[net.sources] Censorship: A Case History

tim@unc.UUCP (05/08/84)

>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     11 Jan 84 11:15:37 EST  (Wed)
From:     Rick Snodgrass <rts@unc>
Subject:  RAship
To:       tim@unc
Cc:       bj@unc
In-real-life: Rick Snodgrass
Location: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Status: RO

Tim,
	I've got some good news and some bad news.  The good news is
that Dr. Brooks has agreed to put you on the payroll as an RA, or some
other title acceptable to the bureaucracy.  Your task, as we have previously
discussed, will be to finish development of the IDL system for C.  If
time remains this semester, the next task will be supporting Modula-2.
The bad news is that your use of the system is to be restricted to that
necessary to do your job.  In particular, sending net news on newsgroups
not relevant to your IDL work will not be allowed.

[ description of TreePrint project omitted ]

	I look forward to continuing to work with you.  Please tell me
what the next milestone is, and when you expect to reach it. Although
we won't be using IDL in softlab immediately, I already have four
other projects were IDL would be perfect.
				Rick

>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     12 Jan 84 13:03:20 EST  (Thu)
From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Subject:  Re:  RAship
To:       Rick Snodgrass <rts@unc>
Cc:       bj@unc
In-Reply-To: Message of 11 Jan 84 11:15:37 EST  (Wed) from rts@unc
Status: RO

That is indeed good news.  However, the other restrictions most certainly
are not, since at any given time I tend to be in the middle of ten
conversations on the news and in my private mail.  Any particular reason?
This does not impose much of a strain on the system, but even so I can
restrict my news activities to the wee hours of the night.

When can I expect to see the formal offer of employment?

Are we still meeting on Fridays?

I will resurrect the IDL project and send you my next milestone this
weekend.  (A few weeks of inactivity has thrown me off a bit...)


>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     13 Jan 84 16:20:02 EST  (Fri)
From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Subject:  employment restrictions
To:       mason@unc, brooks@unc
Status: RO

I would like to discuss the restrictions placed on my use of the computer
facilities.  Particularly, I would like to know what motivated the placing
of these restrictions, and why news posting was cited in particular.  As
far as I know, such restrictions have not been placed on any other staff
member, and I feel that I am entitled to some explanation.  Thank you.

Tim Maroney


>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     17 Jan 84 08:33:06 EST  (Tue)
From:     Capt. Ralph A. Mason <mason@unc>
Subject:  Re:  Important Questions
To:       Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Cc:       ram@unc, brooks@unc, jem@unc, howell@unc, rts@unc
Status: RO

Tim, to answer your questions re your employment
1. I intend to pojut on the bi-weekly payroll commencing 9 jan for 20 hours
per week at 200dollars per week for 18 weeks.  --untill 13 may 1984.

2. I would think your first pay chec k would be on 3 feb.

3.I have not assigned you a desk at this time as I assumed you would
be using a terminal for most of your work.  If you need a desk in 
addition to a terminal let me know and I will try to find something.
there are no extra desks in the dept but we can possibly double up
with your half time status.

4. With respect to your employment dutties you will be working for RTS
  
5. The restrictions on using mail and news  outside the department are
imposed based upon your excessive use of resourses in the past that
have to be paid for with taxpayers money coupled with your questionable
judgement as to what constitutes educational and research use of 
national networks, as jem has discussed with you in the past.

If you have a need to use mail outside the department in connection
with rts research He may authorize that useage. You may use mail
and news inhouse  within the department at any time.  No personal
use of any department facilities is authorized at any time duringh
this employment.


>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     17 Jan 84 13:26:18 EST  (Tue)
From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Subject:  Re:  Important Questions
To:       Capt. Ralph A. Mason <mason@unc>
Cc:       tas@unc, rts@unc, jem@unc, howell@unc, brooks@unc
In-Reply-To: Message of 17 Jan 84 08:33:06 EST  (Tue) from mason@unc
Status: RO

Thanks for your reply.  I am doing most of my work at a terminal, but a
desk would provide me witha place to store the documentation I need and
a place to hang my coat...

I have been told in the past by Tim Seaver that outgoing news and mail
cost us nothing.  CSNET is an exception, but I don't use that except to
receive the AI Digest which is also gotten by others here.  Contrary to
your assertion, I have never spoken with John Menges on this subject;
perhaps you mean Tim Seaver?  If so, that incident was caused by some
completely irresponsible and unfounded accusations by Reed and Hedlund
which were apparently motivated by purely personal reasons.

In short, then, this ban does not save the department any significant
amount of money, and since this is the stated purpose, I would ask that
the ban be lifted.  The resources which I use that cost the department are
mostly disk space, which I am willing to accept a ceiling on.  I would
appreciate some sort of formal documentation of the claim that my news
and mail cost the department excessively if the ban is not lifted, since
as far as I know the calls to MCNC are free.  Thanks for your cooperation.

Tim Maroney


>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     17 Jan 84 14:40:54 EST  (Tue)
From:     Capt. Ralph A. Mason <mason@unc>
Subject:  Re:  Important Questions
To:       Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Cc:       tas@unc, rts@unc, jem@unc, howell@unc, brooks@unc
Status: RO

With respect to your usage of the CS NET--FROm january to april  last
year you were the tenth highest user of the net using3.25% of our total
usage which cost about 52  dollars  of scarce communications money.In 
may you were the 4th largest user consumming 10.3 % of departmentusage
July was 8% august 2.1%.  The average usage of a grad student is about.1
to .2 %  while I dont have usage data for last semester yet your
past usage as I stated in an  order of magnitude larger than other students.

With respect to your thinking that Drs. hedlund and Reed have anything
personal against you that is probably not true.  I read some of the
things that you were putting on the net and found them to be in poor
taste--in my opinion--but more importantly I could not stand up before
University officials and defend that type of usage as contributing
to graduate education.  I defend your right to free speech and you 
as an individual will be judged by what you say as we all are.  However
I do not believe that resourses--be it nets, terminals, computers, or
just a heated room to work in --that are provided by the hardworking
taxpayers of North Carolina should be wasted in any manner.

Unless overruled by The chairman  The ban remains in place as 
a condition of employment.  If you can accept this I shall look
for a desk for you.

>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     17 Jan 84 14:42:08 EST  (Tue)
From:     Tim Seaver <tas@unc>
Subject:  news and mail
To:       mason@unc
Cc:       tim@unc
Status: RO

	Date:     17 Jan 84 14:33:06 EST  (Tue)
	From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
	Subject:  The Ban
	To:       tas@unc
	
	Capt. Mason has imposed a ban on outgoing news and mail from me, charging
	excessive use of resources.  YOu told me a while back that such things
	cost us nothing, since they go over the leased line from MCNC.  Has this
	changed?  If so, please tell me how I can find out how much money my use
	of these facilities costs and how much the average cost for a staff member
	is.  If not, please write Capt. Mason and tell him that the charge is
	unfounded.  Regardless, please cc all correspondence on this topic to me.
	Thank you.
	
	Tim Maroney

Tim is correct in this. Only csnet mail costs us money, and
when I checked last, Tim's csnet usage was very low. All news
is transmitted via cost-free (to us, anyway) lines.


>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     17 Jan 84 14:53:39 EST  (Tue)
From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Subject:  Re:  Important Questions
To:       Capt. Ralph A. Mason <mason@unc>
Cc:       tas@unc, rts@unc, jem@unc, howell@unc, brooks@unc
In-Reply-To: Message of 17 Jan 84 14:40:54 EST  (Tue) from mason@unc
Status: RO

Tim Seaver's figures contradict yours; what are your sources?

However, according to your figures, I was never the top user.  Have you
imposed any such sanctions on the people above me?

I should point out that you will never be called upon to stand before
University officials to defend my articles; at most, you could be called
upon to defend the use of the network at all, and in that context a
small amount of "abuse" (although I do not consider it to be that) is
unavoidable.  If the posting of articles that do not directly further
education or research is a waste of resources, then why does this site
subscribe to the discussion groups at all?  Why is any personal mail
from anyone allowed?

I hope you will not see this as excessive argumentativeness on my part.
I simply feel that the ban as imposed is not fair, particularly given Tim
Seaver's figures on my net usage.

Tim Maroney


>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     17 Jan 84 14:59:49 EST  (Tue)
From:     Tim Seaver <tas@unc>
Subject:  csnet mail
To:       tim@unc, mason@unc
Status: RO

As long as I've been brought into this, I may as well present
all of the information I have. 100% of Tim's csnet usage that
I have detailed information about has been receipt of an
Artificial-Intelligence Digest which is shared between Bruce
Smith and Tim. It is not clear, therefore, that Tim is responsible
for any csnet usage. If Bruce would continue to get the digest while
Tim does not, Tim's receipt of the digest is obviously costing 
us nothing.

>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
From:     smb@ulysses
Date:     Mon, 23 Jan 84 16:01:38 est
From:     ulysses!smb (Steven Bellovin)
Message-Id: <8401232101.AA16745@ulysses.UUCP>
Received: by ulysses.UUCP (4.12/3.7)
	id AA16745; Mon, 23 Jan 84 16:01:38 est
To:       unc!tim
Subject:  Re:  news ban
Via:  Ulysses; 23 Jan 84 17:13-EDT
Status: RO

	From unc!tim Tue Jan 17 13:51:14 1984
	Message-Id: <8401171851.AA06374@ulysses.UUCP>
	Received: by ulysses.UUCP (4.12/3.7)
		id AA06374; Tue, 17 Jan 84 13:51:09 est
	Date:     17 Jan 84 13:29:53 EST  (Tue)
	Original-From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
	Subject:  news ban
	To: smb@ulysses
	Status: RO
	
	A ban has been placed on my outgoing news posting.  One reason cited was
	"questionable judgment concerning the use of national networks for
	educational and research purposes".  If you don't feel that this charge
	is just cause for throwing me off USENET, I would really appreciate a
	note from you to Capt. Mason and Dr. Brooks to that effect.  I feel that
	it would have a significant impact, since you are well-repected around
	here as wellas being a "USENET founder".  Thanks for any help you wish
	to give.
	
	Tim Maroney
	
Sorry for any delay in responding; I just got back from D.C.  Before I
send any such note, I'd appreciate more specific information, like what
you did that aroused such ire.

>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     23 Jan 84 20:19:46 EST  (Mon)
From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Subject:  Re:  news ban
To:       smb@ulysses
In-Reply-To: Message of Mon, 23 Jan 84 16:01:38 est from smb@ulysses
		<8401232101.AA16745@ulysses.UUCP>
Status: RO


		A ban has been placed on my outgoing news posting.  One
		reason cited was "questionable judgment concerning the
		use of national networks for educational and research
		purposes".  If you don't feel that this charge is just
		cause for throwing me off USENET, I would really
		appreciate a note from you to Capt. Mason and Dr.
		Brooks to that effect.  I feel that it would have a
		significant impact, since you are well-repected around
		here as wellas being a "USENET founder".  Thanks for
		any help you wish to give.


	Sorry for any delay in responding; I just got back from D.C.
	Before I send any such note, I'd appreciate more specific
	information, like what you did that aroused such ire.

That's a very good question.  No specific examples were cited.  The charges
are essentially two:

(1) Wasting money.  Capt. Mason quoted some figures that seem completely
fabricated as to my expenditures; Tim Seaver responded that my expenses from
use of news and mail are virtually nil, but Mason has not responded.  (This
information was made available to him last Wednesday).

(2) "Questionable judgment concerning what constitutes educational and
research uses of a national network."  This is the charge I'd like you to
say something about, if you don't feel it's accurate.  Am I hurting USENET
and UNC's reputation by my posting of sometimes inflammatory articles?
Should I be ejected from the net?

I really do wish that I could provide something more specific, but those are
the charges as presented to me, which I assure you is not a situation I am
pleased about.  By the way, I might add that even this letter to you is a
breach of the restrictions; however, please do not conceal the fact that I
sent it.
--
Tim Maroney, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
duke!unc!tim (USENET), tim.unc@csnet-relay (ARPA)

>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     24 Jan 84 14:03:54 EST  (Tue)
From:     Capt. Ralph A. Mason <mason@unc>
Subject:  spring semester work
To:       tim@unc
Cc:       fpb@unc, rts@unc
Status: RO

I have not put you on the payroll or looked  for a desk for you
as you have not answered my question--Can you or do you want to 
work under the restrictions on cs net usage.

>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     24 Jan 84 14:19:19 EST  (Tue)
From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Subject:  Re:  spring semester work
To:       Capt. Ralph A. Mason <mason@unc>
Cc:       smb@ulysses, tas@unc, rts@unc, fpb@unc
In-Reply-To: Message of 24 Jan 84 14:03:54 EST  (Tue) from mason@unc
Status: RO

	Date:     24 Jan 84 14:03:54 EST  (Tue)
	From:     Capt. Ralph A. Mason <mason@unc>
	Subject:  spring semester work
	To:       tim@unc
	Cc:       fpb@unc, rts@unc
	
	I have not put you on the payroll or looked  for a desk for you
	as you have not answered my question--Can you or do you want to 
	work under the restrictions on cs net usage.

I definitely will work under whatever restrictions are imposed, so please
add me to the payroll.  However, when a restriction is unfair, I will
protest it as an employee, as I am doing now.  I trust that this will be
acceptable to you.

I have not answered that question because you have not answered one of the
objections to the restriction.  Tim Seaver pointed out in the middle of last
week that there is effectively no monetary expense in my use of the
networks.  You have not responded to this evidence, despite the fact that
your arguments have centered around the cost issue.  Please do so.

I might also add that your restriction would be accepted without question if
it were, as you have stated above, a restriction on CSNET usage, since I
rarely if ever use CSNET.  However, it is not: it is a blanket restriction
on all the networking facilities we have, including USENET.  CSNET costs us
money, but USENET costs us no money.  It is USENET which I use.


>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     24 Jan 84 14:23:08 EST  (Tue)
From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Subject:  news and mail ban
To:       mason@unc
Cc:       smb@ulysses, tas@unc, rts@unc, fpb@unc
Status: RO

I should add that I have been abiding by the terms of the restriction since
I was told of it, and I am not at all pleased that my much-needed paycheck
has been delayed without reason, since I have been performing exactly as
requested.


>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     24 Jan 84 14:45:00 EST  (Tue)
From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Subject:  paycheck
To:       rts@unc
Status: RO

Apparently Capt. Mason is attempting to use my paycheck to compel
surrender.  Could you please point out that I have been working the
correct number of hours, under all restrictions as imposed, since I was
informed of the RAship? I deserve to be paid on time without this
withholding of money.  I have been acting exactly as I have been told
to.  (I am also beginning to get very angry, but hopefully I am
succeeding in concealing this.)


>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     25 Jan 84 21:24:03 EST  (Wed)
From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Subject:  the ban
To:       smb@ulysses
Status: RO

If you would like, I will send you a copy of a file of messages in
which the charges are explained and refuted, and the evidence refuting
them is ignored by the administrators.  It is roughly 400 lines long.
If you would prefer, the file is generally readable as
unc!/unc/tim/THE-BAN.  I don't think this will tell you much, but it is
available by whatever means.

I hope you will decide to help me.  This whole affair is unbelievable.
--
Tim Maroney, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
duke!unc!tim (USENET), tim.unc@csnet-relay (ARPA)


>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     25 Jan 84 21:51:47 EST  (Wed)
From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Subject:  paycheck
To:       brooks@unc
Cc:       rts@unc, mason@unc
Status: RO

Dear Dr. Brooks,

Did you authorize Capt. Mason to withhold my paycheck if I protested
the restriction on my use of network facilities?  He appears to think
you did, since he has deliberately delayed putting me on the payroll.
I have been abiding by the restriction (albeit under protest), and I
have been working the full 20 hours every week, performing satisfactory
work.  Rick has been operating under the assumption that I have already
been hired, as have I; this is due to your letter of 11 Jan 84
informing me that I had been hired.  There can be no justification,
legal or moral, for failing to pay me or for delaying such payment, and
I would appreciate it very much if you would ask Capt. Mason again to
add me to the payroll.

Please note that this is a completely separate issue from the fairness
of the restriction itself.  Pay may be withheld only on grounds of
inadequate job performance; such grounds have not been raised, and they
would not stand up if they were.

Please pardon my somewhat acerbic tone, but I do need to be paid, and I
have earned the money under the agreed-upon terms, so this has got me
at wit's end.

Tim Maroney


>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
From:     smb@ulysses
Date:     Thu, 26 Jan 84 11:28:36 est
From:     ulysses!smb (Steven Bellovin)
Message-Id: <8401261628.AA00999@ulysses.UUCP>
Received: by ulysses.UUCP (4.12/3.7)
	id AA00999; Thu, 26 Jan 84 11:28:36 est
To:       unc!tim
Subject:  restriction
Via:  Ulysses; 26 Jan 84 11:33-EDT
Status: RO

I've been trying to figure out the most effective way I can intervene
on your behalf.  The best solution might be if you filed a complaint with
the student-faculty grievance committee (which to my knowledge has always
existed but never met during my 10 years there....); as part of the proceedings,
you could undoubtedly cite letters from me, tas, etc., testifying that (a) you
aren't incurring expense to the department; and (b) your behavior does not
in any way bring down the reputation of the department academically; and
(c) the only ways your conduct is different is that you express unconventional
political and religious beliefs, actions which are constitutionally
protected.

>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     25 Jan 84 22:48:00 EST  (Wed)
From:     Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc>
Subject:  Re:  paycheck
To:       Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Cc:       rts@unc, mason@unc
Status: RO

My take is that he asked you if you accepted the job under the restrictions
he imposed, and that you never explicitly accepted it.  Apparently you 
implictly accepted it, but did you tell him so?

>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     26 Jan 84 17:32:18 EST  (Thu)
From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Subject:  Re:  restriction
To:       smb@ulysses
In-Reply-To: Message of Thu, 26 Jan 84 11:28:36 est from smb@ulysses
		<8401261628.AA00999@ulysses.UUCP>
Status: RO

I am not going to take the step of filing a formal complaint unless it is
absolutely necessary, and I was hoping that your help would make that
necessity less probable.  A simple letter to Mason, cc'ed to Brooks, Rick,
and myself (and possibly tas) in which you testify as to the truth of the
three points you made in your letter, would be the best thing I could ask
for at this stage.

Thanks for your decision to help.


>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     26 Jan 84 18:02:48 EST  (Thu)
From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Subject:  Re:  paycheck
To:       Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc>
Cc:       rts@unc, mason@unc
In-Reply-To: Message of 25 Jan 84 22:48:00 EST  (Wed) from brooks@unc
Status: RO

	Date:     25 Jan 84 22:48:00 EST  (Wed)
	From:     Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc>
	Subject:  Re:  paycheck
	To:       Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
	Cc:       rts@unc, mason@unc
	
	My take is that he asked you if you accepted the job under the restrictions
	he imposed, and that you never explicitly accepted it.  Apparently you 
	implictly accepted it, but did you tell him so?

Although the implicit acceptance of the restriction by accepting the job
should have been enough, I also explicitly accepted the restriction.  The
question which Capt. Mason asked was not put forth until his letter of this
Tuesday, after a week-long hiatus caused by his failure to respond to the
evidence of Tim Seaver.  Immediately upon receiving this letter, I wrote
back to him explaining that I had accepted the restriction.  Until this
Tuesday, I had no idea that he thought I had not accepted the job; my letter
to you in response to your letter of the 11th makes it quite clear that I
had, and both Rick and myself operated under the assumption that I had.
There was no implication from Capt. Mason that I had not been hired, until
this Tuesday.  In short, then, he did not ask any such thing until Tuesday,
and on Tuesday I did explicitly accept the restriction.  He has still taken
no action, despite this.

I repeat that I have been employed here since the 11th, I have fulfilled all
the duties and restrictions imposed in my hiring, and have had my paycheck
withheld.  I am certain that this violates the law as well as minimal
standards of fairness.  I have made it clear to Capt. Mason that the
restriction is accepted (under protest, pending his review of evidence from
Tim Seaver); still, he has not placed me on the payroll, although he has had
more than two days to do so since my explicit acceptance was received.
Please instruct Capt. Mason that he was in error when he failed to place me
on the payroll, and that this must be rectified as soon as possible.

Finally, I am somewhat upset by your accusation that I have not answered his
question, when in fact I have always promptly answered every question of
his; it is he who has made a policy of not responding to mine, even on vital
issues such as the source of his figures on my alleged CSNET expenditures.
--
Tim Maroney, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
duke!unc!tim (USENET), tim.unc@csnet-relay (ARPA)


>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     26 Jan 84 21:39:51 EST  (Thu)
From:     Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc>
Subject:  Re:  paycheck
To:       Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Cc:       fpb@unc, rts@unc, mason@unc
Status: RO

Calm yourself, I haven't accused you of anything.  I told you my understanding
of the situation and *asked* you if it was correct.

As to the two days to act, Capt. Mason was completely absorbed in an urgent
budget on Wednesday and on vacation Thursday and Friday.  Nothing will happen
before Monday.

As for "withholding your paycheck", no such action has happened.  No matter
who moved the system, if you accepted a job on the 11th, you wouldn't get a
paycheck during January because of the delays in the system.  You may recall
that a job has to be created for you, or at least, it did last I heard the
status of the matter.

If you started real work for Prof. Snodgrass on January 11, you will eventually
get a check covering the period beginning January 11.  I recall carefully
explaining to you that getting you on the payroll would take time, when we
discussed the whole matter in December.  If eating money is the problem,
we shall be glad to make an advance from the Bardez Loan fund, or I will 
make a personal advance.

>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     26 Jan 84 21:49:17 EST  (Thu)
From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Subject:  Re:  paycheck
To:       Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc>
Cc:       rts@unc, mason@unc, fpb@unc
In-Reply-To: Message of 26 Jan 84 21:39:51 EST  (Thu) from brooks@unc
Status: RO

I did not expect a paycheck in January.  However, Capt. Mason's deliberate
delay in adding me to the payroll has moved my expected first paycheck
back from the Feb. 3 date he originally cited to the next payday.  Please
tell me where I can find information on the Bardez Loan fund.

Can I take your response to mean that Capt. Mason should add me to the
payroll ASAP, and that he has been instructed of this?


>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     26 Jan 84 22:10:46 EST  (Thu)
From:     Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc>
Subject:  Re:  paycheck
To:       Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Cc:       brooks@unc, rts@unc, mason@unc
Status: RO

Come see me about the Bardez loan fund, or send mail as to how much you 
need.  Repayment is due when you get your check;  no interest.  The fund
is described in a notice on one of the obscure bulletin boards downstairs.

Since Captain Mason is out of town, I have neither discussed the matter
with him nor instructed him concerning anything.  Nor will I until Monday,
and not then until discussing it with him.


>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     26 Jan 84 22:20:37 EST  (Thu)
From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Subject:  Re:  paycheck
To:       Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc>
Cc:       rts@unc, mason@unc, brooks@unc
In-Reply-To: Message of 26 Jan 84 22:10:46 EST  (Thu) from brooks@unc
Status: RO

Thank you for your help.  I am not happy about the delay until Monday, but
there is obviously no alternative at this point.  I will get back to you
on the Bardez loan.


>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     26 Jan 84 22:15:59 EST  (Thu)
From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Subject:  grievance committee
To:       weiss@unc
Status: RO

Steve Bellovin informs me that there is a faculty-student grievance
committee.  I have been given a restriction on use of networking
facilities (use none ever) by Dr. Brooks and Capt. Mason; Dr. Brooks
refuses to discuss the matter, having turned it over to Capt. Mason;
Capt. Mason has cited figures which he refuses to explain the source
of, saying I cost a lot of network money, and he has also refused to
respond to evidence from Tim Seaver that my network usage costs almost
nothing.  There are a few other complaints.  Is the committee still
alive and kicking?

>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     27 Jan 84 11:45:17 EST  (Fri)
From:     Steve Weiss <weiss@unc>
Subject:  Re:  grievance committee
To:       Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Status: RO

There is a grievance committee, but it is not for that kind of grievance.
If you cannot get satisfaction from Ralph, write me a letter and I'll present
it at a faculty meeting.

>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     27 Jan 84 19:53:08 EST  (Fri)
From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Subject:  Re:  grievance committee
To:       Steve Weiss <weiss@unc>
In-Reply-To: Message of 27 Jan 84 11:45:17 EST  (Fri) from weiss@unc
Status: RO

Thanks.  I will probably get in touch with you next week.

>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     27 Jan 84 23:10:17 EST  (Fri)
From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Subject:  yet more on this junk
To:       smb@ulysses
Status: RO

The grievance committee is, according to Dr. Weiss, not for that sort of
grievance, but if Mason doesn't begin dealing in good faith next week,
the matter will be brought up by Dr. Weiss with other faculty members.
Gievn this, a letter from you seems to be the best approach.  Please
make the recipients Capt. Mason, Drs. Brooks, Snodgrass, and Weiss, and
myself.  Thank you.


>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     29 Jan 84 21:16:13 EST  (Sun)
From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Subject:  Bardez loan request
To:       mason@unc
Cc:       brooks@unc
Status: RO

Since my paycheck has been delayed, I am requesting a Bardez loan in the
amount of $350.  I have read the posted document on the loans and understand
the terms.

Tim Maroney

>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     31 Jan 84 18:17:06 EST  (Tue)
From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Subject:  networking restrictions
To:       mason@unc
Cc:       brooks@unc, tas@unc, weiss@unc, rts@unc
Status: RO

Capt. Mason,

Now that the payroll issue has been resolved, we can continue discussing the
issue of the appropriateness of the ban.  As I see it, the main issue is
whether or not my use of networking facilities costs the school any money,
since the primary charge was that I was spending too much money, and the
secondary charge was that the alleged "bad taste" of my submissions was a
waste of resources.  If there is no cost, then the first charge is shown to
be false, and the second to be irrelevant.

Two weeks ago, Tim Seaver claimed that my use of the networking facilities
here costs nothing.   However, some figures claiming that my expenditures
were large were put forth by the administration at around the same time.
The issue seems to be resolvable simply by determining which of these
incompatible claims is accurate.  If Tim is correct, then the restriction is
groundless and should be lifted; otherwise, it is justified and should
remain in effect, unless I promise to keep the cost at acceptable levels,
now that I have been warned.  I believe that you will readily accept that
Tim is an expert on these matters, and I am inclined to accept his claims.
What is the source of the administration's figures?  Thank you for your
cooperation.

Tim Maroney


>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     31 Jan 84 22:09:20 EST  (Tue)
From:     Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc>
Subject:  Re:  networking restrictions
To:       Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Cc:       weiss@unc, snodgrass@unc, mason@unc
Status: RO


I have erred in leaving Captain Mason to take the heat for a joint decision
for which I will gladly take full responsibility.  Even were he inclined to
lift the networking restrictions, I would not do so.  Cost is not the issue.
Appropriateness is.  I am quite unwilling for you to represent this department
to the world at large with the kind of communications you have been sending.
This is not the result of any second-hand charge from Hedlund and Reed, or
their friends.  After the matter came up, we read for ourselves a sample
of the correspondence.  You may not use our facilities for the dissemination
abroad of such bitterness, anger, and intemperate abuse.

If this policy gives you trouble, I shall be happy to discuss it with you
man-to-man and face-to-face.  Neither Captain Mason nor I shall enter into
any more correspondence about it.

Indeed, I would welcome a chance to talk about this with you, but it's your
option.
:wq


>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     31 Jan 84 22:22:37 EST  (Tue)
From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Subject:  Re:  networking restrictions
To:       Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc>
Cc:       weiss@unc, snodgrass@unc, mason@unc
In-Reply-To: Message of 31 Jan 84 22:09:20 EST  (Tue) from brooks@unc
Status: RO

Good.  However, before any such meeting, I would like to see copies of the
specific articles to which you are objecting.

For the record, I would like to say that although I have lost my temper on
the net more than once, it has never been without provocation in the
extreme, such as people responding to rational arguments with personal
attacks on me.  We can discuss this at our meeting.


>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     1 Feb 84 13:19:08 EST  (Wed)
From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Subject:  offending articles
To:       brooks@unc
Cc:       weiss@unc, rts@unc
Status: RO

As I stated, I would like to know which articles you object to before we
meet, but I realize you may not have copies saved.  If you will tell me
the subjects of the offending articles, I will see if they are among those
which I have saved on my own tape.


>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     2 Feb 84 13:50:37 EST  (Thu)
From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Subject:  off-site mail
To:       brooks@unc
Status: O

Since you have now made it clear that the objection to my use of the network
relates only to news posting, may I consider the ban on outgoing mail lifted?
(If you prefer, we can discuss this at our meeting, but it seems fairly
clear-cut.)  I do not like failing to respond to people who write me letters;
it is rude.

Tim Maroney


>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     2 Feb 84 17:35:54 EST  (Thu)
From:     Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc>
Subject:  Re:  off-site mail
To:       Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Cc:       fpb@unc
Status: RO

	Date:     2 Feb 84 13:50:37 EST  (Thu)
	From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
	Subject:  off-site mail
	To:       brooks@unc
	
	Since you have now made it clear that the objection to my use of the network
	relates only to news posting, may I consider the ban on outgoing mail lifted?
	(If you prefer, we can discuss this at our meeting, but it seems fairly
	clear-cut.)  I do not like failing to respond to people who write me letters;
	it is rude.
	
	Tim Maroney
The ban stands.  I don't have in hand copies of documents I read last fall,
but can retrieve some.  Since the problem wasn't subject but expression,
there is no easy way to characterize them.

I'll be out of town Monday and Tuesday but hope to be prepared for a 
meeting by Wednesday.  I am willing, but may or may not be able, to 
identify documents to you before a proposed meeting time.

>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     2 Feb 84 20:02:59 EST  (Thu)
From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Subject:  Re:  off-site mail
To:       Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc>
In-Reply-To: Message of 2 Feb 84 17:35:54 EST  (Thu) from brooks@unc
Status: O

I consider knowing which articles you objected to to be a precondition of
any meeting, and I will wait any reasonable amount of time for them to be
retrieved before meeting.


>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     3 Feb 84 13:41:25 EST  (Fri)
From:     Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc>
Subject:  Re:  off-site mail
To:       Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Cc:       fpb@unc
Status: RO

Just to put things back into perspective:  I gladly offered a meeting;
I didn't ask for one.   I understood you to have a grievance and to 
want a hearing.  If this is the case, let me know.

	Date:     2 Feb 84 20:02:59 EST  (Thu)
	From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
	Subject:  Re:  off-site mail
	To:       Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc>
	In-Reply-To: Message of 2 Feb 84 17:35:54 EST  (Thu) from brooks@unc
	Status: RO
	
	I consider knowing which articles you objected to to be a precondition of
	any meeting, and I will wait any reasonable amount of time for them to be
	retrieved before meeting.

>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     3 Feb 84 17:26:33 EST  (Fri)
From:     Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc>
Subject:  Re:  meeting
To:       Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Cc:       rts@unc
Status: RO

I'm sorry;  during this interval Wednesday has now been scheduled with
architects.  How would Thursday at 11:00 do?

>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     8 Feb 84 22:52:43 EST  (Wed)
From:     Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc>
Subject:  Meeting
To:       tim@unc
Status: RO

I have found in Ralph's file the two messages that precipitated our 
discussion and action last fall.  Copies are in your physical mailbox.

>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     9 Feb 84 08:01:51 EST  (Thu)
From:     Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc>
Subject:  Messages
To:       tim@unc
Status: RO


After sending you last night's mail, and on the way downstairs to put the
messages in your mailbox, I got interrupted by Henry Fuchs and accidentally 
left for home with them still in my pocket.   I'll put them there when I 
come in, about 10:00 a.m.

>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
From:     smb@ulysses
Date:     Thu, 9 Feb 84 14:18:40 est
From:     ulysses!smb (Steven Bellovin)
Message-Id: <8402091918.AA25106@ulysses.UUCP>
Received: by ulysses.UUCP (4.12/3.7)
	id AA25106; Thu, 9 Feb 84 14:18:40 est
To:       unc!tim
Subject:  Re:  request
Via:  Ulysses; 9 Feb 84 14:23-EDT
Status: RO

Yes, I would be willing to talk with Dr. Brooks by phone.  My schedule is
pretty flexible (though I tend to dislike anything that requires met ot
think before 10am....).  Or I can write a somewhat longer letter by netmail;
that might be an easier way than playing telephone tag with fpb.

I'm sorry I haven't sent anything sooner; life here has been pretty hectic
lately.

>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
From:     laura@utzoo
Date:     Fri, 10 Feb 84 02:25:29 est
From:     ulysses!allegra!utzoo!laura
Message-Id: <8402100725.AA08371@ulysses.UUCP>
Received: by ulysses.UUCP (4.12/3.7)
	id AA08371; Fri, 10 Feb 84 02:25:29 est
To:       allegra!ulysses!unc!tim
Subject:  no account on utcsstat
Via:  ulysses!allegra; 10 Feb 84 2:29-EDT
Status: RO

the real reason came down from management
I offended somebody with an article in net.religion.

Small World.

Laura



>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     3 Feb 84 13:19:55 EST  (Fri)
From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Subject:  meeting
To:       brooks@unc
Cc:       rts@unc
Status: RO

I am willing to cancel the precondition that I put on our meeting, namely
that I be first supplied with the articles which were felt to be
objectionable.  It was my feeling that without these there would be nothing
to discuss; I see now that this is not the case.  Please forgive the delay
this caused in the scheduling process.  Would a meeting after 2:30pm on
Wednesday be acceptable to you?

Tim Maroney


>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     3 Feb 84 17:30:08 EST  (Fri)
From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Subject:  meeting
To:       brooks@unc
Cc:       rts@unc
Status: RO

Thursday at 11 is acceptable.  See you then.

By the way, it would be helpful if you could have the articles retrieved
before then, even though it isn't absolutely necessary.  I do want to know
what all the fuss is about.


>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     9 Feb 84 13:12:17 EST  (Thu)
From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Subject:  request
To:       smb@ulysses
Status: RO

Would you be willing to discuss my behavior on the net with Dr. Brooks via
phone?  He does not feel that a "testimonial letter" would necessarily
address the points he feels are relevant.  IN essence, it would be your
word that my only "crime" is holding unpopular views against second-hand
accusations by faculty members that I am hurting the University's reputation.

This seems to be the only chance that Dr. Brooks would change his mind, since
he is more inclined to give credence to these complaints than to my claim
that I am not overly obnoxious on the net.  I would really appreciate it.
We can set a time if you are agreeable.

Tim Maroney


>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     9 Feb 84 14:28:10 EST  (Thu)
From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Subject:  Re: request
To:       smb@ulysses
Cc:       brooks@unc
Status: RO

Thank you for agreeing to do this.  I am fairly sure that Dr. Brooks does
not want text of any kind, only speech.  I am relaying this letter to Dr.
Brooks, together with your request that the call/meeting not be before 10am;
you two will have to work out a mutually agreeable schedule.

Life has been pretty hectic here too, so please don't feel the need to
apologize.

Tim Maroney


>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     15 Feb 84 19:19:12 EST  (Wed)
From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Subject:  phone call scheduling
To:       smb@ulysses
Status: RO

When would be a good time for you and Dr. Brooks to have your phone call?

By the way, I've pretty much concluded that the motivation for the ban is
my unconventional stands on net.religion.  The reasons (don't judge until
you've seen them all):

(1) The ban was originally imposed as a restriction on "all personal use,
such as news posting".  As I discussed it, it became clear that the
restriction was particularly targetted at news posting.  The original form
of the restriction was an obvious attempt to keep me from seeing that the
ban was directed at news posting.

(2) When I discussed the ban, new charges were continually created as I
disproved old ones.  No reason was originally given.  This points to some
hidden charge which is the true motivation for the restriction.  Why would
such a charge be hidden?

(3) The ban clearly was not motivated by review of the two mild articles
which were given to me as "evidence".  (I haven't typed these in yet; one
was my flame at Ray Jender for calling gays "faggots"; the other was an
obviously tongue-in-cheek article telling people to sign their full names or
burn in Hell forever; both were posted to net.flame.)  The articles were
posted last July, making a link to a January action very unlikely.

(4) At the time of the imposition of the restriction, I was engaged in a
discussion which criticized the holy books of Mason and Brooks' religion
quite strongly.

(5) Given the Christian worldview, religious censorship is completely
consistent with moral requirements, since souls could wind up damned if the
censorship is not imposed.

(6) Laura Creighton was thrown off her machine at almost the same time.  It
later was revealed that the reason was that she had posted things to
net.religion which some administrator objected to.  I do not know if there
is any causal relationship here (although the temporal coincidence is highly
suggestive), but it does indicate that such things can and do happen to
people with views like myself and Laura's.  Furthermore, note the fact that
Laura was not initially informed of the real reason; this suggests that a
similar set of events might be happening here.

I don't expect this to come up in your discussion with Dr. Brooks, but I
thought you should know the only solution I've found for this puzzle.  I
shied away from this for a while, feeling that it was too paranoid, but I
have not been able to come up with any other convincing solution.

Tim Maroney


>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     20 Feb 84 17:15:33 EST  (Mon)
From:     Tim Maroney <tim@unc>
Subject:  proposal
To:       brooks@unc
Status: RO

Did Steve's information help to shed light on the charges against me?  If
so, is there any change in your position, given this previously-unavailable
information?

I am willing to negotiate a compromise settlement and then drop the issue.

I can reduce the fixed cost to effective nil (although I think it is there
already) by spooling all postings for the wee hours of the morning and using
my home terminal (which I will be able to hook up when I get paid) during
times of low system load for news traffic.  I have tried to make this idea
similar to the measures taken to reduce game cost.

Furthermore, I can promise to not reply in kind to abusive postings, and not
to originate such myself (this latter is redundant anyway, since I haven't
done that since my first semester here -- and that was part of the "learning
process" you said you wished to extend to students via the net).  I can not
promise never to disagree with anyone, but I can promise never to do so in
any way other than in the light of reason.  I am entirely willing to place a
disclaimer on my articles saying that my opinions in no way reflect the
opinions of anyone other than myself.

Finally, I ask that the restrictions on mail be lifted.  I promise to ignore
any hate mail directed at me, and not to originate any myself.  Again, the
latter is not any change from how I normally behave.  I would be using mail
to correspond with potential employers and friends, at effectively nil cost
to us, and I would clearly not have any reason to become abusive.

I realize that you did not know that the fixed cost could be reduced to nil;
however, I can implement a simple spooler using the extremely low-cost at(1)
UNIX tool.  The spooler would be developed on my own time, implemented
during periods of low system load, and would cause the posting to occur
early in the morning (meaning that the uucp would happen then).  It would be
a user program that would require no system personnel installation or
maintenance, since it uses normal UNIX tools.  This new fact, combined with
Steve's providing new evidence that I am not a particularly abusive person,
changes the situation considerably, and I hope you will take these factors
into account.

I see no concern of yours that I have left unanswered; please advise me if
this is not so, but I would appreciate your not introducing yet more new
charges, as has happened before with this issue.

I was surprised when you told me that the restriction was based on informal,
anonymous, verbal complaints; it is clear that anyone who complains first to
you about my behavior, without saying anything about it to me first, is more
concerned about interfering with me than about seeing a problem rectified.
An alternative is that they thought that I would not heed any such requests,
which does not demonstrate any measure of objectivity toward me (or any
knowledge of my character).  Furthermore, such complaints are impossible for
me to answer, since I have been denied the knowledge of both my accusers'
identity and his charges; as such, these complaints are manifestly unfair.

Any such "evidence" should be ruled out of consideration.  If the "mystery
complainer" wants to come out of the closet and present specific charges,
that would be another matter.

I wish you would not take such complaints as gospel.  The earlier incident
when Capt. Mason made accusations against me was motivated by anonymous and
unfounded charges from Hedlund; his letter made it clear that those charges
were a result of his embarrassment when I had told Kathy Yount that Hedlund
had left her password in a generally readable file.  That is why I told
Capt. Mason that those charges were personally motivated.  People's opinions
about other people are often based on such narrow (and often self-serving)
perspectives, as you know; this is a crime we have all been guilty of at
some time or another.  I strongly suspect that some similar, unknown
personal animosity is at play here, or a desire to censor my writings on
some particular subject, since some of my opinions are extremely unpopular.

It has happened before, on both counts (although the latter was at UNC-G,
not here); I wish that you would at least consent to entertain the
possibility that it has happened again, rather than taking the word of
someone who makes it obvious that he thinks he has a bone to pick with me,
whoever that may be.  If you are still determined that the "mystery
complainer" deserves to be part of this, please submit the compromise
proposal to them and ask them to comment on it -- if they are unwilling to
consider a compromise or have only abusive comments, I would hope that you
would realize what that would have said about their impartiality; otherwise,
please relay their suggested revisions to me.

Incidentally, if you do not wish correspondence to me to be considered
public, all you have to do is write me a note to that effect.  Also, if you
would prefer that such lengthy mail be in hardcopy rather than electronic
format, please let me know.

Tim Maroney


>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     21 Feb 84 18:22:49 EST  (Tue)
From:     Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc>
Subject:  Proposal
To:       tim@unc
Status: RO

Will deal with when I get back from California.

>From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984
Date:     21 Feb 84 22:39:59 EST  (Tue)
From:     Byron Howes (UNCCC) <bch@unc>
To:       tim@unc
Status: RO

	From:     houxu!welsch@ihnp4
	Received: by ihnp4.ATT.UUCP (sendmail 4.12/9-Jan-84)
		id AA07627; 21 Feb 84 06:58:21 CST (Tue)
	Date:     21 Feb 1984 7:51-EST
	From:     ihnp4!welsch
	Subject:  Laura Creighton's priviledges
	To:       ihnp4!harpo!decvax!mcnc!unc!bch
	Message-Id: <84/02/21 0751.000@houxu>
	Origin:   houxu
	Via:  Mcnc; 21 Feb 84 19:38-EDT
	
	Byron Howes,
	
	After reading an article by you in net.flame I sent Laura a note and
	asked about her priviledges. Below is her reply.
	
	
	>From uucp Tue Feb 21 03:23 EST 1984
	>From utzoo!laura  Tue Feb 21 00:28:55 1984 remote from ihnp4
	Date: 21 Feb 84 00:28:55 CST (Tue)
	From: ihnp4!utzoo!laura
	Message-Id: <8402210628.AA14465@ihnp4.ATT.UUCP>
	Received: by ihnp4.ATT.UUCP (sendmail 4.12/9-Jan-84)
		id AA14465; 21 Feb 84 00:28:55 CST (Tue)
	To: ihnp4!houxu!welsch
	Subject: Re:  Haven't heard from you in ages
	
	You can tell everybody that i didn't have my privledges revoked (though the
	account at utcsstat got nuked) but rather that I got a whole lot of work
	dumped on me and I have to move it.
	
	So no fun for me until it is done. Sigh. The things we do for money.
	
	Laura
	
	
	______________
	
	Just thought I'd get to the root of the rumour.
	
					Larry Welsch
					houxu!welsch
	
	
>From tim Tue Mar  6 11:58:53 1984
To: brooks
Subject: Compromise proposal

Just a reminder that my compromise proposal is awaiting action at your
earliest convenience.

Tim Maroney

>From brooks Mon Mar 12 11:37:50 1984
Received: by unc (4.12/4.7) id AA22823; Mon, 12 Mar 84 11:37:36 est
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 84 11:37:36 est
From: Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks>
Message-Id: <8403121637.AA22823@unc>
To: tim
Subject: Re:  compromise proposal
Status: RO

Well, I'm now back and at work on the backlog.  I was gone last week.

>From tim Fri Mar 16 17:23:39 1984
To: brooks
Subject: reminder
Status: R

My compromise proposal is still awaiting action.  When I originally sent it,
you said that you would respond after returning from California.  If I
recall correctly, that was some weeks ago.

I must insist on a response no later than next Wednesday, the 21st of March.
The end of the semester is approaching.

Tim Maroney

>From brooks Sat Mar 17 17:41:36 1984
Received: by unc (4.12/4.7) id AA11791; Sat, 17 Mar 84 17:41:30 est
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 84 17:41:30 est
From: Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks>
Message-Id: <8403172241.AA11791@unc>
To: tim
Subject: Re:  reminder
Status: R

I refuse to have you schedule my work or set my priorities.  Your proposesal
needs to be discussed by our faculty, which had more pressing business at
its meeting on Friday, and which did not meet over the break.  

Since you insist on a response by Wednesday next, a response you shall have:
No.

>From tim Sat Mar 17 18:26:52 1984
To: brooks
Subject: compromise proposal

I did not perceive it as an unreasonable request.  I put a good deal of work
into the compromise proposal; I am disappointed that you did not appreciate
that effort.  It was a gesture of good faith that I went to the trouble of
writing it on my own time.

Please try to put yourself in my place.  I have been denied a privilege
permitted to all other staff members, and I have had to go to a great deal
of trouble to find the reasons why, or even the exact nature of the
restriction.  Perhaps I should have trusted that something was being done;
but if I had acted on that basis from the start, I would not now know any of
the reasons for the restriction, and no action whatsoever would have been
taken.  My apprehension when no action appeared to be being taken is, I
think, readily understandable given the history of the affair.

I apologize for trying to impose a deadline on you; I realize that you are a
busy man.  I hope that you will not allow this small slip to terminate
consideration of this matter.  I would feel much more comfortable if there
were some date by which I could expect consideration to be given my proposal.

Tim Maroney

>From mcnc!ihnp4!mhuxl!cbosgd!pmd@cbscc.UUCP Wed Mar 21 10:31:32 1984
Received: by unc (4.12/4.7) id AA15692; Wed, 21 Mar 84 10:09:45 est
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.UUCP; id AA03765; 20 Mar 84 22:42:32 CST (Tue)
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 84 16:26:09 est
From: ihnp4!cbosgd!pmd@cbscc.UUCP
Message-Id: <8403202126.AA00407@cbosgd.UUCP>
Received: by cbosgd.UUCP (4.12/3.7)
	id AA00407; Tue, 20 Mar 84 16:26:09 est
Sent-By: cbscc.UUCP Tue Mar 20 15:22 EST 1984
To: mhuxl!ihnp4!harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!akgua!mcnc!unc!tim@cbosgd
Subject: Re: structure and array and string comparisons
References: <637@sun.uucp>, <6941@unc.UUCP>
Status: R

The censored hacker?  Who's censoring you, Tim?

How are you and Pamela doing these days, anyway?

Paul Dubuc




>From brooks Fri Mar 23 18:16:18 1984
Received: by unc (4.12/4.7) id AA10771; Fri, 23 Mar 84 18:00:10 est
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 84 18:00:10 est
From: Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks>
Message-Id: <8403232300.AA10771@unc>
To: tim
Subject: Re:  compromise proposal
Cc: fpb
Status: R

We considered your proposal today.  As a matter of fact, I was just
ready to say "yes", this afternoon, when I heard (unproved) allegations
that 
  	1.  You had violated the ban outright.
and 	2.  You were using Byron Howes as a front to send your net
		views out, via "private correspondence" which he 
		then quotes.  I read that for myself.  If it were not
		in fact a front, it would not be signed as it was,
		for you were certainly not censored with respect to
		private correspondence to Byron.   This seems to me
		to be flagrant disobedience.

Is the first allegation true?
Have you anything to be said to the second?

>From tim Sat Mar 24 16:43:29 1984
To: brooks
Subject: Re:  compromise proposal
Status: R

Re point 1:  That is not correct.  I have posted articles to technical
groups (net.unix and net.lang.c) on matters of interest to me as a C and
UNIX programmer; it was my understanding that such postings were allowed.
If this is incorrect, I apologize.  None of the articles were even remotely
abusive, by the way.   I suggest that your report comes from someone who
thought the ban was absolute, not on non-job-related postings only.

Re point 2:  I was in the habit from before the ban of signing my mail with
a fixed signature file.  Usually I do not sign local mail at all, but
sometimes I do.  Since I used the editor for the letter to Byron, I probably
did it automatically and without thinking, via my emacs function "sign-it"
which interpolates the signature file.

Tim Maroney

>From tim Mon Mar 26 16:50:40 1984
To: brooks howell
Subject: news cutback
Cc: menges tas
Status: R

I am curious as to the reasons for cutting the non-technical news groups.
I am not implying that there are no reasons; I am just curious as to what
they are.  I found with two simple commands today that news groups with the
"net." prefix use only 9219K of 29631K available on /usr/spool, and that
/usr/spool is less than 50% full in any case.  In other words, disk space
does not seem to be a problem with respect to news.

I am also curious about the motivation for cutting games.  Only 1393K is
used by games programs, and games are rigged so that it is impossible to
play them when the system load is high.  Thus, their cost is nearly nil,
as Dr. Brooks explained to me when we met to discuss my USENET restrictions.

Tim Maroney

>From tim Mon Mar 26 20:30:21 1984
To: brooks
Subject: Consideration of compromise

I am curious as to the antecedent of "we" in your latest letter.  From your
letter before that, I had assumed that you meant "the faculty", but I now
have found out that the matter was not discussed by the faculty.  Would you
mind telling me who "We considered your proposal" refers to?  Thank you.

Tim Maroney

>From smb@ulysses Fri Mar 30 15:54:28 1984
Received: by unc (4.12/4.7) id AA10510; Fri, 30 Mar 84 15:54:11 est
Received: by ulysses.UUCP (4.12/4.7)
	id AA18352; Fri, 30 Mar 84 15:42:39 est
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 84 15:42:39 est
From: smb@ulysses (Steven Bellovin)
Message-Id: <8403302042.AA18352@ulysses.UUCP>
To: ecsvax!bch@mcnc, bts@unc, tim@unc
Subject: another one bites the dust...
Status: R

Do you think it's contagious?
-----------
Relay-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ulysses.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site iwlc6.UUCP
Path: ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!ihnp4!iwlc6!amigo
From: amigo@iwlc6.UUCP (John Hobson)
Newsgroups: net.net-people
Subject: Hobson withdrawing from the net
Message-ID: <115@iwlc6.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 29-Mar-84 12:02:05 EST
Article-I.D.: iwlc6.115
Posted: Thu Mar 29 12:02:05 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 29-Mar-84 12:46:04 EST
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 5

This is to inform you all that I have been to9ld by my supervision that all 
of my netnews priviledges are henceforth removed.  This is the last article
I will be submitting.  Good by.
				John Hobson
				AT&T Bell Labs--Naperville, IL

>From bts Mon Apr  2 17:17:34 1984
Received: by unc (4.12/4.7) id AA23272; Mon, 2 Apr 84 17:17:07 est
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 84 17:17:07 est
From: Bruce Smith <bts>
Message-Id: <8404022217.AA23272@unc>
To: bch@ecsvax, smb@ulysses, tim
Subject: Hobson
Status: R

  From ihnp4!iwlc6!amigo@mcnc Mon Apr  2 14:12:24 1984
  Received: by unc (4.12/4.7) id AA16126; Mon, 2 Apr 84 14:12:09 est
  Date: 2 Apr 84 08:41:12 CST (Mon)
  Message-Id: <8404021441.AA04455@ihnp4.ATT.UUCP>
  Received: by ihnp4.ATT.UUCP; id AA04455; 2 Apr 84 08:41:12 CST (Mon)
  To: houxa!dman@houxm, decvax!bbncca!sdyer@ihnp4, decvax!mcnc!unc!bts@ihnp4
  From: iwlc6!hobs@ihnp4
  Status: RO
  
  First of all, I must say that I am slightly overwhelmed (and
  gratified) by all the people who expressed sorrow or consternation
  at my leaving the net.
  
  Secondly, it was something strictly between my immediate supervisor
  and me.  There is no Bell Labs censorship or anything like that.  I was
  letting the net get in the way of my work (spending several hours
  of working time daily reading it and writing to it) and I had
  gotten behind in my work assignments.
  
  Thirdly, when I get caught up, I will start contributing again,
  although on a considerably reduced scale.
  
  				John Hobson
  				AT&T Bell Labs--Naperville, IL
  				ihnp4!iwlc6!amigo
  				
  P.S.  I will be sending this out to the net (in net.net-people).