussion groups that were available as mailing lists on the ARPANET, onto Usenet. Through a gradual process, those on Usenet also began to be able to post and to contribute to these mailing lists. (3) In a post on Usenet dated January 20, 1982, Mark Horton lists the various sites on Usenet. (4) A large number of these sites were University computer science departments or computer centers. Others were various Bell Labs research sites around the U.S, or research departments of large computer related companies like Microsoft, Intel, Digitial Equipment Corporation, Tektronics, etc. During this early period, Usenet was distributed without charge by the cooperative efforts of those at the participating sites. Several posters on Usenet explained Usenet was considered as a form of network newsletter. There were different subject areas for discussion as part of a variety of topical online newsgroups. There were newsgroups to discuss Unix, like FA.unix- wizards, other computer related categories, like FA.micro, newsgroups about the Usenet network itself, like NET.news, NET.general, NET.misc. And there were newsgroups on a wide ranging set of other interests like NET.foods, NET.space, NET.rec.birds, etc. (Newsgroups also carried as mailing lists on the ARPANET were named FA.xxxxx for "From ARPANET", those on Usenet, were named NET.xxxx) Reviewing the posts on Usenet during this early period (1981-82) helps to identify the principles that shaped its early development. A post on Usenet from the early 1980's estimated that 80% of the traffic on Usenet was from ARPANET mailing lists. (5) Thus it will be helpful to look at some of the discussion on the ARPANET mailing lists made available on Usenet to see the foundation these discussions helped set for Usenet. II - FA.unix-wizards and the principles of Unix One of the most popular newsgroups on Usenet during this early period was the newsgroup FA.unix-wizards. This newsgroup was primarily distributed on the ARPANET as a mailing list (hence the prefix FA meaning from the ARPANET). The description of the mailing list explained: ARPANET mailing list for UNIX Wizards. Anything and everything relating to UNIX is discussed here. This list is gatewayed to the ARPANET mailing list but appears like a regular newsgroup to USENET. Since the Unix operating system represented a powerful and low cost programming environment, there was an incentive for Unix users in the academic or research world to utilize it. However, it was difficult to use Unix in isolation and there were great benefits to be gained from being part of a community of users who would help and support each other in solving the problems they encountered with Unix.(6) The Unix philosophy includes a set of principles that grew out of and nourished its development. These principles also proved important in the development of early Usenet. One of the fundamental principles on which Unix was built is the principle that one should not reinvent the wheel. If one person has created a program or software tool, it is important to share it with others so they do not have to repeat the same work themselves. Describing this principle, an early post on Usenet explained, "Hmm, another case of wheel re-invention I guess. I also have the requisite routines" the poster explained, to create a program to determine the time on the computer. (7) Another poster, noting that several such programs had been created, wrote, "I too would be interested to see the verdict on which routine is the best."(8) Often queries would be posted on Usenet asking others for information or advice. This would make it possible to build on other's experience. For example, one poster wrote, "does anybody know of an Arpanet (BBN-1822) interface for the Intel Multibus IEEE standard 796. We could always back up Ron Crane's old parallel port interface, but would prefer something already done on the slim chance that it happens to exist." (9) Hoping to work collaboratively with others who were interested, the poster continued, "It just occurred to me that a SUN workstation would make a dandy Arpanet Ethernet gateway. Is there anybody else out there in internet land who might want to share efforts." (10) A comment in the FA.unix-wizards newsgroup from Dennis Ritchie, one of the creators of Unix, noted that Unix owed many of its achievements to the fact it built on the work done at MIT to create the Compatible Time-Sharing System (CTSS). "The name 'rc' comes from RUNCOM, which was the rough equivalent on the MIT CTSS system of what Unix calls shell scripts. Of course RUNCOM derives from 'run commands.' Yet another piece of evidence for my thesis," Ritchie claimed, "that unix is a modern version of CTSS." (11) An article, "The Trouble with UNIX" by Donald A. Norman was published in the November 1981 issue of Datamation (12). The article presented Unix as being too difficult and frustrating for users. In response, several on the Unix Wizards mailing list on the ARPANET and on the FA.unix-wizards newsgroup on Usenet began a lively discussion of the problems and benefits of Unix. Among these responses was one that explained, "Well, you see what kind of stuff gets into Datamation. I don't understand these things; many of the criticisms are right, but the facts are categorically wrong! Unix could benefit from some `normalization'...but the claim that Unix does not present a simple set of principles is the most incomprehensible statement he could have made. That is ALL Unix does, and that is precisely why he (the author of the Datamation article-ed) doesn't like it!" (13) A poster went on to question why the author of the Datamation article used Unix if he found it such a problem. Another poster explained that though there were problems with Unix, it had proven valuable to many, including the secretaries at the Computer Science department of the University of Illinois. "While our secretaries occasionally have had problems using Unix, they have tried several times (unsuccessfully) to get the department head to obtain a Unix system for their exclusive use." (14) Describing how Unix was the result of a cooperative effort by many people, Steve Hartwell at MIT, wrote, "Why do people keep talking about unix as if it were a person, or ONE BIG PROGRAM?". "We are really talking about a large set of programs and libraries written by individuals, not the HAL2000. Every single program, and every subroutine and system call, was written by some individual, who, in my mind, is RESPONSIBLE for the reliability, consistency, improvements, and --- documentation... for that thing.... I do not intend to criticize the efforts of the Unix support group [usg], or any other groups who have taken on the immense task of providing a set of software they agree to be responsible for. Our complaints/ discussion of aspects of the unix operating system indicate that the job is not complete. They KNOW that. I think that it is the user's responsibility to identify and report problems in a clear, specific, and nonjudgemental narrative, not FLAME ON! [usg should also improve the means to do this.]...Does it always mean lowering to the least common demoninator," he asked, "to improve the software & documentation? Ridiculous. If the road signs are too high, what are we going to do -- shorten the poles or raise the road?" he concluded. (15) The debate over Norman's article demonstrates how those participating on Usenet newsgroups and the ARPANET mailing lists represented a diversity of views. This online network provided a medium through which they could debate their differences to determine the principles at stake in a controversy. One poster pointed to Ted Nelson's book Computer Lib and its critique of hard to use systems. Nelson, the post explains, praised Unix. "That too was proper. Unix is indeed a powerful tool and one that encourages tool-making by its users. It would certainly be a shame if a priesthood of hackers developed around Unix...." (16) Another poster describes how the intent of criticism had to be to improve the code, and that there was also a need to respond in a helpful way to users. "There will ALWAYS be questions," the post explained, "and how you deal with them will affect how people will grow." (17) But one had to maintain high standards in what was to be done with Unix documentation, he cautioned, "I don't want to use a system which is tailored to the lowest denominator. [If the road signs are too high maybe you're on the wrong road.]." Another poster proposed that there was a need to distinguish between the interface and the documentation of the Unix system. The writer believed that Norman's article had confused the two and the discussion was continuing that confusion. Maintaining that the interface to Unix was being criticized because there was inadequate documentation, he wrote, "I would agree with suggestions to improve the documentation."(18) He went on to explain that there were only two forms of Unix documentation, short descriptions of what Unix commands did, called "man pages" (i.e. pages from the Unix manual), and the computer code with its comments. He felt the man pages were only casually created and so not always adequate to provide the help users needed, but that going to look at the source code which had "(VERY few comments)" didn't provide much more in the way of assistance. He proposed several additional levels of documentation to help solve the problem, including introductory documentation, more examples in the existing man pages, a brief documentation that would be provided online, a more thorough system of documentation of the assumptions and problems of the system, and more internal commenting in the code. "The code written for UNIX," he explained, "is perhaps the least documented I have seen on any system." He also questioned why the books about the code which were written by Professor John Lions, at the University of New South Wales in Australia, for an earlier version of Unix, v6, hadn't been updated for the recent Unix version, v7. "I thought the Lions course books were excellent. Why they haven't ever been updated, especially with the money we at BTL [Bell Telephone Labs-ed] spend growing unix experts is beyond me. I would think that documentation at the various levels would make code maintainance easier and be cost effective," he concluded. (19) Lively discussion and debate helped Usenet pioneers argue out their views about Unix, and a wide range of other issues and problems and helped to establish the forms and procedures for Usenet to grow and flourish. III - FA.sf-lovers & the debate over technology versus humanism SF-LOVERS was another of the important mailing lists on the ARPANET which was also available on early Usenet as FA.sf-lovers. It was for the discussion of science fiction and related topics. In May, 1981, Jim McGrath, the new moderator of the mailing list, posted a farewell to Richard Brodie, the originator of the mailing list. He described how Brodie had been "the person responsible for the first version of this mailing list almost two years ago." (20) In his farewell to those on the list, Brodie describes how he started the mailing list. He took a leave from Harvard and went to Xerox-Parc in June 1979. Shortly afterwards, he sent out his first SF-Lovers message. He writes: "Over a year and a half have gone by since the first SF- Lovers message went out (It was a list of the Hugo Awards from the 1979 Worldcom in Brighton, England). They've been a good one and a half years; they've shown me clearly that electronic communication will change the shape of our world, and that we'll see its effects in our lifetimes." "The list," he explained, "has grown enormously -- far beyond my expectations -- and has reached the point where many hundreds of people read the daily Digest." (21) Describing how SF-lovers began, Brodie explained, "I started SF-LOVERS by logging into one of the public-access MIT "Incompatible Time Sharing" (ITS) systems - probably MIT-DMS, although it might have been MIT-AI - and editing a text file that contained the names of all the distribution lists. I then inserted a system announcement onto the same system announcing the availability of the list." (22) Originally, each message sent to the mailing list was distributed to all those who subscribed. Soon, however, the email to the subscribers became overwhelming and a digest form was created. Digests were collections of articles submitted to a mailing list and sent out as an issue, rather than as separate messages, as newsgroups made possible. Recalling how the SF-LOVERS digest was created, Brodie explains, "I believe it was the release of a major SF movie - possibly SUPERMAN - that swamped SF-LOVERS to the point where it was made into a digest." (23) The discussion on FA.sf-lovers during this period included reminiscences of children's fiction such as the Danny Dunn and Miss Pickerell series of children's books. Other children's books were critiqued as well. For example, Byron Howes from the University of North Carolina explained how he felt Mrs Piggle- wiggle books were the worst of "the children's literature of the late '40s and early '50s -- promoting a kind of mindless expectation of conformity." (24) Children's book series described include Danny Dunn, Tom Swift, Rick Brant, and Freddie the Pig Stories. One post explained how the author of the children's book series Mad Scientists Club made an effort "to be as technologically accurate as possible." (25) There was also discussion of tv and radio cartoon characters and the view of technology they encouraged. One such character was Astro Boy. One of the contributors to the FA.sf-lovers newsgroup noted that Astro Boy was one of his favorite animated characters. He described how Astro Boy, a robot, was "steered...toward using his special abilities for the good of society." Reminding others of the "Amazing Three" theme song, he posted some of the lyrics. Spaceman with a mission You must make a very big decision With your solar bomb you could destroy us, Or save the world or save the world (26) These lyrics help to capture the dilemma of technology, i.e that it can be used for social good or harm. Another contributor, Mike Greenwald at MIT Multics, described an Astro Boy episode where budget cuts threatened the survival of the Institute where he was created, "He was actually `shut off', but was resuscitated when an emergency arose during which he proved his worth by saving the world...." (27) A post by Ted Pedersen described how Astro Boy was the creation of Osamu Tzuka the `Walt Disney' of Japanese animation. "Based on a successful comic book character," he wrote, "there was an explosion of Japanese science fiction. (28) Contributors to SF-Lovers also discussed science fiction movies, criticizing them if the science was inaccurate or if the message presented was anti-technology or hostile to machinery. (29) Dave Tauretzky wrote, "There are two features I pay attention to in science fiction movies: future sociology and future technology." (30) Describing how ARPANET authorities determined that a Film- BUFFS mailing list should not be carried on the ARPANET since that "would be pushing the use of the Arpanet too far beyond its research-oriented mandate," one poster proposed accepting the decision to avoid jeopardizing the other existing ARPANET mailing lists. "I yield to those people's better judgment," he wrote reluctantly. (31) However, he longed "for the day when such strictures disappear!" He conceived of a future when WORLDNET would make it possible to access large mailing lists for $10/year for the `postage', "and Large Lists rule the world!" (32) Other discussion on the list during this period presented hopeful forecasts of the future. A review of a recently published book, "2081: A Hopeful View of the Human Future", reported that the book predicted a three-day workweek, Factory work done exclusively by robots, household robots that shop, drive cars, send mail, mow the lawn, and record radio and television shows, air travel at 6,000 mph and land travel at 800 mph. The author, Gerard K. O'Neill, proposed that computers, automation, space colonies, energy and communication, would "drive the changes of the next century." (33) Noting that he was able to contribute the words of a TV theme song from the 1960's because not only did he have a good memory, a poster explained that he had "an audio aid." "In the early 60's," he wrote, "I had a cheap little tape recorder. I had this silly habit of recording TV themes...." (34) Complaining about unscientific accounts in science fiction, Jeff (E.jeffc at Berkeley) explained that "Science is not in the process of making arbitrary rules....Science is in the process of discovering the lawful ordering of the universe and it is inevitable that in the future, someone will come up with something that will supersede what we know today." (35) After discovering a factual error in one of his posts, Lauren Weinstein at UCLA noted how posting leads to verifying one's information. He wrote, "Actually , I did get one piece of direct mail claiming I was wrong...one of the nice things about having 3000+ people reading this stuff is that there is always somebody who can correct any errors. At least, I THINK that's one of the nice things?" (36) Describing why he was attracted to science fiction, David Dill (at CMU-10A) wrote, "a substantial body of science fiction DOES deal with issues of science and technology. The appeal of this literature to me is not the ability to supply convincing explanations for hypothetical science or technology, but to explore the effects of scientific developments on people. Thus, science fiction is frequently fiction about the IMPACT of scientific discoveries, not the pursuit or act of scientific discovery. A major reason," he explained, "that science and technology are prominently featured in so much `speculative fiction' (or whatever) is that they are major factors determining the nature of a society -- if you change them, you have a new social system (or civilization) to speculate about." (37) Noting that science fiction should document how technology could be used for good or bad, Ron Newman then at Xerox explained that "current events in the U.S. demonstrate that technological advances need not go hand-in-hand with social progress." (38) IV - NET.space & the Debate over Public Funding of Science Research Another newsgroup on Usenet during this period that discussed technology issues was NET.space. An opening message to create the NET.space newsgroup noted that it would "distribute the articles from FA.space in undigested form, and anything submitted to it will go into fa.space." (39) In an early post on NET.space, Horton documents how the most interesting of the ARPANET mailing lists were fed into Usenet and many of the contributions to the ARPANET mailing lists came from those on Usenet (i.e. those contributions posted by email addresses such as "somewhere!somewhere!somebody@Berkeley.")(40) Horton was explaining his disagreement with a post by Bob Amsler who maintained that the associated Arpanet mailing list was "an internal communication without `public' distribution... and that there were many people on it `employed by the government'" who needed to be aware of space developments. (41) Horton, however, pointed out that the digest was fed into Usenet "which is neither the arpanet nor tightly controlled." And that the contributions were "in effect a newsletter, not mail, and as a contributor you have no control or knowledge of who is getting it." (42) Posts on the NET.space mailing list included summaries from the wire services and discussion of the Congressional space budget. One post about budget cuts warned that, "The chairman of the House subcommittee on Science and Technology said that the Reagan budget plans could threaten our space program." It described how the 1983 fiscal budget called for maintaining the level of spending for NASA rather than increasing it. "Not only could this hurt our planetary program, but also threaten the shuttle program." (43) Paul Dietz (at usc-ecl) raised the question, "why should the government be spending anything on space?" He admitted that this was really part of the broader question "why should the government be spending money on anything?" (44) Since investment in space research would be for the good of the company or world, he asked why those with money wouldn't be investing in it. And he ended his post, "Comments, rebuttals, bric-bats poison keyboard netnotes are welcome..." (45) The question led to a heated discussion of whether Humanists or Technologists benefit society more. One of the posters sparked the discussion by taking the position that those developing technology, rather than those developing humanistic theories, had solved more social problems. He wrote, "While one hates to destroy cherished illusions, it's hard to see that any major social problem has ever been solved by a `humanist' or other form of social theorist. Typically," he continued, "it has been engineers and hard scientists (those materialistic, crass, and soulless men) that have provided the solutions to the major social and political problems of their day. Slavery and hard, grinding muscle labor at poverty pay, to take two classic examples from the 19th century, weren't eliminated by the wailing of philosphers but by the designs of engineers, and by the money of financiers. Admittedly, this is largely counter-intuitive....I suspect the reason that this apparent paradox holds is that people will generally optimize their own condition subject to constraints, and the constraints are always a lack in some way or other of resources. Technology tends to free resources, thus loosening the constraints and providing a higher level of `potential' for most individuals, which they will happily take." He referred the reader to the economic writings of the 18th century Scottish economist Adam Smith and the 20th century American economist Milton Friedman. In response came a post quoting Adam Smith's book "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" on the need for public investment, "THERE REMAIN those enterprises of such great value to all, and of so little value to any one, as to require public investment." The poster explained: "What institution has the task of looking ahead twenty years? Surely not investment combines. Stock companies usually look at the quarterly report.... So, if it's desirable to have basic research....who is going to do it?" (46) Challenging such use of public funds, another poster wrote, "I reject this. Who judges the value of a project? Not the person forced to contribute....Government investment (public investment is a misnomer) removes any choice the unwilling taxpayers have. It puts the `public good' above individual rights." (47) Gene Salamin (at MIT-MC) proposed eliminating all nondefense government expenditure as long as all government social programs were also ended. (48) In a post titled "Moderator filtration of flames," another poster explained that it was "amusing to see the Libertarians (I assume) who are heavy users of this medium complaining about governments spending their money on things like Arpanets and space research." He noted, "I guess its a normal survival drive. Those sucking at the teat want the milk for themselves." (49) Challenging the proposal that government spending should only go to defense, Mike Inners noted that according to that logic "there is no reason to fund even defense." He explained that the rationale which would logically flow from such an argument would be "If I want to be defended, I will voluntarily contribute to my local police, local NRA chapter, national military of my choice, etc." But he noted that "Everyone (except maybe the most radical Libertarians) agrees that some functions require mandatory contributions."(50) He went on to describe some examples of expenditures that require public funding: "Space exploration, in common with basic research, has the property that the benefits do not accrue to the organization performing the work. The benefits are distributed among many people who did not invest. Unless you impose severe restrictions on information flow, use of technology, mobility of employees, etc. there is no way that I as an owner of a firm doing (for example) free-fall medical research, can make every beneficiary pay for the benefits he is getting. I can't even get back my investment in all likelihood. But the benefits have historically greatly outweighed the costs of such research." He explained how funding space exploration required public funding as it didn't yield the profit that private enterprises require: "In the not-so-distant future, space industrialization/ exploration/colonization has the potential to significantly improve conditions for the entire society. Again, there is no way for an investor to recover profit from this. While it is not worthwhile for any small group of people to finance space exploration, a larger group finds it worthwhile since the cost can be spread thinner." (51) R. M. King continued the argument. He wrote: "1) Much of what is necessary to develop space is unpatentable often because it is in the realm of pure research. An example of another invention that grew out of pure research is semi conductors, which of course grew out of solid state physics research. It would not have been possible for a company to recover the costs of their research, even by patenting the transistor, because other devices were promptly invented, using the same physics." He added: "2) Patents are only good for seventeen years. Even those pieces of space hardware that are patentable may not reach the peak of their utilization within seventeen years of conception." "3) While this may seem like a pragmatic rather than a moral argument, governments have historically been involved in blazing trails." Providing other examples, he proposed that there be a tax checkoff so people could determine if they wanted to contribute or not. (52) Commenting on the 1982 U.S. Presidential State of the Union speech which had proposed cutting "spending in everything except defense, and that means cut spending in space in particular," Robert Elton Maas (REM at MIT-MC) noted that the term "Defense is a misnomer. We don't have any defense, we have only strategic deterrent. But that's a matter for ARMS-D, rather than SPACE," referring to the mailing list ARMS-D. (53) Contrasted to the cold market calculus that denies that there can be any definition or support for the public good, several of those on NET.space debated whether the humanist or technologist contributed more to the public good. Paul Lustgarten at Bell Labs Indian Hill, wrote: "I take strong exception to the sharp dichotomy... pcmcgrier assumes between humanists and technologists: I consider myself to be both, and see many others here at work on these nets (Usenet and ARPAnet) who I would describe similarly." He proposed: "I think it is those of us who are *more* than just technologists who are in a position to affect society the most. The technology by itself doesn't tell you how to get it out of the lab, where to put it, how to use it, or even WHY ANYONE SHOULD BOTHER!" (54) He titled his post "`humanists' and technologists', NOT disjointed sets!" and he presented the dictionary definition of a humanist, "humanist,n. A person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare [Random House College Dictionary]."(55) A post by Steve Kudlak (FFM at MIT-MC) defended humanists. He wrote, that HUMANISTS and TECHNOLOGISTS fight over much, but "Both want to see the world changed for the better." "Humanists," he continued, "(philosophers, artists, writers, etc.) influence the world more indirectly, but they do exert, in my view, a considerable influence. By pointing out things they see in the world and how they feel about it, artists and writers definitely influence the social climate that the technologists types work in and the like. Technology types," he continued, "that I have known have been seriously influenced by `works of art' especially literature and this causes them to do things differently than they would if they were not so influenced." "Technology types," he observed, "do things that at their best give power to the people. Like the power to express my ideas to many people in many different areas quickly."(56) He went on to note that "Most technology types are not cold, crass individuals at all, and 99% of them bleed if you prick them." Commenting about the stereotypes that exist, he explained that, "Once upon a time science, technology and art were not considered mutually exclusive realms. It would be nice," he ended his post, "if we could recapture some of that rather than fighting about which is `better' and `more useful'." Tom Wadlow added that while scientists or technologists are often affected by art or participate in art, artists he knew were "afraid of, or claim to despise technology."(57) Continuing the discussion about government funding of space research, a post by J.C. Winterton pointed out, "we get the problem that no private organization is big enough to finance space exploration and research." He proposed that governments were too often conservative about supporting the investment and funding needed to make big enough leaps." (58) Pointing out the precedent in history for government assistance to subsidize certain kinds of explorations, Rick (pc mcgreer) cited the East India Company and Hudson Bay Company.(59) Contributing to the debate over technologists and humanists, Jim McGrath (JPM) explained, "First, apologies to everyone on SPACE for discussing what is probably not an appropriate topic for this list." He then went on, "But since the subject came up..." "Saying technology is more important than the humanities," he wrote, "is stupid, since technology, the APPLICATION of scientific knowledge, has to be directed by social goals determined by the study of the humanities (and social `sciences'). However, saying humanities is more important than technology is equally stupid, since man is, above all else, a TECHNOLOGICAL animal. Our use of tools, more than anything else, has contributed to our current state of civilization. Trying to understand man without his tools (please, no comment on sexist language) is a fruitless endeavor that will, ultimately lead to failure." But he cautioned, "One problem we face is that there are signficant numbers of people who believe that technology in and of itself, can solve all problems. This is wrong, since those very problems CANNOT be defined or specified by a strict examination of technological alternatives. (although some constaints as to what is physically possible can be supplied by techology) - one MUST appeal to the knowledge lodged in the study of Man, the humanities." He continued, "Another problem we face is the presence of a large number of people who believe that Man's tools and his tool making capacity should be ignored when examining the proper role of our race in the universal scheme of things. One cannot make ANY decisions about what man should do or should become, without examining how Man interacts with the physical Universe - and this is the domain of Science and Technology." "Frankly," he concluded, "I have no doubts that there are far more people causing the second problem than the first. At least most technologists believe that they SHOULD be aware of the Humanities, while many people in the Humanities feel no obligation to understand the first principles of Science and Technology. So while we need more people knowledgeable in both areas, the lack of technological understanding among the people studying the Humanities seems to be the most severe problem we are currently facing." (60) Jerry Pournelle at MIT proposed, "If you burned all the art, people would be miserable but alive. If you burned all the technology, above 75% of the population would starve. Which should we do?" he asked, "(Maybe neither?)," he concluded.(61) Emphasizing that technology and humanism are not independent of each other, Wadlow responded: "My point was not that one is independent of the other, but that they are both facets of the same jewel. If you burned all the art, would you include well-designed machinery, or elegant computer programs. If you burned all the technology, would you destroy moog synthesizers, or synthetic-fibre paint brushes? Art can be functional, as technology can be artistic. Is writing a novel on a word-processor an act of artistry or technology?"(62) Adding to the discussion of the need for government support for research, a post by Joel Rubin answered, "As I recall, off hand, the British East India Company and the Hudson's Bay Company and the British India Company were NOT supported by laissez-faire types. They supported MERCANTILISM which was precisely what laissez-faire types were against." (63) Steve Harley pointed out that distinctions between humanists and technologists weren't so obvious,"Consider trying to label the reagan government either technologist or humanist...& give up, but not without a fight, then, fondling the notion that technologists are more `socially valuable' than humanists; try to reconcile the war machine." (64) Harley, added, "for the record, I am an artist (writer and painter, mostly) who supports himself by programming computers. I know a number of other artists. i don't know any ARTISTS who despise technology. i know a few humanists who disparage technology, but i tend to be very thoughtful, so i think a lot of technology is not worth having like food processors & neutron bombs. i know a lot of scientists too & a fair number of them have a very limited appreciation of art. The scientists/techno logists i know who do appreciate art tend to be humanists as well, so i think the comparison of techo-humano is bolderdash. There are just people who are more limited than others. however, they don't bother me as much as people who are DEPENDENT on technology." (65) In the midst of the discussion came the complaint that NET.space was not an appropriate newsgroup for the discussion and instead a new newsgroup should be created for the discussion called net.space.philosophy. (66) Answering the complaint, was the response, "I see no reason why they should NOT be in this digest. Assuming that the material in each digest accurately reflects the amount of contributions, then everyone's missive is making it out on the list anyway, so what's to complain about?" "Off-hand," he continued, "I don't see where the humanist technologist dicotomy is MORE appropriately discussed than concerning space, that field being a major area of technological endeavor with possibly the largest potential impact upon humanity. In order to make sense of technology," the poster continued, "the human factors must be added to the equation. Ignoring one for the other is perhaps expedient but ill- fated....(if I had to chose art would lose)" (67) Another post proposed that the Voyager pictures were a demonstration that space research produced works of art. "Most works of art are much more expensive for the number of people who can see them and appreciate them," he noted. "(All we need to do is distribute prints of the best of the Voyager pictures to each and every citizen, and we'll truly have the cheapest masterpiece of art ever produced.)" He went on to note that "the rest of the space program is science, not art, mostly. We get vast amounts of crucial information that is a first step towards engineering to actually make use of space for our benefit. Science always come first," he commented, "then a lot of hard engineering, then profit." "Thus I don't agree with your claim," he added, "that the space program is just an expensive work of art with spinoff. It's a medium-priced science project with some artistic spinoff and also random-product spinoff." (68) On Feb. 3, 1982 an Associated Press article describing developments in Washington explained that the U.S. Office of Management and the Budget had recommended killing many space projects. The article, posted on FA.space documented how strong opposition from scientific organizations who battled against the cuts led the White House to restore some of the funding for space research in the 1983 budget. The article concluded, "considering the proposed cuts, much was salvaged." (69) These discussions over the role of technology and the need for government funding occurred on NET.space while there was the ongoing political battle to save space funding. Describing these efforts, Jerry Pournelle at MIT-MC, noted the role that the L-5 society (i.e. lunar 5) played in helping to weaken the budget cuts. He wrote: "The whole space community, with I think, particular credit to L-5 society deserves a couple attaboys. I'll take a bit of the plaudits because of the Citizens Council activity (and Danny Grahams efforts plus Newt Gringrich's were somewhat influenced and aided by the Council) anyway - it is not what we wanted, but it is less than we feared." (70) John McCarthy, one of the early pioneers of research into time-sharing and Artificial Intelligence, and by 1982 a Professor at Stanford (JMC@SU-AI) credited Pournelle for his work organizing the battle against the budged cuts, "I think you deserve considerable credit for this result." (71) Pointing out that in the history of the U.S., very few legislatures have technologists or scientists helping to make the laws, Pournelle wrote, "In our history," he asked, has there "ever been a legistature having more than a few technologists or scientists in it." (72) Pournelle described how there would be an L-5 sponsored space citizen convention in Los Angeles, California on April 4-6.(73) Another poster noted that the L-5 sponsored citizens space convention would be held in Los Angeles with Robert A. Heinlein and Fred House as the guests of Honor. The keynote speaker would be Dr. Hans Mark, Deputy Administrator of NASA. (former Secretary of Air Force) and Newt Gingrich, then the U.S. Congressional Representative from Georgia and Co Chair of the Congressional Space Caucus. The program was to include Representatives from Georgia and co-chairs of the Congressional Space Caucus. Others listed included convention co-chaired Jerry Pournelle and Milton Stevens, noting that the "Purpose [was] to get enthusiasts and professionals together, and to generate a strategy for the advancement of the space program." (74) The discussions in the various Usenet newsgroups and the ARPANET mailing lists show how there was a commitment that the new technology and the forms it made possible be used for socially beneficial rather than harmful purposes. Contributors to Usenet and the ARPANET mailing lists during the 1981-82 period recognized that it was necessary to be active to have technology serve useful purposes. Discussion on the long term social benefit gained from scientific and space research demonstrated that newsgroups and mailing lists made it possible to clarify the underlying principles on an important issue like whether or not there is a need for public funding of technological and scientific research. These new communication forums also made it possible to announce efforts to affect legislation and to set up public meetings with those in Congress responsible for approving the funding of science and technology programs. Early Usenet and the ARPANET mailing lists helped to debate the importance of scientific research and of government funding of scientific research to the long term interests of a society. They also provided the means to monitor Congressional activity and to announce programs making such efforts. V - Creating the Form for Usenet The earliest days of Usenet demonstrate both the principles and practices in embryo of new and more democratic forms that this technology makes possible. The issues developed in certain key newsgroups during this early period clarify the problems that a new communications medium bring to the fore. The model for Usenet that pioneers had early on was of an electronic newsletter. "Not to belittle any new newsgroup, but it strikes me that we are developing a real electronic newspaper here," wrote George Otto in a post in January 1982. "We already have a science section, an automotive section, a comic section, movie review column, sports section, travel section, book reviews, even want ads." (75) Michael Shiloh noted that he enjoyed the network both "for entertainment and for receiving the latest news on many subjects," (76) Another user pointed out that he didn't feel the newswires belonged on Usenet, " Although the newswire is something I want to see in WorldNet," he explained, " I don't want it on Usenet, unless it belongs in one of the other newsgroups."(77) J. C. Winterton explained that he didn't feel that Usenet "should become an arm of AP, Reuthers, etc." (78) However, in considering what Usenet should make possible, one user at allegra at Bell Labs wrote, "Wouldn't it be great to use this electronic medium to send notes to our government officials. I never seem to write postal letters or telegrams," he admitted, "but we all seem to find these electric notes convenient enough to use often. Can you imagine net.reagan with a few authentic replys?" (79) Another user added "or what if we could lobby our favorite senator (net.lobby, net.senator?) (80) In articulating the importance of Usenet, Mel Haas wrote that the effort had to be to "Try to make the net a useful exchange of useful information and ideas that will pay for the service and help people." (81) Another user explained his view that Usenet "was supposed to represent electronic mail and bulletins among a group of professionals with a common interest, thus representing fast communication about important technological topics."(82) S. McGeady noted, a bit in dismay, "We are running a networked democracy here."(83) Observing that, "computer networks, news and mail systems are much closer to the `broadsides' of yesterday, Alan Watt asked, "are they therefore protected under the free speech amendment?" (84) To make such communication possible, it was important that rapid replies be possible after the item was posted. "The problem of disjointed communications is very real," wrote Jerry Schwartz (at harpo), "Frequently we receive the reply to an item before we receive the item." To help alleviate the confusion that might result from this situation, he had a recommendation, "I would like to suggest that people put a line or two at the beginning of their submission (like the head of this one) to indicate what they are replying to." (85) Such long delays in being able to respond to posts were problemmatic. "If netnews is to be used for an interactive medium for discussion," wrote Mark Horton, "a reply could take over a week to get back, with a 2 week turnaround. Clearly, this is the worst case, and a delay of a few days is more likely than a week. But there would be a significant lag, and conversations would be way out of sync with each other," Horton noted that he was replying to a message that had been posted 2 weeks before. (86) The net.news newsgroup was created to discuss Usenet. In this newsgroup, users discussed changes that they felt could be made in the software to improve Usenet. For example, Chris (at cincy) noted that it was then necessary to save the news item one wanted to respond to, exit netnews to write one's reply, and then send it and return to Usenet. Instead, he proposed that a means of automatically replying be built into the netnews software. (87) Often proposals for how to improve Usenet were submitted online with requests for comments and discussion. However, when ARPANET digests were read by those on Usenet, it was difficult to respond to the individual posts since the email address of the gateway to Usenet was given as the source of the digests, rather than the poster's email. Several on Usenet discussed how this made it difficult to respond to the writer, and raised possible ways to remedy the problem. In response, Horton explained that he was beginning to think that a change should be made and the real sender listed. He asked for "Comments" on his proposed change. (88) Steve Bellovin, one of Usenet's creators, noted that he was one of the people who had created the old form. He welcomed making a change, and proposed generating a "Reply-to" field for the email address of the original author so that they would receive the response if one did "reply" with a lower case "r" but if one used an upper case R, the reply would be sent to Usenet as a followup message. In May 1981, Matt Glickman posting from the University of California Berkeley, announced that he and Mark Horton were working on a new version of the netnews software used to transport Usenet. By July 1981, the software was going into the testing phase. (89) Horton posted that "Comments on the conversion process are welcome."(90) In a similar way, in Nov. 1981, Horton proposed a policy for Usenet. (91) He asked "If anyone objects to this policy, please let me know." (92) Also Horton posted that he observed that people seemed to confuse Usenet with the UUCPnet that was used to transport Usenet. Therefore, Horton proposed, "I am toying with the idea of changing the names USENET (the network itself and netnews (the collection of software that implement netnews) both to "newsnet". (93) But he commented, "Since this is a sweeping change, and since I'm not God, I would like to see discussion on whether this is a good thing to do. Please reply to net.news." His request drew immediate responses. One such reply was from Bellovin, one of the original creators of Usenet. Bellovin wrote, "Mark, we picked `Usenet' in deliberate imitation of `Usenix', (one of) the UNIX User's Groups. At the time, we hoped that it might become 'the official network' of Usenix." (94) Others suggested a variety of names, including WEB with the comment "unfortunately, sounds too much like a TV station."(95) Names like "Arachnet", "Arachne" and "Compuco" "meaning a computer conferencing" and "info-ex", "i.e. short for information exchange," were proposed. (96) Bill Jollitz supported a suggestion by Lauren Weinstein on the need to be careful of names with existing trademarks. Both agreed that it was important to raise the issue of "how this net will grow." Though certain problems like those of a technical or political nature were "well handled in the forum of the network itself," they felt other problems should be discussed at Usenix, as "its the only large forum appropriate at the time."(97) Other names suggested included "Thinknet" or "Idnet" as names to represent the need for intelligent discussion that was represented on the net. (98) "And speaking of Web," another poster responded, if there were discussion on the subject it could turn into a "Dragnet." (99) Weinstein proposed that any renaming proposal be brought up at the January 1982 Usenix meeting because it was important to have a "reasoned consideration of any new name." (100) Another post indicated the user had searched through the Webster's dictionary using the unix tool grep and listed all the words he found ending in "net." (101) In a post dated Nov. 22, Horton listed a set of possible names and asked for a vote. He wrote, "USENET is the current name of the logical net of sites running the netnews programs. They make up an electronic distributed bulletin board." Horton submitted several policy issues as a proposal to Usenet. There was online discussion about these proposals. Several, however, commented that they would be attending the Usenix meeting in Santa Monica, California in January 1982 and asked that any policy wait till that meeting. "I have gotten lots of pressure," Horton writes, "to let the people at USENIX make the decision (and for the network name, too) and I want to state for the record that while I fully hope to postpone all such decisions until at least USENIX, the people who can't make it to Santa Monica this January have just as much right to be heard as those who can....I want to hear both groups, but the real public that counts here is the USERS OF THE NET (e.g. all you folks that are reading this.)" (102) Horton, however, proposed that votes wait till the Usenix meeting and be carried out in person, "since carrying out a discussion on this medium is very reasonable, but carrying out a vote is not, I suggest that we all air our opinions here and that after we talk ourselves out, those who can't make it to USENIX should find somebody who can and have them cast your vote by proxy. (Preferably someone you can talk with in person and hand a piece of paper to with your signature on it.)" (103) Agreeing that the policies should be discussed at Usenix, Brian Redman wrote "It's unfortunate indeed that more people can't be represented at our January meeting....My suggestion that we wait 'till the meeting is in response to Mark's suggestion that we set some policies. I can't imagine that an actual vote by the readers could be carried out fairly," he cautioned, adding, "I for one would vote on behalf of all the integers in a vax." (104) Others objected to having decisions made at Usenix rather than online. Among the objections were those raised by Greg Ordy from Case Western University (cwruecmp) wrote, "I submit that if it takes an across the country meeting to settle the issues at hand, we are in big trouble....It's the old loudest talker and prettiest face that sways opinions. I would think that this neutral medium would be an ideal place to judge only on content, not on packaging." He also noted that "the amount of non- technical news is starting to swamp the straight Unix stuff...." And he asked, "How much time does the average news reader/writer spend with news each day." (105) Dave Curry also questioned relying on a USENIX meeting to make decisions on USENET policy. He wrote, "I must say that putting the decisions on USENET policy into the hands of those people attending the USENIX conference (certainly a minority of those who read news, etc.) is grossly unfair. I myself cannot afford to attend the conference (I don't know if I would, even if I could), and am certain numerous others aren't for numerous reasons. He proposed that, "the decisions should be made over the net." And he outlined a procedure to have those on the net involved in determining the decisions. (106) Horton's policy proposal had included a procedure to set up new newsgroups. Horton suggested a committee of those who knew how Usenet functioned to make decisions on the names of new newsgroups. Others on Usenet commented on the proposed procedure. Jerry Schwartz at harpo disagreed, "Rather than a committee to determine the names of groups," he wrote. I propose a group `net.names'. The official procedure to create a new group would be to announce a proposed new group in `net.general.' People interested in the group would reply via mail to the originator, and any objections to the name would be posted to `net.names'. After a few days the originator can make a decision on the name and announce the creation of the group in `net.general'. Any discussion of the changes to the names of existing groups could also go in `net.news'." (107) Another response added, "I find it hard to believe that Mark is proposing a committee to approve of new newsgroups. Up to that point, his proposal sounds fine. How about just establishing rules for new groups." He detailed some proposed rules: "1 - Send a request for interested parties to net.general 2 - Interested parties reply to the sender. 3 - If there is enough interest, replies are collected and sent out as the first transmission of the new group." "This system," he commented, "seems simple and self policing. If there is enough interest for a group to be started, then it is no committee's business to say it shouldn't exist. And he added, "I even get the feeling that if there was a committee, it would really end up being a rubber stamp since who has the time to do the work necessary to come to a rational decision about a group? Or if the committee does turn a group down, the metadiscussion generated would probably be worse than any group I can think of. If someone violates the rules, I'm sure that they could be jumped on and their (illegal) newsgroup disallowed by the local adminstrator." (108) Alan Watt outlined the principles he felt were governing the creation and development of Usenet: "1) Usenet is a strictly volunteer organization: nobody HAS to join, and guidelines cannot be enforced." 2) Any local news administrator has the de facto power to impose any kind of censorship technically feasible. 3) Systems will only participate in USENET if the perceived benefits exceed the visible costs. Any guidelines proposed ought to be guided by the principle of 'what is obviously for the common good that everyone will accept it once stated'."(109) He believed that "the character of USENET will be the consensus of the individuals who maintain it at each local site, in spite of what any central committee requires or forbids." (110) From the discussion, he added, it appeared that in many cases "management" isn't even aware that USENET exists. The real danger," he continued, "is that if management doesn't know about USENET, it follows that for most installations no one has an official responsibility to maintain it. This is certainly true for us," he continued, "Maintaining the news system on our single machine takes some measurable portion of my not-too-empty schedule each day. I squeeze out the necessary time because of perception (3)" (111) A post by Mel Haas added, "My personal hope is that the net will add to our capability to communicate, and do away with the horrible decisions that are made by committee meetings `in secret' at some conference or other. I hope that all discussion of this (of censorship etc) or any other topic relating to the net is relayed to the net." (112) Jolitz said that he would report to those on the Net who couldn't attend the Usenix meeting about what went on. And Brian Redman responded that USENIX is "NOT a secret organization. BTW, USENET was introduced at a USENIX meeting." (113) Another poster acknowledged that "most of the sites here at Bell Labs Indian Hill are running netnews without benefit of super-user collaboration or even approval..." (114) VI - The Online Public Forum and Creating a New Form of Town Hall Democracy Those online found themselves creating a new communication medium and a new communication environment. The discussion on early Usenet over policy proposals demonstrated an open process where people were encouraged to contribute. Issues and proposals were debated to determine the principles to guide the decisions made and the procedures adopted. In addition, this discussion raised the question of what parts of the democratic process can be carried out online versus what areas need face to face meetings or other means of implementation. And how can these different forms interrelate? During the discussion of policy issues in the 1981-82 period, several commented that they didn't trust votes carried out online, pointing out the ease with which votes could be tampered with in an online voting process. They also pointed to the discrepancy between the tentative vote carried out online about choosing a new name for Usenet and the vote held at the Usenix meeting where the vote for a new name for Usenet yielded very different results. In a similar way, through online discussion and consideration, the new newsgroup naming and creation process was examined and a means found to create a working procedure, as opposed to depending on a proposed appointed committee to carry out the procedure. In The Rights of Man, Tom Paine describes the importance of the discussion among people to determine the underlying principles upon which new forms can be fashioned. "Forms grow out of principles and operate to continue the principles they grow from," Paine observed. "It is impossible to practice a bad form on anything but a bad principle," he continued. (115) Paine also proposed that the beginning of a new form is the most important and most difficult step, "as the probability is always greater against a thing beginning than of proceeding after it has begun." (116) The discussion made possible in NET.news during this early period on Usenet demonstrates how problems can be examined to determine the crucial principles so as to set the foundation for a community or for a social compact. Before there are agreed upon principles and policies, the interests and desires of those who are joining together need to be explored and debated. The principles of any social compact need to be determined before the forms, so the forms that will serve these needs can be created. The insistence of various participants on Usenet during this early period, echoed and articulated in Mark Horton's statement that "I'm not God" and asking for input into the decisions about Usenet, demonstrated the commitment that such decisions had to be determined by Net users. This was a statement of the fact that soverignty resided in the users, not in any individual or organization. This open process created a foundation upon which Usenet could expand and develop. Much that was only dreamt about or proposed as wishful thinking in 1981 on Usenet is now assumed procedure. Thomas Paine explains that if the principles determining a new form are good principles, the form will reflect and spread the good principles, and vice versa. The democratic process developed by those who formed Usenet, established the foundation for it to grow and flourish. In The Rights of Man, Thomas Paine describes his observations when he left Great Britain and came to North America. He found a new form had been created in the new world of America to guide how governments could function. In a similar way, the discussion on Usenet during its early days shows how a new form was created to guide the development of the online community. Studying these early efforts of the Usenet pioneers shows how they have given the world a new communication media and a new form of online town hall democracy. Footnotes: (1) Acwruecmp.7 net.general utzoo!decvax!cwruecmp!ordy Thu Aug 27 13:17:44 1981 Hello Usenet Case Western University went on to become the sponsor of the Cleveland Freenet which made Usenet available to the Cleveland Community and established a prototype of community networking that has spread around the U.S., into Canada and other countries in Europe and around the world. (2) Aucbvax.4080 fa.unix-wizards utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!unix-wizards Sun Sep 27 22:04:41 1981 USENET membership >From cbosg!cbosgd!mark@Berkeley Sun Sep 27 21:47:47 1981 (3) See "Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet" by Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben, http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ See especially "On the Early Days of Usenet: The Roots of the Cooperative Online Culture" in chapter 10. (4) Acbosgd.1983 net.news.directory utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!duke!chico!harpo!cbosg!cbosgd!mark Wed Jan 20 21:57:11 1982 USENET directory (extremely long article) cat > adiron << '@@@' >From cbosg!chico!duke!adiron!bob Wed Nov 18 13:44:35 1981 Date-Sent: Tue Nov 17 09:00:27 1981 To: duke!chico!cbosg!mark duke!decvax!ucbvax!glickman Subject: USENET new site form (5) Acbosgd.116 net.general,net.news utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ihnss!cbosg!cbosgd!mark Sat Oct 10 11:23:54 1981 plato and USENET (6) See for example Peter Collison, "UNIX: The Cult", USENIX Association, Winter Conference Proceedings, Washington, D.C., 1987, Jan. 21-23, 1987, pg. 22 - 28. (7) Aucbvax.2040 fa.unix-wizards utzoo!duke!decvax!ucbvax!KLH@SRI-KL Thu Jul 2 08:08:31 1981 date/time parsers (8) Mark Horton, FA.unix-wizards.0113 Aucbvax.2054 fa.unix-wizards utzoo!duke!decvax!ucbvax!CSVAX.mark@Berkeley Fri Jul 3 02:09:00 1981 (9) Aucbvax.2622 fa.unix-wizards utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!unix-wizards Tue Aug 11 09:57:18 1981 1822 Interface for Multibus >From Nowicki@PARC-MAXC Tue Aug 11 09:48:36 1981 -- Bill (10) Ibid. (11) Aucbvax.4857 fa.unix-wizards utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!unix-wizards Sat Oct 31 17:08:13 1981 rc etymology >From CSVAX.dmr@Berkeley Sat Oct 31 16:58:15 1981 Your indefatigable historian, Dennis Ritchie (12) Datamation, pg. 139-150. (13) Aucbvax.2628 fa.unix-wizards utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!unix-wizards Tue Aug 11 11:41:44 1981 Flaming Psychologists >From mo@LBL-UNIX Tue Aug 11 11:23:32 1981 Well, you see what kind of stuff gets into DATAMATION. Well, enough of that. I yield the floor to Lauren. -Mike (14) Auiucdcs.125 net.general csvax.decvax!duke!uiucdcs!jerry@Berkeley Mon Aug 10 22:11:08 1981 The etymology of dsw Jerry Wall Unix system administrator University of Illinois, Department of Computer Science (15) Aresearch.22 fa.unix-wizards utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!mhtsa!research!god Mon Aug 17 23:49:53 1981 unix documentation Subject: unix documentation Steve Hartwell[research!god, csvax.god@berkeley (16) Aihuxl.105 fa.unix-wizards utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!mhtsa!ihnss!ihuxl!jej Sun Aug 23 17:28:29 1981 I'm In With the In Crowd... Subject: Cybercrud Part Two? James Jones (ihuxl!jej) (17) Aharpo.452 fa.unix-wizards utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!mhtsa!ihnss!cbosg!harpo!ber Mon Aug 24 15:30:12 1981 unix documentation (18) Aihuxg.112 fa.unix-wizards utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!mhtsa!ihnss!ihuxg!grg Mon Aug 24 15:07:18 1981 UNIX; Documentation?? (19) Ibid. (20) Date: 13 May 1980 18:42 PST From: The Moderator Subject: Administrivia - A Fond Farewell & Digest Overload Jim (21) Date: 10 May 1981 13:40 PDT From: Brodie at PARC-MAXC Subject: SF Events - A Fond Farewell & SF Event Calendar Richard (22) From RBrodie@msn.comSat Mar 30 18:57:57 1996 Date: Sat, 30 Mar 96 23:30:24 UT From: Richard Brodie To: Ronda Hauben Subject: RE: Post from the Past (23) Ibid. (24) Date: 14 May 1981 09:54:03-PDT From: mhtsa!duke!unc!bch at Berkeley Subject: Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle Byron Howes University of North Carolina (25) Date: 8 MAY 1981 1524-PDT From: RODOF at USC-ECL Subject: Mushroom planet (26) Date: 13 May 1981 0501-PDT (Wednesday) Subject: Astra Boy and Mushi (27) Date: 12 May 1981 16:24 edt From: Greenwald.INP at MIT-Multics Subject: Re: Astro-boy query (28) Date: 17 MAY 1981 1605-PDT From: PEDERSEN at USC-ECL Subject: Astro Boy & Animated SF TV Ted Pedersen (29) Date: 22 May 1981 2031-EDT From: Nessus at MIT-EECS (Doug Alan) (30) Date: 20 May 1981 0350-EDT From: Dave Touretzky at CMU-10A Subject: review of "Outlands" Review of "Outlands" 5/20/81 -- Dave Touretzky (31) Date: 26-May-81 10:21:40 PDT (Tuesday) From: Hamilton.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: FILM-BUFFS disappears --Bruce (32) Ibid. (33) Date: 26 May 1981 1708-PDT From: Jim McGrath Subject: Review of 2081 By VICTOR WILSON Newhouse News Service (34) Date: 1 Jun 1981 2319-PDT (Monday) Subject: misc. madness (35) Date: 10 Jun 1981 11:02:30-PDT From: E.jeffc at Berkeley Subject: No science in science fiction ? Jeff (36) Date: 10 Jun 1981 1145-PDT (Wednesday) From: Lauren at UCLA-SECURITY (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: The Derby --Lauren-- (37) Date: 14 June 1981 1822-EDT (Sunday) From: David.Dill at CMU-10A (L170DD60) Subject: Science in Science Fiction (38) Date: 21 May 1981 19:57 PDT From: Newman.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: OUTLAND /Ron (39) Asri-unix.494 net.space utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!menlo70!sri-unix!knutsen Tue Jan 12 19:50:34 1982 (40) Acbosgd.1968 net.space utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!mhtsa!eagle!ihnss!cbosg!cbosgd!mark Mon Jan 18 10:18:34 1982 wire stuff Mark Horton (41) Asri-unix.558 net.space utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!menlo70!sri-unix!AMSLER@SRI-AI Sun Jan 17 11:56:32 1982 newswire stuff From: Bob Amsler (42) Acbosgd.1968 net.space utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!mhtsa!eagle!ihnss!cbosg!cbosgd!mark Mon Jan 18 10:18:34 1982 wire stuff Mark Horton (43) Aalice.406 net.space utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!duke!chico!harpo!mhtsa!alice!sjb Tue Jan 19 20:14:29 1982 Space Program Budget (44) Asri-unix.642 net.space utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!duke!chico!harpo!mhtsa!ihnss!ucbvax!menlo70 !sri-unix!DIETZ@USC-ECL Mon Jan 25 12:54:18 1982 Cage Shaking From: Paul Dietz All this talk of cage shaking has prompted me to do a little of my own... (45) Ibid. (46) Asri-unix.644 net.space utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!duke!chico!harpo!mhtsa!ihnss!cbosg!teklabs! ucbcad!ARPAVAX:C70:sri-unix!POURNE@MIT-MC Tue Jan 26 02:12:27 1982 Cage Shaking (47) Asri-unix.645 net.space utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!duke!chico!harpo!mhtsa!ihnss!cbosg!teklabs! ucbcad!ARPAVAX:C70:sri-unix!DIETZ@USC-ECL Tue Jan 26 08:24:14 1982 Government Funding (48) Asri-unix.646 net.space utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!duke!chico!harpo!mhtsa!ihnss!ucbvax!menlo70! sri-unix!ES@MIT-MC Tue Jan 26 20:04:33 1982 GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES FOR SPACE From: Gene Salamin (49) Asri-unix.648 net.space utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!duke!chico!harpo!mhtsa!eagle!ihnss!ucbvax! ARPAVAX:C70:sri-unix!CMP.MKSMITH@UTEXAS-20 Wed Jan 27 08:17:17 1982 Moderator filtration of flames (50) Asri-unix.649 net.space utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!duke!chico!harpo!mhtsa!eagle!ihnss!ucbvax! ARPAVAX:C70:sri-unix!INNERS@CMU-20C Wed Jan 27 08:20:38 1982 Government Funding of Space -- Mike Inners (51) Ibid. (52) Asri-unix.650 net.space utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!duke!chico!harpo!mhtsa!eagle!ihnss!ucbvax! ARPAVAX:C70:sri-unix!KING@KESTREL Wed Jan 27 09:17:04 1982 SPACE Digest V2 #89 RMK (53) Asri-unix.651 net.space utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!duke!chico!harpo!mhtsa!ihnss!ucbvax! ARPAVAX:C70:sri-unix!REM@MIT-MC Wed Jan 27 13:42:32 1982 State of union (54) Aihps3.200 net.space utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!mhtsa!harpo!floyd!houxi!ihnss! ihps3!pcl Fri Jan 29 10:32:47 1982 "humanists" and "technologists" NOT disjoint sets! Paul Lustgarten Bell Labs - Indian Hill (55) Ibid. (56) zAsri-unix.654 net.space utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ARPAVAX:C70:sri-unix!FFM@MIT-MC Fri Jan 29 04:27:17 1982 HUMANISTS AND TECHNOLOGISTS Sends Steve (57) Asri-unix.656 net.space utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!menlo70!sri-unix!TAW@S1-A Fri Jan 29 08:53:57 1982 Technologists and Humanists From: Tom Wadlow (58) Awatmath.1614 net.space utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!watmath!jcwinterton Fri Jan 29 14:23:00 1982 Re: Government Funding of Space (59) Awatmath.1615 net.space utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer Fri Jan 29 18:52:55 1982 Government Funding of Exploration Rick. (60) Asri-unix.661 net.space utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ARPAVAX:C70:sri-unix!JPM@SU-AI Sat Jan 30 23:23:52 1982 Technologists vs Humanists Jim (61) Asri-unix.662 net.space utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ARPAVAX:C70:sri-unix!POURNE@MIT-MC Sun Jan 31 00:41:15 1982 Technologists and Humanists (62) Asri-unix.668 net.space utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ARPAVAX:C70:sri-unix!TAW@S1-A Mon Feb 1 10:18:07 1982 Technology and Humanity Date: 31 January 1982 03:39-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Technologists and Humanists (63) Aucbonyx.247 net.space utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ARPAVAX:Onyx:jmrubin Mon Feb 1 15:36:32 1982 Government Funding of Exploration (previous article) Joel Rubin (64) Ayale-com.776 net.space utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!yale-com!harley Mon Feb 1 00:14:08 1982 poking in here - steve harley (yale-comix!harley) (65) Ibid. (66) Asri-unix.681 net.space utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ARPAVAX:C70:sri-unix! CC.CLYDE@UTEXAS-20 Wed Feb 3 12:44:54 1982 Relvancy of discussions (67) Ibid. (68) Asri-unix.686 net.space utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!duke!chico!harpo!cbosg!teklabs!ucbcad! ARPAVAX:C70:sri-unix!REM@MIT-MC Thu Feb 4 00:08:19 1982 post script --> Space isn't just art (69) a013 2242 03 Feb 82 M-Space Budget,450 Reagan OKs Planet Program Money By HOWARD BENEDICT AP Aerospace Writer (70) Asri-unix.687 net.space utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ARPAVAXC70:sri-unix!POURNE@MIT-MC Thu Feb 4 02:37:28 1982 (71) Date: 03 Feb 1982 2335-PST From: John McCarthy (72) Asri-unix.688 net.space utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ARPAVAX:C70:sri-unix!POURNE@MIT-MC Thu Feb 4 02:59:15 182 RE: Technologists and Humanists (73) Asri-unix.689 net.space utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!sri-unix! POURNE@MIT-MC@Berkeley@CCA-UNIX Thu Feb 4 03:02:14 1982 Nuts --> Lunar solar-power station JEP (74) Asri-unix.706 net.space utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ARPAVAX:C70:sri-unix!POURNE@MIT-MC Sat Feb 6 01:07:34 1982 LA l-5 convention (75) Aihuxn.122 net.general utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!duke!chico!harpo!mhtsa!eagle!ihnss!ihuxn!otto Wed Jan 27 21:27:50 1982 Re: cooking newsgroup George Otto (76) Aucbvax.6059 net.general utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!shiloh Tue Feb 2 23:51:31 1982 access to this network Subject: getting access to this network Michael Shiloh CSVAX.shiloh@berkekey UCBVAX!shiloh (77) Awatmath.1336 net.general utzoo!decvax!watmath!bstempleton Fri Dec 18 22:05:43 1981 what was net.db supposed to stand for anyway? (78) Awatmath.1337 net.general utzoo!decvax!watmath!jcwinterton Sat Dec 19 01:20:26 1981 Re: net.db, net.movies, etc. (79) Aallegra.131 net.general utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ihnss!mhtsa!allegra!rdg Thu Nov 12 21:05:29 1981 democracy (80) Aucbvax.5155 net.general utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!baden Thu Nov 12 23:38:13 1981 democracy Scott (81) Ahouxm.156 net.general utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!duke!chico!harpo!floyd!houxi!houxm!mel Fri Mar 5 08:53:16 1982 Please clean up the net Mel Haas, houxm!mel (82) Aunc.1028 net.general utzoo!decvax!duke!unc!smb Wed Jul 29 16:05:02 1981 Forcing uucp polls --Steve Bellovin (83) Aazure.722 net.general utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ARPAVAX:CAD:teklabs!tekmdp!azure!stevenm Fri Apr 16 11:15:16 1982 Network Balloting S. McGeady (84) Aittvax.162 net.general utzoo!decvax!ittvax!swatt Thu Dec 17 12:44:56 1981 freedom of the netwaves ? - Alan S. Watt (decvax!ittvax!swatt) (85) Aharpo.266 NET.news utzoo!duke!chico!harpo!jerry Mon Jun 15 20:31:16 1981 Welcome back mark Jerry (86) Aucbvax.1742 NET.news utzoo!duke!decvax!ucbvax!mark Sun Jun 14 20:32:39 1981 saving transmissions Mark (87) Acincy.139 net.news,NET.news utzoo!duke!cincy!chris Tue Jun 16 10:47:16 1981 Suggested feature (88) Aucbvax.1826 NET.news utzoo!duke!decvax!ucbvax!mark Fri Jun 19 13:00:06 1981 re: comments on news conversion (89) Aucbarpa.199 NET.news utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ARPAVAX:glickman Mon Jul 27 14:51:56 1981 New netnews Matt (90) Aucbvax.1826 NET.news utzoo!duke!decvax!ucbvax!mark Fri Jun 19 13:00:06 1981 re: comments on news conversion Mark (91) Acbosgd.120 net.news utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ihnss!cbosg!cbosgd!mark Tue Oct 13 20:56:30 1981 whether the sys and uuname files are public Mark (92) Aduke.1242 net.news utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!mhtsa!harpo!chico!duke!jte Wed Oct 14 00:29:06 1981 Usenet Policy Subject: Mark's Proposed Usenet Policy James Ellis (93) Acbosgd.127 net.news utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!mhtsa!harpo!cbosg!cbosgd!mark Mon Oct 26 15:16:19 1981 change of names netnews and USENET Mark (94) Aunc.1324 net.news utzoo!decvax!duke!unc!smb Mon Oct 26 19:25:48 1981 change of names netnews and USENET (cbosgd.127 followup) (95) Amhuxa.203 net.news utzoo!decvax!duke!mhtsa!eagle!mhuxa!presley Sun Nov 1 15:56:54 1981 USENET Name Change (96) Aihps3.153 net.news utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!mhtsa!harpo!houxf!ihnss!ihps3!pcl Sun Nov 1 14:55:49 1981 More new name suggestions Paul Lustgarten Bell Labs - Indian Hill (97) Aucbvax.4927 net.news utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!william Mon Nov 2 23:20:32 1981 Network Growth Bill Jolitz. (98) Awolfvax.53 net.news utzoo!decvax!duke!unc!wolfvax!jcz Mon Nov 2 21:47:32 1981 Net names In Real Life: Carl Zeigler Location: NCSU, Raleigh (99) Azeppo.113 net.news utzoo!decvax!duke!chico!zeppo!trb Mon Nov 2 11:53:36 1981 What's in a Name? Andy Tannenbaum BTL Whippany (100) Aucbvax.4942 net.news utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!lauren@UCLA-Security Tue Nov 3 15:51:25 1981 names From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) --Lauren-- (101) Azehntel.126 net.news utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!steve Thu Nov 5 11:27:00 1981 name the net *steve* (102) Acbosgd.848 net.news utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ihnss!cbosg!cbosgd!mark Fri Dec 25 19:24:10 1981 Re: Proposed USENET policy Mark Horton (103) Ibid. (104) Aharpo.174 net.news utzoo!decvax!duke!chico!harpo!ber Thu Dec 24 21:46:08 1981 USENET policy brian (105) Acwruecmp.30 net.news utzoo!decvax!cwruecmp!ordy Sat Dec 26 13:58:30 1981 Proposed Standards Greg Ordy (106) Aharpo.176 net.news utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ihnss!eagle!mhtsa!harpo!jerry Sat Dec 26 16:08:19 1981 Re: proposed newsnet policies Jerry Schwarz (107) Apur-ee.195 net.news utzoo!decvax!pur-ee!davy Sat Dec 26 19:45:37 1981 USENET policy and USENIX decisions (108) Aunc.1627 net.news utzoo!decvax!duke!tucc!unc!wm Sun Dec 27 20:37:43 1981 USENET policy (109) Aittvax.167 net.news utzoo!decvax!ittvax!swatt Mon Dec 28 14:36:38 1981 USENET Committee - Alan S. Watt (decvax!ittvax!swatt) (110) Ibid. (111) Ibid. (112) Ahouxm.104 net.news utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!mhtsa!ihnss!houxi!houxd!houxc! hound!houti!houxt!houxs!houxm!mel Wed Dec 30 16:44:26 1981 Net Censorship Flame Mel Haas, houxm!mel (113) Aharpo.183 net.news utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!hocda!ho3e2!houxi!ihnss!vax135!harpo!ber Thu Dec 31 12:26:21 1981 Re: Net Censorship Flame (114) Aihps3.180 net.news utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!mhtsa!ihnss!ihps3!pcl Mon Jan 4 12:32:17 1982 Re: Contact user names Paul Lustgarten (115) Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, Great Britain, 1791, (Penguin Classic edition reprint, 1985) p. 92. (116) Ibid., p. 160-161. Appendix A Post from the Past: Acwruecmp.7 net.general utzoo!decvax!cwruecmp!ordy Thu Aug 27 13:17:44 1981 Hello Usenet Department of Computer Engineering and Science Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, Ohio We would like to announce our connection to Usenet. We are a private university located in Cleveland, vacation spot of the midwest. The department's primary facilities consist of: VAX 11/780: hardware: RM05's, TU77, DZ-11, DH-11 (able), 2.5 Mbytes. software: 4.1 BSD PDP 11/45: hardware: RM02, DS330 (RP04), RK05, RX02, RS04(solid state) cache45 (able), DH-11 software: UNIX V 6.9999999 PDP 11/40: hardware: Diablo 40, paper tape, real time shaded graphics system (E & S LDS 2) software: RT-11 PDP 11/34: hardware: RK05's software: UNIX V 6.9999 Our department has approximately 250 undergraduate students, and 150 graduate students. Currently we are reached through "decvax", however we have dial ups and are in the process of getting an autodialer. At that time (6-8 weeks) we would be interested in increasing the number of nodes we communicate with, and would like to take a more active part in Usenet communication. For further information, contact: Greg Ordy (cwruecmp!ordy) (216-368-2819 (office)) Mark Boenke (cwruecmp!boenke) (216-368-2986 (office)) Last Updated: Oct. 22, 1996