waldron@newport.rutgers.edu (James Waldron) (11/29/89)
UNITEX is alive a well and living in the 'etherNet'.....
All rumors reporting our demise our greatly exaggerated. So
much for theatrics....
Apparently, there is a major shift and change underway in
our society... like the wunderjhare of radical emotive
therapy (ala Albert Ellis) and what spawned a new age of
self-involved, self-referential brats...voila ---> the age
of yuppie enlightenment (actually an oximoron but useful for
effect). All this will hopefully pass very soon. "Oh
Albert...can this really be the end.. to be stuck inside a
network with the braindead blues again..."
There is an obvious lack of communication and understanding
regarding the recent resignation of the
misc.headlines.unitex moderator. This very medium is ideal
for fostering such a BIG lack of understanding about what
really was involved. I'm convinced that no one really
cares. I am told that I am pompous and have no real
understanding of how UseNet operates by people (like Brad
Templeton...you gotta be kidding) that seem a lot more
pompous than I ever did and certainly a lot less
knowledgeable of this Network or any network for that
matter.
Big business, governments, the nonprofit community and the
academic environments are suffering from what I've tried to
highlight in a simple, straightforward title to this
message.
The facts don't seem to interest anyone anymore. In fact, what
UNITEX was doing or the pioneering effort made by UNITEX
(statements made by the National Science Foundation on behalf
of UNITEX) was of no importance to anyone except the usually
'bright few'.....
Electronic networks are a valuable conduit for real information.
Unfortunately they are a poor substitute for channeling peoples
hostility, frustration and bitterness or whatever new dilemmas
are pressing hard on modern yuppie man.
If anyone out there is engaged in research or actually
trying to DO something, then I'm sure my title description
needs little explanation. For the others..... it's simply
not worth my time to explain.....
'You are what you pretend to be...'Brad.... 'so be careful what
you pretend to be....' K. Vonnegut
Dr. James Waldron
aka the 'real' Dr. J ===> ROCK ON!
David Essex (A collegue of Dr. J)
[He knows the 'truth'].
karl@cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (11/29/89)
waldron@newport.rutgers.edu writes:
UNITEX is alive a well and living in the 'etherNet'.....
All rumors reporting our demise our greatly exaggerated. So
much for theatrics....
Hardly. Most of the rest of your article consisted entirely of
theatrics. It started with your article's Subject: and goes downhill
from there. Case in point, especially the 2nd parenthesized comment:
Apparently, there is a major shift and change underway in
our society... like the wunderjhare of radical emotive
therapy (ala Albert Ellis) and what spawned a new age of
self-involved, self-referential brats...voila ---> the age
of yuppie enlightenment (actually an oximoron but useful for
effect). All this will hopefully pass very soon. "Oh
Albert...can this really be the end.. to be stuck inside a
network with the braindead blues again..."
Berke Breathed might be able to pull such stuff off, but you do not
appear to be similarly gifted.
Having just read Dorothy Nicklus' side of the issue, and now having
read this article, I'm entirely convinced that UNITEX is solidly on
the side of error, and that Patt (and Gene and Chuq and, if I remember
correctly, Greg) did the correct thing in leaving the newsgroup behind.
Those folks have a very long and mostly honorable history on the
Usenet, and their outlook on the situation can be taken with only a
small grain of salt. In contrast, the verbage since then coming from
UNITEX has been uniformly abusive, rude, and making a serious effort
to discredit anyone who might have disagreed with your party line. I
don't buy it.
There is an obvious lack of communication and understanding
regarding the recent resignation of the
misc.headlines.unitex moderator.
The appearance from my perspective is that you are equating
"disagreement with us" with "lack of communication." All
communication which has been relayed to us (I note quite carefully
that no one from UNITEX made the first effort to discredit Chuq's
summary of email discussion regarding the appropriateness of your
postings) has pointed very clearly to the UNITEX people taking the
outlook that what they wanted to do was Right and that opinions
contrary to that were not to be tolerated.
Nonsense. People with that kind of attitude deserve to be ignored.
This of course could leave one wondering why I am bothering with this
followup; it has to do with the statement shortly following:
I'm convinced that no one really cares.
Actually, a lot of us care very much. I have withheld forming any
really definitive opinion one way or the other until I could hear the
other side of the issue. Now I have heard that side - now I have an
opinion which you caused to be formed in my mind through the outlook
you have provided. The opinion is already low and dropping fast.
I am told that I am pompous and have no real
understanding of how UseNet operates by people...that seem a lot more
pompous than I ever did and certainly a lot less
knowledgeable of this Network or any network for that
matter.
Attempting to discredit your entire opposition as being incompetent to
discuss the matter in general is not a way to win people to your side.
Very many people on the Usenet have done serious networking for a very
long time, longer than UNITEX has been around by quite a margin.
Big business, governments, the nonprofit community and the
academic environments are suffering from what I've tried to
highlight in a simple, straightforward title to this
message.
If we are suffering from something, it's from the self-impressed
viewpoint of those who think they have solved the world's problems, or
at least think they are well on the way to doing so.
Unfortunately [networks] are a poor substitute for channeling peoples
hostility, frustration and bitterness or whatever new dilemmas
are pressing hard on modern yuppie man.
A great many of us do not qualify for the definitions of any of the
entries in your Subject:. I am no bean counter, no "queer" in any
sense of the word that seems even remotely applicable, nor does
"yuppie" fit me very well (use of computers and networks does not
alone a yuppie make; otherwise, you must admit to being your own worst
enemy) -- again, you have attempted to discredit your entire
opposition by lumping it all into large, monolithic, and just awfully
convenient pigeonholes that really don't match the situation well.
If anyone out there is engaged in research or actually
trying to DO something, then I'm sure my title description
needs little explanation. For the others..... it's simply
not worth my time to explain.....
Good heavens, man, you have an attitude such as I've not seen in a
very long time.
A very great number of us who use this network are indeed involved in
various types of research and other disciplines, and a very great
number really are "trying to DO something." And I still don't agree
with anything you've said. And then you conclude this idea with the
comment that _your_ time is far too valuable to be spent explaining
such elementary concepts...as though your entire opposition is (yet
again) to be lumped into the group who do not understand such stuff.
'You are what you pretend to be...so be careful what
you pretend to be....'
I strongly suggest that you read that back to yourself, slowly,
carefully, and repeatedly. And as much as you said previous to this,
if you don't understand why, it's not worth my time to explain.
--Karl Kleinpaste
Senior Researcher
Ohio State Computer Scienceereiamjh@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Tom B O'toole) (11/29/89)
In article <Nov.28.12.37.44.1989.1726@newport.rutgers.edu> waldron@newport.rutgers.edu (James Waldron) writes: > [a lot of stuff] Excuse me, but what exactly the hell was all THAT about??? -- Tom O'Toole - ecf_stbo@jhuvms.bitnet JHUVMS system programmer Thats right... Homewood Computing Facilities -fz Johns Hopkins University, Balto. Md. 21218
bee@cs.purdue.EDU (Zaphod Beeblebrox) (11/29/89)
Said waldron@newport.rutgers.edu (James Waldron): (in article <Nov.28.12.37.44.1989.1726@newport.rutgers.edu>) | | [ the WEIRDEST and most inane drivel I've seen in quite a while ] | Talk about flame fodder. I think this article takes the cake for unintentional humor. Someone should repost the article into talk.bizarre and alt.flame so they can get in on the fun. Yes indeed, the "waldron" is now the official measurement of stupidity in a Usenet article. B.E.E. -- Z. Beeblebrox | "Ich bin ein Berliner!" -- President Kennedy, 1961 (alias B. Elmore) | "Tear down this wall!" -- President Reagan, 1987 bee@cs.purdue.edu | ..!purdue!bee | Berlin Wall RIP 1961-1989
spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) (11/29/89)
If any of you are still wondering why I recommended deleting
misc.headlines.unitex instead of just unmoderating it, maybe the
base article this is following up helps to clarify matters.
I believe it to be a breach of etiquette and applicable law to publish
electronic correspondance without permission, so you'll have to take
my word on it that Dr. Waldron has mailed a number of
equally....unusual... messages to me, Chuq, Patt Harring, the
sysadmin at ccny, and others about this episode. Some have been
considerably more strident and at times vulgar. One to Patt was quite
threatening. One to me was quite insulting (personally). And at least
one mail message about Patt could be grounds for a lawsuit if fixed on
paper.
I have suggested to Dr. Waldron that perhaps he doesn't understand how
best to communicate with others electronically. He then posted the
article to which this is a follow-up. Sigh. It's hard to give
someone the benefit of the doubt when they persist in being so
obnoxious. May I suggest that we not encourage him by debating this
further, here or elsewhere on the net?
Coincidence department: someone has pointed out to me that Dr. Waldron
is posting from a machine at Rutgers, the same great institution that
provided us with Prof. Bob Webber for a while. I don't believe that
is a reflection on Rutgers itself -- it still doesn't outweight the
fact that Mel Pleasant and Chuck Hedrick also post from Rutgers, and a
good friend of mine is on the faculty there. Still, it does make one
wonder what's in the water there....
--
Gene Spafford
NSF/Purdue/U of Florida Software Engineering Research Center,
Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004
Internet: spaf@cs.purdue.edu uucp: ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spafcudep@warwick.ac.uk (Ian Dickinson (Vato)) (11/29/89)
In article <KARL.89Nov28143730@cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu> karl@cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) writes: <> waldron@newport.rutgers.edu writes: <> [stuff deleted] <Good heavens, man, you have an attitude such as I've not seen in a <very long time. Thanks Karl - someone with perspective and a very nice summing up too! Even over the recent flamage about the *.aquariword debacle, no-one managed to be so dumb as Wallydron just has been. I just it wasn't a forgery now I've joined in - the style was funny. It's a good thing I had a sensible article to reply to instead of the original, otherwise I'd have had to post to /dev/null to avoid complaints. <> 'You are what you pretend to be...so be careful what <> you pretend to be....' <I strongly suggest that you read that back to yourself, slowly, <carefully, and repeatedly. And as much as you said previous to this, <if you don't understand why, it's not worth my time to explain. Once again, good advice, but mebbe more people should apply that to their postings in general? 1/4 :-) -- \FLESH\ \/ato (Ian Dickinson), Consultant/Programmer - Unix/Networking \VOICE\ (+44 203 or 0203) 525225 (Home), 523037 (Work), 838526 (Cov Artfac) \PAPER\ Computing Services, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK \EMAIL\ vato%warwick.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk ..!mcvax!ukc!warwick!vato
wally@pallas.UUCP (Wally Hartshorn) (11/30/89)
In article <Nov.28.12.37.44.1989.1726@newport.rutgers.edu> waldron@newport.rutgers.edu (James Waldron) writes: > [Weirdness upon weirdness, interspersed with weirdness] I read the article. I read the replies. I re-read the article. I still have *NO* idea what Mr. Waldron was trying to say. Whoever he is, just based upon that one article, he is an egotistical jerk. Keep in mind that's strictly a first impression, but it does give you an idea of how effective his article was at winning people over to his side -- whatever side that is. -- Wally (uunet!pallas!wally or wally@athenanet.com) "Student signature -- Stand clear."