myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (02/13/86)
> From: Charles Hedrick <uwvax!RED.RUTGERS.EDU!HEDRICK> > Subject: Re: Fraudulent article from Rutgers personnel... > > I have talked to most of the people involved, and have found the > following chronology: > > - after publishing the first 7 parts, Josh was disabled by > an attack of mono. The flu that he mentioned in his > next to last digest turned out to be more serious. > This explains the long hiatus in poli-sci. > - the 8th part arrived within a few days of the first 7. > However by that time, Josh was in no condition to > do anything about it. > - when Josh came back, in mid-January (he had a fairly serious > case, and also had suffered a relapse), he discovered > that he did not have time to catch up on both his job > and poli-sci. So he asked Charles to handle poli-sci > for him. He told Charles the general rules, but did > not discuss any specific pending articles. > - the first article in Charles' queue was your 8th part. > Because it contained addresses of organizations to > contribute to, it was not publishable in the digest. > This has been a consistent policy of poli-sci, because > of its role as a Arpanet digest. Charles sent an explanation > to the person who had given him the article, who promised > to pass it on (presumably to you). > - another article that he found was the satire. It was written > by Bob Carter. The business about finding it in an orphaned > file (whatever that means) was simply adding verisimilitude > to the idea of it being the missing 8th part. I believe > Bob had seen the actual 8th part on net.politics. He > certainly did not get it from Josh. I have looked at both, > and it is clear that Bob's satire is not a rewrite of the > 8th part at all. It is a satire on the first 7. I believe > he took the title from the end of the 7th part, which > promised a last part with that particular title. > - Charles had not been reading poli-sci, and thus had none of the > context. He had no idea that this was a satire. (He simply > assumed that the first 7 parts weren't worth publishing!) > Apparently he doesn't know Spanish. > > I hope this all makes you feel happier about Josh and Charles, who > really were innocent bystanders. > > In addition to this, you have asked us to publish your letter of > accusation and the original 8th part. We would certainly be happy to > publish your letter, and a copy of the original 8th part with > addresses replaced by ellipses. However I believe that when your > accusation is combined with the chronology above, the result would not > be helpful for you. I think most people would conclude that you had > drawn unjustified conclusions. > I'm afraid I went a bit off the deep end about the article which Mr. Carter wrote, tho I'm still plenty pissed off at him personally (he has refused to apologize). Legal action is definately not called for, and I'd like to thank Mr. Hedrick for taking a great deal of time to sort the facts out. My apologies to people for putting up with all this (altho it does raise interesting legal questions, this is not of a serious enough magnitude to make delving into the legal system itself worthwhile). jeff m