gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (12/08/88)
In article <2188@unmvax.unm.edu>, mike@turing (Michael I. Bushnell) writes: > Well, it seems that JEDR got his way... Any ideas on what to do about U. Waterloo's bad net citizenship? It seems to me a site which wants to be a self-appointed censorship board may be better off the net, despite the trouble that would cause to innocent bystanders. -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 ucbvax!bosco!gsmith Institute of Pi Research
kean@tank.uchicago.edu (keane arase) (12/09/88)
In article <18002@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: >In article <2188@unmvax.unm.edu>, mike@turing (Michael I. Bushnell) writes: > >> Well, it seems that JEDR got his way... > > Any ideas on what to do about U. Waterloo's bad net >citizenship? It seems to me a site which wants to be a >self-appointed censorship board may be better off the net, >despite the trouble that would cause to innocent bystanders. >-- >ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 >ucbvax!bosco!gsmith Institute of Pi Research Has anyone called Brad up at LGS for a rebuttal of U. Waterloo's action? Even though he has no net access, he should be given some sort of path to comment on U. Waterloo's inappropriate actions. BTW, I agree with Gene. Something should be done with an *educational* institution who wants to inhibit free opinion. --- Keane Arase, Systems Programmer University of Chicago Computing Organizations Acedemic and Public Computing, Technical Project Support kean@tank.uchicago.edu syskean@uchimvs1.uchicago.edu ** Please file the standard disclaimers here **
bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (12/09/88)
In article <18002@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: >In article <2188@unmvax.unm.edu>, mike@turing (Michael I. Bushnell) writes: > >> Well, it seems that JEDR got his way... > > Any ideas on what to do about U. Waterloo's bad net >citizenship? It seems to me a site which wants to be a >self-appointed censorship board may be better off the net, >despite the trouble that would cause to innocent bystanders. First let me say that I am as offended and outraged as any of us over this sorry state of affairs. I volunteered ssbn some time back and offered to pay the LD to hook up looking again because I feared the situation would deteriorate as it has done. Brad very graciously and thoughtfully replied and essentially told me to "cool it", I might do more harm than good. I wish I had saved the note but he asked me not to. I shall attempt a very poor paraphrase of what he said. I'm sure it won't be as accurate but you'll get the drift and I think that's what's important here. First my own thoughts, then essentially what Brad said. I think that the folks at watmath caved in to a misinformed public opinion made up by an ignorant news media. I honestly believe that if you could wring the truth out of them that they are really on Brad's side. Obviously we can't wring the truth out of them because it would leak to the media and further inflame what they are trying to extinguish. It appears to us like they have just completed the character assasination started by JEDR and others. I'm sure that this appearance grieves and angers them as much as it does us. They are an educational institution and when nonsense like this appears to dilute or pollute their primary function they have to stick by their priorities. Their priorities even if that means doing something that isn't what you or I (or they) might think is "right". An unpleasant but very real situation and decision. We're all faced with them from time to time. Sorry for that, I promised to share Brad's feelings. First off I think that he should get a round of applause from us for being so level headed about this. He pointed out that the netters know more about the situation and the culture of usenet than anyone involved. The situation is so ridiculous that it provokes us to outrage and cry vengeance. This behavior on our part, how ever justified, is perceived by the outside world to be precisely what JEDR claims, i.e. we (inadvertantly) confirm his story and vouch for his credibility. The operative word there is "perceived". Regardless of how well intentioned, morally correct, or justifiably indignant we might be, that's how it's perceived outside our own community. In short, we're hurting him by trying to help. I must very reluctantly agree with Brad and concede that while it's wrong, it's that way :-( :-( As dearly as I'd love to fry the people who started this I will not further their cause by doing so. BTW, the :-('s are mine, they conclude what Brad said last week. Gene Spafford pleaded with us for moderation and asked us all to shut up and let this blow over, he is correct too. With great reluctance I will do that (in a few sentences :-) and find something to do with my outrage... an obscure part of the Hippocratic commitment is "Prima non nocere", First do no harm. I propose that we treat JEDR and the prepetrators of this atrocity like the pariahs that they are, but not try to exact vengeance on others who got swept up in it. *NOW* I'll shut up. Apologies to Gene Smith, his just happened to be the article that suggested precisely what Brad doesn't want. -- Bill Kennedy usenet {killer,att,cs.utexas.edu,sun!daver}!ssbn!bill internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM
rdaulton@emdeng.Dayton.NCR.COM (Richard.H.Dick.Daulton) (12/09/88)
# # ###
## # # # # # ###### ###### # # ###
# # # # # # # # # ## ## ###
# # # # # #### ##### ##### ##### # ## # #
# # # # # # # # # # #
# ## # # # # # # # # ###
# # #### # # ###### ###### # # ###
--
dick.daulton@dayton.ncr.com * THE FUTURE'S NOT WHAT IT USED TO BE
but, then again, THE PAST'S NOT WHAT IT'S GOING TO BErjwhite@watmath.waterloo.edu (RJ White) (12/09/88)
In article <2188@unmvax.unm.edu>, mike@turing (Michael I. Bushnell) writes:
Any ideas on what to do about U. Waterloo's bad net
citizenship? It seems to me a site which wants to be a
self-appointed censorship board may be better off the net,
despite the trouble that would cause to innocent bystanders.
Oh, good grief.... can we stop now? I agree its bad net citizenship.
very bad. And you want to make it worse. Believe it or not, but I and
my other cohorts who supposedly run watmath were also innocent bystanders.
Nobody asked my opinion. I never went to the silly press conferences.
I took no action to remove Brad. I still dont know what *really* happened.
Its the people that run the university, not the people that run watmath
that made whatever decisions. Complain to them.
But censoring waterloo will make life miserable for alot of people.
So please everyone, stop mailing postmaster cause he isnt responsible either.
-rjrjwhite@watmath.waterloo.edu (RJ White) (12/09/88)
In article <18002@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes:
Even though he has no net access, he should be given some sort of path
to comment on U. Waterloo's inappropriate actions.
Brad has not lost access to the net. He still has a mail and news feed.
My understanding is that the questionable *racial* jokes of rec.humor.funny
will not be sent to waterloo but elsewhere. Yes he has other feeds.
Anything you may have heard about him losing access to watmath other than
this is refering to his old personel account he had on watmath from his
old student days. 'looking' is still talking to watmath. nuff said...
-rjerict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) (12/09/88)
In article <18002@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: > In article <2188@unmvax.unm.edu>, mike@turing (Michael I. Bushnell) writes: > > > Well, it seems that JEDR got his way... > > Any ideas on what to do about U. Waterloo's bad net > citizenship? It seems to me a site which wants to be a > self-appointed censorship board may be better off the net, > despite the trouble that would cause to innocent bystanders. I thought the rule was that anybody who was too disruptive would get their feed cut. If their neighbors didn't want to cut their feed, then the neighbors of the neighbors would cut 'em *all* off. I think cutting Waterloo down to a [comp,news].all feed would be a good start, and give them the message. If they (or JEDR) insists on keeping up, stop all news. At last resort, cut their email as well. If I was posting generally disruptive things to the net, and trying to get it shut down because nobody wanted alt.dev.null besides me and Peter dS., flatline would have soon become a net until itself, and itself alone. Maybe we should have a vote from system administrators? Say, root@site, to see what the general feeling is? (I am *not* volunteering to take this vote, btw. :-) -- 'That's why our house has clay mirrors / So that I won't see my eyes in the morning.' -- Aquarium (an underground Russian band) J. Eric Townsend -- smail: 511 Parker #2, Houston, Tx, 77007 UUCP: uunet!sugar!flatline!erict ..!bellcore!texbell!/
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (12/13/88)
In article <22660@watmath.waterloo.edu>, rjwhite@watmath (RJ White) writes: >So please everyone, stop mailing postmaster cause he isnt >responsible either. Did you ever try explaining to those responsible that responding to libelous newspaper articles by attempted censorship was a bad idea? Did you try to point out that it will reflect badly on U. Waterloo, and might even lead to consideration of possible sanctions? Or did you just say "not my department"? It is up to those who have some idea what is going on to try to explain things to the local morons in charge. -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahmsgangster/Berkeley CA 94720 ucbvax!bosco!gsmith "DUMB problem!! DUMB!!!" -- Robert L. Forward
newsadm@mcgp1.UUCP (Netnews Administrator) (12/14/88)
In article <22661@watmath.waterloo.edu>, rjwhite@watmath.waterloo.edu (RJ White) writes: > [The only access to watmath that Brad lost was his old student account.] Actually, this is a good political move. Cancelling Brad's old, and presumably not all that useful to him any more, student account is pretty much a NOP, but it makes for good press and satisfies the great unwashed masses who now think that he has been severely chastised. And the agreement that Brad may continue to transfer RHF through watmath as long as he uses a different path for the "questionable" material seems fair to both sides. Brad can continue to do his thing and the University gets off the (legal) hook. As far as the various and sundry protagonists in this little drama, all I have to say is: Brad - Keep up the good work but exercise just a little more caution wrt timing and encryption. JEDR - Like it or not, he had the right to do as he did. I pesonally feel he went quite a bit overboard and was unneccessarily nasty, but that doesn't alter the fact that he was within his rights. If any legal action is taken, that is for Brad to pursue. We should just keep out of it and let Brad handle it as he sees fit. In some ways, JEDR may have harmed himself more than any lawsuit could. He has branded himself a troublemaker and a reactionary, and has lost credibility in the eyes of his peers. He may have a bit of difficulty living this one down. The Waterloo newspaper - Most likely, simply a case of a reporter trying to write a story, under deadline pressure, about a subject (s)he is unfamiliar with, for an audience probably even less familiar. The Boston newspaper - Consider the source. All in all, I don't feel that USENET is in danger. Sites are not pulling out en masse, that I am aware of. If we just let this whole ugly business drop, the controversy will die out and be forgotten. These are my own personal opinions; my employer probably doesn't even know what USENET is, etc., etc. John Opalko Netnews Administrator mcgp1.UUCP Seattle, WA, USA
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (12/15/88)
In article <1692@mcgp1.UUCP> newsadm@mcgp1.UUCP (Netnews Administrator) writes: >In article <22661@watmath.waterloo.edu>, rjwhite@watmath.waterloo.edu (RJ White) writes: >> [The only access to watmath that Brad lost was his old student account.] > >Actually, this is a good political move. Cancelling Brad's old, and presumably >not all that useful to him any more, student account is pretty much a NOP, but >it makes for good press and satisfies the great unwashed masses who now >think that he has been severely chastised. And the agreement that Brad >may continue to transfer RHF through watmath as long as he uses a different >path for the "questionable" material seems fair to both sides. Brad can >continue to do his thing and the University gets off the (legal) hook. It would seem that this is for the most part a NOP as well. RHF will be fed to other sites and will find it's way back into UW anyway. All that's happening is that the "questionable" postings might take an extra half day to start to propagate. But given new feeds spread out over NA overall propagation delays will be reduced (ie average time for the the first few sites to get RHF might increase, but average time for all sites to get RHF will be less) So all in all JEDR will have played a great role in increasing the speed with which RHF gets distributed. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532