john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) (01/03/89)
In article <2796.23E8472C@mailcom.FIDONET.ORG> Ploni.Almoni@mailcom.FIDONET.ORG (Ploni Almoni) writes: >Re: chan@ames.arc.nasa.govt (Jeff Chan) > 2254@eos.UUCP ames!chan > >Jeff - I noticed that your tag line showed that you are at Ames. >Your referenced posting dealt in great detail about individual >responsibilities and liberties. I am on the staff of another >Federal Government agency, and we have been told in no uncertain >terms that if we used our terminals, accounts, or passwords for >other than official agency business that we would be terminated >for cause. I have several questions for you: > >1. Is there a Federal funded project at Ames that deals with >the exposition of private issues such as those in your message? >I would like to get associated with it if one exists - perhaps >transfer some of the funds to my own agency to make it easier for >me to do that sort of thing too. You see, we are not authorized >to access arpanet due to lack of funds. We may not even be able >to pay the lease or parking charges on all our vehicles this year >and may actually have to turn some of them in. We can't even >replace employees who leave or retire. > >2. Is there a special dispensation granted to Ames employees >to be able to use Ames accounts or equipment for personal >business or posting personal opinions with disclaimers? If so, I >would like to get a copy of the authorizing regulations so that I >can try to have my agency issue something like that as well. > >3. Does the Inspector General of NASA have jurisdiction over >misuse of Federal accounts or is this not covered under NASA >regulations? > 10... 9 .... 8 .... 7 ... 6 ... 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... ahh, There! I've counted to 10.... Blood pressure below 500... I'm calmer now..... You drizzling dipshit !!! You are the perfect example of why the government cannot hire good enough people to run this country. The good ones would not even think of putting up with your kind of bullshit. What is your title there anyway - "Assistant Deputy to the Chief of Paper Clip Accounting"? Or maybe "Manager of Whiners and Tattle- tales". I certainly hope your prediction is true and there will be insufficient funds to continue your employment next year. I guess I really can understand why your administration will not allow you to use your account for Usenet activities - It'd embarrase them too much to allow you any freedom. I'D considered calling the Inspector General about YOU but then I had a better Idea - I'm forwarding a copy of your note to a friendly congressman I know. Maybe he can insure you'll not be in a position for generating such drivel again. And I thought it was bad when I got out of government service 10 years ago. Now, lets get this damn discussion to alt.flames where it belongs. -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "I can't drive 85!" Sales Technologies, Inc. Atlanta, GA | Sammy Hagar driving ...!gatech!stiatl!john | thru Atlanta!
mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) (01/04/89)
Wow! That letter just sends chills up my spine. It has sort of a "Perhaps you have relatives living in Germany?" tone to it.
postmaster@mailcom.FIDONET.ORG (Bernard Aboba) (01/05/89)
I agree. Perhaps we all ought to take a deep breath and make a new year's resolution to not flame for at least a week. If this is any indication about what flames are gonna be like in 1989, we're in big trouble... -- "Don't flame him, don't flame me, flame that fellow behind the tree." Via apple!mailcom, Fido 1:204/444
chan@ames.arc.nasa.gov (01/05/89)
Mr. Almoni, I'm currently re-checking the local policy on usenet postings from here. I appreciate your warning and I also appreciate the trouble you took to post it. I fully comprehend what you're saying. I'm against waste and if my message constituted waste, I take full responsibility personally and also apologise to all taxpayers (including myself) for the waste. I do not, however, apologise for message content. In addition, if you are trying to threaten me, perhaps we should meet and discuss the matter. In partial answer to John De Armond, I'm not a government employee, but I don't want to do or say anything that would lead to problems. Mr. Almoni's perspective is correct in that he is trying to save taxpayer's money. Considering the trouble he took to post, perhaps he is bitter that his access was cut. I would have no respect if he simply disagreed though. Until I get an official answer, I'm cutting my tounge out. Cheers.
Ploni.Almoni@mailcom.FIDONET.ORG (Ploni Almoni) (01/06/89)
Jeff - Open reply to you and all others -- I may (and in most part DO) agree with what you have said -- it is the way that appears to have been transmitted. Use of your private terminal at home or in a private office where you or your employer would have gotten a loud "Right ON" from me. Use of government facilities, however innocuous or unintential, is illegal. Plain and simple. I have the reputation of cutting more corners than average - but the line has to be drawn soemwhere. If you are ever audited for any reason, how can you defend it in the face of specific statutes? And I meant it - if you can find a reg that permits it, I would try to get it adopted at my shop. I don't think that such things exist. Hey folks - this is the elctronics board, not the missile test range or such. Peace?? -=Ploni=- -- Via apple!mailcom, Fido 1:204/444
annala@neuro.usc.edu (A J Annala) (01/06/89)
In article <2288@eos.UUCP> chan@ames.arc.nasa.gov writes: >Mr. Almoni, >I'm currently re-checking the local policy on usenet postings from here. >I appreciate your warning and I also appreciate the trouble you took to >post it. I fully comprehend what you're saying. I'm against waste and >if my message constituted waste, I take full responsibility personally >and also apologise to all taxpayers (including myself) for the waste. I >do not, however, apologise for message content. In addition, if you are >trying to threaten me, perhaps we should meet and discuss the matter. > >In partial answer to John De Armond, I'm not a government employee, but >I don't want to do or say anything that would lead to problems. Mr. >Almoni's perspective is correct in that he is trying to save taxpayer's >money. Considering the trouble he took to post, perhaps he is bitter >that his access was cut. I would have no respect if he simply disagreed >though. > >Until I get an official answer, I'm cutting my tounge out. > >Cheers. I am not certain what the policy is on reading and/or posting to usenet from government sites. But I am certain that many people at government sites participate actively in usenet. Indeed, if it were not for a very deliberate decision to make network news available at your local site, I doubt very much that you would be able to use this network facility. For may part, I work for a nonprofit university doing significant work for DoD/NSF/NIH and the like. I have significantly benefited from my postings to usenet and the resulting interaction with the user community. For example: o In response to my request for information on where to obtain an ultrasonic detector (VLF receiver) I was pur in contact with QMC instruments in England ... and saved my department over $1500 in purchase of newer model equipment to meet the needs of one of our princpal investigators. o In response to my request for public domain general purpose image processing software I received three large boxes of documentation and over 72 megabytes of source code for two major government support image processing projects. o As a consequence of informational postings to the network from many other people we have been able to retrieve many labor saving software tools from other ftp nodes ... these packages have saved us untold hours of program development time and greatly improved the quality of the products we have developed for internal use ... as well as for the use of our government contract sponsors. o I have also contributed algorithms and techniques to people who requested information within my areas of expertise. So, the long and the short of this note is that access to usenet is not a waste of taxpayer money ... instead, access to usenet is a way to provide dramatic cross fertilization between government projects ... a way of sharing both purchasing and technical information as well as a way to save the government money by reducing duplication of effort and making contract supported labor more efficient. I am a firm believer in the value of usenet - and I believe it would be most unfortunate if some penny wise but pound foolish person in a government office were to prohibit their people from posting to the network. Indeed, the very availability of usenet via the government sponsored INTERNET is an indication of the high level support usenet must have within the government. AJ Annala, USC Neuroscience Program
john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) (01/07/89)
In article <2288@eos.UUCP> chan@ames.arc.nasa.gov writes: >Mr. Almoni, >I'm currently re-checking the local policy on usenet postings from here. >I appreciate your warning and I also appreciate the trouble you took to >post it. I fully comprehend what you're saying. I'm against waste and >if my message constituted waste, I take full responsibility personally >and also apologise to all taxpayers (including myself) for the waste. I >do not, however, apologise for message content. In addition, if you are >trying to threaten me, perhaps we should meet and discuss the matter. > >In partial answer to John De Armond, I'm not a government employee, but >I don't want to do or say anything that would lead to problems. Mr. >Almoni's perspective is correct in that he is trying to save taxpayer's >money. Considering the trouble he took to post, perhaps he is bitter >that his access was cut. I would have no respect if he simply disagreed >though. > >Until I get an official answer, I'm cutting my tounge out. > >Cheers. As a taxpayer, I appreciate your concern for "government waste". However, as an ex-government employee I recognize a beaucratic threat directed toward you simply because you have something Mr almoni does not. This is the kind of petty back-biting that gives government service such a bad name. I hope you did not miss this threat. Let's briefly address the "waste" issue. Next to my reference material, the Usenet is the most valuable information resource I have access to. Even in spite of the lids and idiots, there exists a synergy on this network like no other I've ever experieced. By the very definition of the word synergy, you are getting more back from the net than you contribute. You benefit, your work benefits, your agency benefits and by implication, I as a taxpayer benefits. So assuming your use of the net is not excessive, we must by definition drop the term "waste" from the discussion. What is left is a spoil-sport baby whose supervisor has wisely prohibited him from accessing the network trying to deprive you of a valuable resource. As for asking permission to remain on the network, to quote Grace Hopper, "If you don't ask, you cannot be told no" or "It's easier to say 'I'm sorry' than to get permission" john -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "I can't drive 85!" Sales Technologies, Inc. Atlanta, GA | Sammy Hagar driving ...!gatech!stiatl!john | thru Atlanta!
Ploni.Almoni@mailcom.FIDONET.ORG (Ploni Almoni) (02/02/89)
Re: chan@ames.arc.nasa.govt (Jeff Chan)
2254@eos.UUCP ames!chan
Jeff - I noticed that your tag line showed that you are at Ames.
Your referenced posting dealt in great detail about individual
responsibilities and liberties. I am on the staff of another
Federal Government agency, and we have been told in no uncertain
terms that if we used our terminals, accounts, or passwords for
other than official agency business that we would be terminated
for cause. I have several questions for you:
1. Is there a Federal funded project at Ames that deals with
the exposition of private issues such as those in your message?
I would like to get associated with it if one exists - perhaps
transfer some of the funds to my own agency to make it easier for
me to do that sort of thing too. You see, we are not authorized
to access arpanet due to lack of funds. We may not even be able
to pay the lease or parking charges on all our vehicles this year
and may actually have to turn some of them in. We can't even
replace employees who leave or retire.
2. Is there a special dispensation granted to Ames employees
to be able to use Ames accounts or equipment for personal
business or posting personal opinions with disclaimers? If so, I
would like to get a copy of the authorizing regulations so that I
can try to have my agency issue something like that as well.
3. Does the Inspector General of NASA have jurisdiction over
misuse of Federal accounts or is this not covered under NASA
regulations?
Just asking. -=Ploni=-
--
Via apple!mailcom, Fido 1:204/444