news@rolls.UUCP (The Nutter) (02/29/88)
As a netnews administrator here and on terminus, I never suspected that I would ever compile as a fascist. Lately, though, postings by a user "scrooge" from this site have forced me to do so. scrooge@rolls will not be posting until he improves his posting style. Based on some of the replies to his article, I'd suggest that some news administrators extend the same courtesy to other users...
lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) (03/02/88)
In article <68@rolls.UUCP> news@rolls.UUCP (The Nutter) writes: >As a netnews administrator here and on terminus, I never suspected >that I would ever compile as a fascist. Lately, though, postings by >a user "scrooge" from this site have forced me to do so. >scrooge@rolls will not be posting until he improves his posting style. >Based on some of the replies to his article, I'd suggest that some news >administrators extend the same courtesy to other users... It is, of course, your site, and you have the right to do what you want with it. Scrooge is also something of an asshole. Despite this I do not think it is appropriate to stop him from posting... after all, no one has stopped Jeff Bigelow. Your actions seems to have been taken to protect us. I would suggest that such actions should not be taken unless a substantial proportion of the readers of this newsgroup request it. PS. People who seriously object to scrooge can put him in their kill files. These are the official opinions Mike Friedman of my organization. So, TOUGH!!
kraut@ut-emx.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) (03/02/88)
In article <3365@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: > In article <68@rolls.UUCP> news@rolls.UUCP (The Nutter) writes: > >As a netnews administrator here and on terminus, I never suspected > >that I would ever compile as a fascist. Lately, though, postings by > >a user "scrooge" from this site have forced me to do so. > >Based on some of the replies to his article, I'd suggest that some news > >administrators extend the same courtesy to other users... > It is, of course, your site, and you have the right to do what you > want with it. Scrooge is also something of an asshole. I see no excuse for anyone getting down to name-calling of this sort, Michael. > Despite this I do not think it is appropriate to stop him from > posting... after all, no one has stopped Jeff Bigelow. Huh? what kind of an argument is that? who is this "Jeff Bigelow", anyway? (not that I care for an answer, really) > Your actions seems to have been taken to protect us. I would suggest > that such actions should not be taken unless a substantial proportion > of the readers of this newsgroup request it. That really is the suggestion of the century; I can just see all the votes flying back and forth. On the basis of the name-calling and this useless proposal alone, Michael is a candidate for the kill-file he was suggesting to use on others. -- (prefered mailbox:) werner%rascal@sally.utexas.edu ....!ut-sally!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!werner (if rascal is unreachable:) werner@astro@sally.utexas.edu werner@utastro.uucp
lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) (03/03/88)
In article <1048@ut-emx.UUCP> kraut@ut-emx.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) writes: >In article <3365@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU >, lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: > > In article <68@rolls.UUCP > news@rolls.UUCP (The Nutter) writes: > > >As a netnews administrator here and on terminus, I never suspected > > >that I would ever compile as a fascist. Lately, though, postings by > > >a user "scrooge" from this site have forced me to do so. > > >Based on some of the replies to his article, I'd suggest that some news > > >administrators extend the same courtesy to other users... > > It is, of course, your site, and you have the right to do what you > > want with it. Scrooge is also something of an asshole. >I see no excuse for anyone getting down to name-calling of this sort, Michael. I see. It is perfectly all right to cut scrooge of the net, but it is bad to call him an asshole. I think you have your priorities mixed up. > > Despite this I do not think it is appropriate to stop him from > > posting... after all, no one has stopped Jeff Bigelow. >Huh? what kind of an argument is that? who is this "Jeff Bigelow", anyway? >(not that I care for an answer, really) Jeff Bigelow is the person who suggested that if I found out that my dead wife had been a liberal I would piss into her empty eye-sockets. The point I was making was that some people on the net are much more offensive than scrooge. > > Your actions seems to have been taken to protect us. I would suggest > > that such actions should not be taken unless a substantial proportion > > of the readers of this newsgroup request it. >That really is the suggestion of the century; I can just see all the votes >flying back and forth. On the basis of the name-calling and this useless >proposal alone, Michael is a candidate for the kill-file he was suggesting >to use on others. My, my, we are touchy. As kicking people off the net is very rarely necessary I don't think it will really be all that bad if we make it difficult to do. PS. I am rather disappointed. Am I the only person on the net who does not think scrooge should have been booted? These are the official opinions Mike Friedman of my organization. So, TOUGH!!
tbrakitz@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Triantaphyllos Byron Rakitzis) (03/04/88)
In article <3429@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: >In article <1048@ut-emx.UUCP> kraut@ut-emx.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) writes: > >In article <3365@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU >, lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: > > > In article <68@rolls.UUCP > news@rolls.UUCP (The Nutter) writes: > > > >As a netnews administrator here and on terminus, I never suspected > > > >that I would ever compile as a fascist. Lately, though, postings by > > > >a user "scrooge" from this site have forced me to do so. > > > > >Based on some of the replies to his article, I'd suggest that some news > > > >administrators extend the same courtesy to other users... Scrooge breathes a breath of fresh air into this group. Can't you see he writes with his tongue firmly in his cheek? Rather than getting upset, why don't you smile? Shees, people, take it easy.... Byron Rakitzis.
perseus@nvuxk.UUCP (A D Domaratius) (03/04/88)
In article <68@rolls.UUCP>, news@rolls.UUCP writes: > As a netnews administrator here and on terminus, I never suspected > that I would ever compile as a fascist. Lately, though, postings by > a user "scrooge" from this site have forced me to do so. > > scrooge@rolls will not be posting until he improves his posting style. > > Based on some of the replies to his article, I'd suggest that some news > administrators extend the same courtesy to other users... I guess I haven't read many articles from scrooge@rolls. What is wrong with his style.? Is he a fascist? If that is the reason that you disagree with his style, isn't that censorship. Don't get me wrong, I don't want fascists to be able to send their lies out to the world, but the fact remains that this cannot be a reason for failing to give access to this person. I am replying this way because, as I have stated earlier, I have never (to my memory) read anything by this poster - scrooge@rolls. If am missreading what you said then let me know exactly what you mean by improve his style. Al Domaratius . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
nyssa@terminus.UUCP (The Prime Minister) (03/05/88)
In article <3429@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: >I see. It is perfectly all right to cut scrooge of the net, but it is >bad to call him an asshole. I think you have your priorities mixed up. Yes, it is perfectly all right to remove net access from a person who is abusing it. Yes, it is bad to insult people over the net. No, the person you are criticising did not have his priorities mixed up. Two out of three ain't bad.
hamilton@mit-caf.UUCP (David P. Hamilton) (03/05/88)
In article <3429@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> (Michael Friedman) writes: >Jeff Bigelow is the person who suggested that if I found out that my >dead wife had been a liberal I would piss into her empty eye-sockets. >The point I was making was that some people on the net are much more >offensive than scrooge. It's *Joe* Bigelow, Mike. (Try a "f bigelow@caf" to see for yourself.) And no, I have no idea who he is. Caf is a heavily-used machine. Personally, I think Joe has a great future in alt.flame, if nowhere else.... >PS. I am rather disappointed. Am I the only person on the net who does >not think scrooge should have been booted? No, I have to agree with you. (Although I'm probably one of the people his system administrator wants to ban as well, since he posted a private flame I sent him after a particularly obnoxious article.) I had already decided to ignore scrooge's postings, having discovered how counterproductive either answering or flaming at them could be, but everyone else should be able to make that choice themselves. I don't think people should be "kicked off" the net for whatever reason, since rude and offensive people seem to learn the error of their ways eventually. (At the very least, they vanish.) Any stance short of full deregulation opens up controversies such as the Wiener/Maroney business, and those the net does not need. -- David P. Hamilton hamilton@caf.mit.edu "Markets test *popularity*, not truth." ...!mit-eddie!mit-amt!mit-caf!hamilton
jstehma@hubcap.UUCP (Jeff Stehman) (03/06/88)
>>PS. I am rather disappointed. Am I the only person on the net who does >>not think scrooge should have been booted? > > I don't think people should be "kicked off" the net for whatever reason, > since rude and offensive people seem to learn the error of their ways > eventually. (At the very least, they vanish.) > > David P. Hamilton Are you kidding? Rude and offensive people are what generate most of the fun around here. The responces to them are often delightful (and rude and offensive). And occasionally there is a true gem; something that Jonathan Swift would be proud of. But then, I go to cockroach races only to see the little fellers crash. Jeff Stehman -- Disclaimer: My opinions are those of God. They are absolutely correct and infallible. (Send flames on signature to...) UUCP: ...gatech!hubcap!jstehma Internet: jstehma@hubcap.clemson.edu
webber@athos.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) (03/06/88)
In article <3429@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: > ... > PS. I am rather disappointed. Am I the only person on the net who does > not think scrooge should have been booted? Of course you aren't the only one who finds it disgusting that some admin has decided to deprive the net of one of its more unique voices. But what is there to say. The commitment to free speech in this country is rather thin. You will find people who say that free speech is only appropriate where absolutely required by the Constitution. You will find others that say that free speech is only appropriate when it doesn't cost anything. You will find others who say that free speech is only appropriate when it doesn't inconvenience or annoy them. The sad thing is the way it gets presented. People argue over whether or not so and so has a right to post (or any less right than anyone else) whereas the real issue is whether the rest of the net, with all of its investment of time and effort, has not yet earned the right to have these postings available to it. --- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)
myke@stratus.UUCP (Myke Reynolds) (03/07/88)
In article <1120@athos.rutgers.edu> webber@athos.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) writes: >In article <3429@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: >> ... >> PS. I am rather disappointed. Am I the only person on the net who does >> not think scrooge should have been booted? > >Of course you aren't the only one who finds it disgusting that some admin >has decided to deprive the net of one of its more unique voices. I keep hearing about this guy, but I still haven't gotten the story. -- Myke Reynolds { gatech!stratus!myke }
aliza@c3pe.UUCP (Aliza R. Panitz) (04/10/88)
In article <3429@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: > In article <1048@ut-emx.UUCP> kraut@ut-emx.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) writes: > >In article <3365@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU >, lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: > > > In article <68@rolls.UUCP > news@rolls.UUCP (The Nutter) writes: > > > >As a netnews administrator here and on terminus, I never suspected > > > >that I would ever compile as a fascist. Lately, though, postings by > > > >a user "scrooge" from this site have forced me to do so. > > > It is, of course, your site, and you have the right to do what you > > > want with it. Scrooge is also something of an asshole. > > > Despite this I do not think it is appropriate to stop him from > > > posting... Oh... you don't want to read his garbage... but you DO want every news site on the net to be forced to pay for transmitting and storing his garbage. USENET is NOT totally covered by the first amendment... -- - Aliza (AlmostLady) (decuac.dec.com!c3pe!aliza or backbone!decuac!c3pe!aliza) "Part of the Art of being a Woman is knowing when not to be too much of a Lady"
lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) (04/10/88)
In article <2475@c3pe.UUCP} aliza@c3pe.UUCP (Aliza R. Panitz) writes: }In article <3429@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU}, lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: }} In article <1048@ut-emx.UUCP} kraut@ut-emx.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) writes: }} }In article <3365@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU }, lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: }} } } In article <68@rolls.UUCP } news@rolls.UUCP (The Nutter) writes: }} } } }As a netnews administrator here and on terminus, I never suspected }} } } }that I would ever compile as a fascist. Lately, though, postings by }} } } }a user "scrooge" from this site have forced me to do so. }} } } It is, of course, your site, and you have the right to do what you }} } } want with it. Scrooge is also something of an asshole. }} } } Despite this I do not think it is appropriate to stop him from }} } } posting... }Oh... you don't want to read his garbage... but you DO want every news site }on the net to be forced to pay for transmitting and storing his garbage. OK. Now explain why this same reasoning does not apply to Tim Sevener? (Or if you think it does apply, where do you draw the line?) }USENET is NOT totally covered by the first amendment... I know. That is why I asked politely and that is why I said that Uhrig could do whatever he wanted with his site. These are the official opinions Mike Friedman of my organization. So, TOUGH!!
gf@dasys1.UUCP (G Fitch) (04/13/88)
In article <2475@c3pe.UUCP> aliza@c3pe.UUCP (Aliza R. Panitz) writes: }In article <3429@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: }> In article <1048@ut-emx.UUCP> kraut@ut-emx.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) writes: }> >In article <3365@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU >, lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: }> > > In article <68@rolls.UUCP > news@rolls.UUCP (The Nutter) writes: }> > > >As a netnews administrator here and on terminus, I never suspected }> > > >that I would ever compile as a fascist. Lately, though, postings by }> > > >a user "scrooge" from this site have forced me to do so. }> > > Despite this I do not think it is appropriate to stop him from }> > > posting... } }Oh... you don't want to read his garbage... but you DO want every news site }on the net to be forced to pay for transmitting and storing his garbage. } }USENET is NOT totally covered by the first amendment... But the problem of supression is the same as with offensive forms of public speech in general. The means of deciding to suppress it, and the means of suppressing it, are more offensive than the speech itself could be, since they lead to everyone's loss of freedom. "Scrooge"'s postings added vanishingly small costs to USENET, proportionally speaking, but even if they did not, the expense would be worth the freedom, at least to me. -- G Fitch {uunet}!mstan\ The Big Electric Cat {ihnp4,harvard,philabs}!cmcl2!cucard!dasys1!gf New York City, NY, USA (212) 879-9031 {sun}!hoptoad/
perseus@nvuxk.UUCP (A D Domaratius) (04/13/88)
In article <2475@c3pe.UUCP>, aliza@c3pe.UUCP writes: { comments re "scrooge" and his postings, and whether or not they should be posted from various posters have been deleted.} > >Oh... you don't want to read his garbage... but you DO want every news site > on the net to be forced to pay for transmitting and storing his garbage. > > USENET is NOT totally covered by the first amendment... > > > -- > - Aliza (AlmostLady) (decuac.dec.com!c3pe!aliza or backbone!decuac!c3pe!aliza) > "Part of the Art of being a Woman is knowing when not to be too much of a Lady" Really. His postings are not covered by the first amendment. YOU don't want to have his "garbage" posted on USNET? Listen, I agree with you as to the quality of his postings, but preventing him from posting his putrid comments would still be quashing his first amendment rights. I look at his comments and feel that they are usable as examples of lies, misstatements, etc. Al Domaratius
tab@mhuxt.UUCP (Tracey A. Baker) (04/15/88)
In article <328@nvuxk.UUCP> perseus@nvuxk.UUCP (A D Domaratius) writes: >[...] preventing him from posting his putrid comments would still be >quashing his first amendment rights. But no one's talking about preventing people from posting anything. Last I heard, anyone can go buy their own computer & post anything they want there. And they can give accounts to anyone who wants to read their babbling. They CAN NOT, however, insist that I pay phone bills/use disk space/waste CPU cycles to store their stuff and send it all over the world. Nor can they demand an account on my system for any purpose, including reading/posting news. C'mon, guys, the only reason we have USENET is because the people with the money and the machines are doing us a favor. I think it's pretty sad that so many people take this for granted, and that some people even go so far as to insist that we've got a God-given *right* to Netnews access. (Could someone with more knowledge than I have on this subject *please* summarize the relationship between our first amendment rights and USENET & put it in the "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions" article?) -- Tracey A. Baker {ihnp4, ulysses, rutgers!moss}!mhuxu!tab (201)582-5357 Rm. 2F-211, AT&T Bell Laboratories, 600 Mountain Ave., Murray Hill NJ 07974 Any resemblance to actual opinions, |"There ain't no cure when the rabid living or dead, is entirely coincidental. | rock dog bites..." - Split Sydney
heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (Ron Heiby) (04/15/88)
A D Domaratius (perseus@nvuxk.UUCP) writes: > but preventing him from > posting his putrid comments would still be quashing his first > amendment rights. It's amazing how confused some people can be about the Bill of Rights. Too bad our schools don't know how to teach, any more. The first amendment guarantees rights of "speech" and "press". It does not say that I have the right to go to the neighborhood office supply store and walk off with a package of paper without paying, simply because I am going to exercise my free press rights with it. I must pay for the paper, and the pen I use, and the ink. If I cannot afford to pay for these things, I can exercise my rights of free speech and stand in the public square, expressing myself and asking for donations with which to purchase the supplies needed to express myself in print. If I can't afford to pay for a computer with which to express myself, I must depend on the kindness of others (in this case, my employer) to make computing resources available to me to allow me to do so. The computer is not mine. Neither are the modems or phone lines. If my employer tells me that I am to stop, I stop. The people who pay for the vehicle of expression have the right to stop providing the vehicle. Let us assume that some slime-bucket got itself bumped off a computer system that had previously been made available for said party to express itself. Said slime-bucket has every right to buy its own computer system and attempt to find a feed site to re-join the Usenet. Note, however, that there is NO requirement that another site agree to feed the slime-bucket's new system or accept postings from it. This is the right of "assembly", which allows people to associate with (pretty much) whomever they want and to exclude (pretty much) whomever they want. The bottom line is that nobody has the right to make me pay for their speech. If you disagree with this, then please email me for the address to which the HP LaserJet II and Motorola VME Delta should be shipped. -- Ron Heiby, heiby@mcdchg.UUCP Moderator: comp.newprod & comp.unix "I believe in the Tooth Fairy." "I believe in Santa Claus." "I believe in the future of the Space Program."
friedl@vsi.UUCP (Stephen J. Friedl) (04/15/88)
In article <328@nvuxk.UUCP>, perseus@nvuxk.UUCP (A D Domaratius) writes:
<
< [other postings about Scrooge]
<
< Really. His postings are not covered by the first amendment. YOU
< don't want to have his "garbage" posted on USNET? Listen, I agree
< with you as to the quality of his postings, but preventing him from
< posting his putrid comments would still be quashing his first
< amendment rights. I look at his comments and feel that they are
< usable as examples of lies, misstatements, etc.
First amendment issues aside, I have never seen Scrooge's
postings but the allusions indicate that I should have.
Anybody care to send me a couple of choice net.items? I
have really been getting curious...
--
Steve Friedl V-Systems, Inc. "Yes, I'm jeff@unh's brother"
friedl@vsi.com {backbones}!vsi.com!friedl attmail!vsi!friedlcampbell@maynard.BSW.COM (Larry Campbell) (05/04/88)
All this talk about First Amendment rights and the Federalist Papers
is interesting but utterly irrelevant.
The First Amendment prohibits the _government_ from restricting freedom
of speech, and of the press. It does not prohibit _individuals_ from
doing so.
Thus, the government can not prohibit you from distributing, say, Nazi
propaganda on my property. However, I can certainly prohibit you from
doing so.
The government can not prohibit you from storing Nazi propaganda on my
computer. But I can certainly do so.
The government can not prohibit you from using my telephone lines to
transmit Nazi propaganda around the country. But I can.
The First Amendment restrains only governments, not individuals. And
this is as it should be.
Now, replace "Nazi propaganda" above with "stupid Usenet flames and
drivel". The truth value of the preceding statements is unchanged.
--
Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc.
Internet: campbell@maynard.bsw.com 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA 02109
uucp: {husc6,mirror,think}!maynard!campbell +1 617 367 6846gf@dasys1.UUCP (G Fitch) (05/05/88)
In article <70@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: }In article <4163@dasys1.UUCP> gf@dasys1.UUCP (G Fitch) writes: }>In following this discussion, I have been surprised to see that }>no one seems to think free speech is a good thing in itself. It }>is always referred to as a burden or a privilege. }> }>I think free speech is good, in itself; and, as an implication of }>this belief, I think free speech is good for USENET. Regardless }>of whether USENET is constrained by law to admit it. Does someone }>want to challenge my belief? }> }>Free speech, by the way, includes obnoxious speech. } }It is not "Free Speech" which is good (if I call you an a**hole, is that good?), }but "FreeDOM of Speech". Free speech is supposed to be the result of freedom of speech. I would far rather let you call me names, than take away your ability to do so. So in that sense, if you call me an a**hole, it is good. On USENET I can always hit 'n'. }However, one person's freedom often must end where another's freedom begins: }i.e. if you are free to speak abusively within my earshot or in the privacy }of my home, then I am no longer free to limit what I hear to that which I }consider pleasant or appropriate. See above. }Further, while there may be freedom of speech, USENET also involves the }privilege .... Once again, right, law & privilege are invoked. I say free speech is good in itself, outside of destructive acts like libel or appending a dump of vmunix to your .signature file. Does anyone agree? }And just in case someone thinks that then we need to abolish private property, This has nothing to do with my posting, or anyone else's on this topic that I have seen. -- G Fitch {uunet}!mstan\ The Big Electric Cat {ihnp4,harvard,philabs}!cmcl2!cucard!dasys1!gf New York City, NY, USA (212) 879-9031 {sun}!hoptoad/
wnp@killer.UUCP (Wolf Paul) (05/06/88)
In article <4266@dasys1.UUCP> gf@dasys1.UUCP (G Fitch) writes: >In article <70@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: >}In article <4163@dasys1.UUCP> gf@dasys1.UUCP (G Fitch) writes: >} >}And just in case someone thinks that then we need to abolish private property, > >This has nothing to do with my posting, or anyone else's on this >topic that I have seen. It does too, not with your posting so much, but with the general thrust of the arguments on this topic. When people are said to be free to use anyone's resources for something the owner doesn't want them to be used for, property rights are infringed, which is the first step towards abolishing private property altogether. And no, I obviously don't agree with you that free speech is so good in itself that it should supersede and overrule all other considerations and rights. -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: ihnp4!killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 INTERNET: wnp@DESEES.DAS.NET or wnp@dcs.UUCP TLX: 910-280-0585 EES PLANO UD