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).