ted@bcsaic.UUCP (ted jardine) (09/05/86)
In article <216@bridge2.UUCP> pvf@bridge2.UUCP (Paul V. Fries) writes: >I wrote a message to rick@seismo about the reorg. Here was his reply: > >>From glacier!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!hao!seismo!rick Sat Aug 30 10:33:59 1986 >>Date: Fri, 29 Aug 86 23:22:30 EDT >>... >>Subject: Re: Newsgroup reorg >> >>You are, of course, free to drop off the network. >>You certainly aren't doing ME a favor by "passing the shit along". >>Start a mailing list if its that important. > >Great attitude, huh? This is indeed a most repugnant attitude. I am posting this follow-up to ask two questions, both of Mr. Rick Adams and the readership of Usenet. 1. By what authority does Mr. Adams attempt to run this network with such a heavy hand? Arpanet is owned by DOD, but Usenet is not owned by anyone. 2. Do the readers of the net really want to permit what is tantamount to censorship of legitimate, civil communication? If it happens to net.rec.skydive, it can also happen to anyone else's group. I would like to politely invite Mr. Rick Adams to back way off. I think that he has taken his "job" far too seriously, and is in need of a nice long rest. It is he who should 'drop off the network', not any of us. (Cogent mail accepted; flames to /dev/null). TJ {With Amazing Grace} The Piper (aka Ted Jardine) CFI-ASME/I Boeing Knowledge Based Systems Center ...uw-beaver!uw-june!bcsaic!ted
casey@csustan.UUCP (Casey Leedom) (09/08/86)
In article <676@bcsaic.UUCP> ted@bcsaic.UUCP (ted jardine) writes: >In article <216@bridge2.UUCP> pvf@bridge2.UUCP (Paul V. Fries) writes: >>I wrote a message to rick@seismo about the reorg. Here was his reply: >> >>>From glacier!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!hao!seismo!rick Sat Aug 30 10:33:59 1986 >>>Date: Fri, 29 Aug 86 23:22:30 EDT >>>Subject: Re: Newsgroup reorg >>> >>> [curt letter from Rick Adams omitted for brevity by Casey Leedom] >> >>Great attitude, huh? > >This is indeed a most repugnant attitude. [more flamage directed at Rick >Adams by Ted Jardine also omitted for brevity by Casey Leedom] I'm sorry to have included even that much. Triple indented inclusions are not my favorite reading form. However, I wanted to make two points: 1: I notice that while Paul Fries was quite willing to quote Rick's reply, Paul did *not* quote his own letter to Rick. I'm not especially interested in seeing that letter, I just want to point out that flaming Rick for his "attitude" without seeing what provoked his response is foolhardy. Without that context we don't know *what* Paul said to Rick. Think about it. 2: The flames from Ted Jardine directed towards Rick that I omitted questioned Rick's "authority ... [to] run this network with such a heavy hand", accused him of censorship, and ended with: >I would like to politely invite Mr. Rick Adams to back way off. I think >that he has taken his "job" far too seriously, and is in need of a nice >long rest. It is he who should 'drop off the network', not any of us. >(Cogent mail accepted; flames to /dev/null). Uhmmm, ... how can one say this delicately? Well, let me put it *this* way: The day Rick "drops off the network" will be a very sad day, a day we will all feel a long while for its loss. Rick has done more for this "net" and its software than most. I don't think we want to be "inviting him to leave". I suggest that we stop this here and simply let Rick have bad days like any of the rest of us. After all, when was the last time any of you snapped at someone who was pestering you while you were trying to get work done? Whether rightly or wrongly? -- Leith (Casey) Leedom lll-crg.arpa!csustan!casey Computer Science Department work: (209) 667-3185 California State University, Stanislaus home: (209) 634-2775 Turlock, CA 95380
chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) (09/08/86)
>In article <216@bridge2.UUCP> pvf@bridge2.UUCP (Paul V. Fries) writes: >>I wrote a message to rick@seismo about the reorg. Here was his reply: [Rather `strongly worded' reply; see <216@bridge2.UUCP> or <676@bcsaic.UUCP> for the text.] In article <676@bcsaic.UUCP> ted@bcsaic.UUCP (ted jardine) writes: >This is indeed a most repugnant attitude. Have you seen the original message? I have not; and I will not condemn Rick without knowing that context. > 1. By what authority does Mr. Adams attempt to run this > network with such a heavy hand? Who needs `authority'? Usenet is run---when it is run at all---by co-operation, and each event is almost invariably begun by a single individual. Rick started things, and as far as I know, all those with whom he was talking went along. It is perhaps significant that those people are the ones in charge of the so-called backbone sites. These people, not Rick alone, came up with the current reorganisation list. > 2. Do the readers of the net really want to permit what > is tantamount to censorship of legitimate, civil > communication? It is hardly censorship. This argument has been made and rebutted before. You are free to post what you will; Rick is free to insult you; and all of you are free either to drop of the net, or to stop forwarding articles from some particular user or site. Doing any of these with abandon will not help at all. >I would like to politely invite Mr. Rick Adams to back way off. I think >that he has taken his "job" far too seriously, That is possible ... >and is in need of a nice long rest. but that is merely insulting. >It is he who should 'drop off the network', not any of us. Alas, I am afraid that he very well may. Seismo cannot continue to pay $50,000 every year for Usenet. Rick clearly does not want to cut off everything; but in the end, that *is* the ultimate solution. Unfortunately, as goes seismo, so do we: I doubt that even one member of the local cluster of sites fed via seismo is willing to take on that kind of expense. Personally, I think Usenet is not worth that much money. It is only barely worth the time and effort required to keep its outdated, buggy software going. Rick may well have over-reacted. If so, the proper thing to do is ignore his outburst; he will soon calm down. And if not---if the original message was a thermite-fueled flame---well, in that case, his reply might well be considered mild. So calm down. Have a glass of milk. Look at the stars high above the garden. Even if it all collapses tomorrow, they will still be there. Usenet is neat, and I like it, but it is hardly worth raising your blood pressure about anything that happens to it. And if, after this, you are still worried, contact your friends now---`while you have the chance'---and set up a whole new network. Perhaps someday we will join you. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 1516) UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!chris CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris@mimsy.umd.edu
pvf@bridge2.UUCP (09/09/86)
> In article <676@bcsaic.UUCP> ted@bcsaic.UUCP (ted jardine) writes: > >In article <216@bridge2.UUCP> pvf@bridge2.UUCP (Paul V. Fries) writes: > >>I wrote a message to rick@seismo about the reorg. Here was his reply: > >> > >>>From glacier!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!hao!seismo!rick Sat Aug 30 10:33:59 1986 > >>>Date: Fri, 29 Aug 86 23:22:30 EDT > >>>Subject: Re: Newsgroup reorg > >>> > >>> [curt letter from Rick Adams omitted for brevity by Casey Leedom] > >> > >>Great attitude, huh? > > > >This is indeed a most repugnant attitude. [more flamage directed at Rick > >Adams by Ted Jardine also omitted for brevity by Casey Leedom] > > I'm sorry to have included even that much. Triple indented inclusions are > not my favorite reading form. However, I wanted to make two points: > > 1: > I notice that while Paul Fries was quite willing to quote Rick's reply, > Paul did *not* quote his own letter to Rick. I'm not especially interested > in seeing that letter, I just want to point out that flaming Rick for his > "attitude" without seeing what provoked his response is foolhardy. Without > that context we don't know *what* Paul said to Rick. Think about it. > > 2: > The flames from Ted Jardine directed towards Rick that I omitted > questioned Rick's "authority ... [to] run this network with such a heavy > hand", accused him of censorship, and ended with: > > >I would like to politely invite Mr. Rick Adams to back way off. I think > >that he has taken his "job" far too seriously, and is in need of a nice > >long rest. It is he who should 'drop off the network', not any of us. > >(Cogent mail accepted; flames to /dev/null). > > Uhmmm, ... how can one say this delicately? Well, let me put it *this* > way: The day Rick "drops off the network" will be a very sad day, a day we > will all feel a long while for its loss. Rick has done more for this "net" > and its software than most. I don't think we want to be "inviting him to > leave". > > I suggest that we stop this here and simply let Rick have bad days like > any of the rest of us. After all, when was the last time any of you snapped > at someone who was pestering you while you were trying to get work done? > Whether rightly or wrongly? > -- > Leith (Casey) Leedom lll-crg.arpa!csustan!casey > Computer Science Department work: (209) 667-3185 > California State University, Stanislaus home: (209) 634-2775 > Turlock, CA 95380 To: glacier!decwrl!amdcad!lll-crg!lll-lcc!csustan!casey Subject: Re: newsgroup reorg References: <216@bridge2.UUCP> <676@bcsaic.UUCP>, <157@csustan.UUCP> Re your net response... In the original mail, I stated that the net.rec.skydive group required little storage and/or transmission time, that we move all the s**t that we do not read, and that the possible benefits to those who are *interested* in or *involved* with skydiving seemed, to me, to be worth what little burden the group created. I asked that the group be left in its present condition. (By the way, the original letter was hardly longer that this paragraph, so the paraphrasing could not have lost much.) You have seen the response. I found it offensive and frustrating. The network seems not to be very user oriented at all. I have found the group (i.e. net.rec.skydive) to be a valuable communications tool, with a better signal-to-noise ratio than most of the groups I read. Yet, we will lose it for no good reason. *Its* loss is what will sadden me.