rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (03/11/89)
>[Brad] doesn't get anything but ego boost from moderating RHF. We, on the >other hand, as readers, benefit greatly from his efforts. Call me naive, but I think that being a moderator is performing a service to the community. Kind of like the Peace Corps. If Genie or anyone else redistributes comp.sources.unix, great: I wasn't planning on making money off it, so I haven't lost out. I've lost a chance to make money, but *I NEVER INTENDED TO MAKE MONEY.* I read Brad's article, and I don't see how this "copyright" nonsense has made this Genie/whoever cross-fertilizing any more or less possible. I'm probably just stupid, but all I see that it has done is made it possible for Brad to require these redistribution points to pay him. And finally, don't underestimate the ego boost. It can be amazing. Oh yeah, the groupies at the Usenix conferences are fun, too. /rich $alz -- Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net.
anand@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Anand Iyengar) (03/12/89)
In article <438@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: [ed: >> Part of the controversy will revolve around the fact that >> these services will reward me for moderating groups on their systems. >> In particular, I get a free account and a small percentage of the >> usage billings. I am told that the SYSOPs of things like the IBM-PC ] >If you want to be the 'Sysop' of Delphi and Genie Jokes forum, you >should give up your post as moderator to rec.humor.funny I don't see the need for this...I don't even have a gripe about them paying him, but I guess that's more a personnal thing. I also think that he's done a decent job as moderator. >> >> All this is possible only because a compilation copyright exists on >> the USENET end. Without that, I could never even have negotiated this > >What does having a compilation copyright have to do with GENIE getting >usenet? If they have the proper software, they can hook into Usenet just >as Portal has done. Then their customers would have the same individual >access as any of us do. I would like a clarification of this, too. My main gripe about his policy is that the only way that I can get an RHF compilation is by buying his book. I'm not asking for him to send out free copies or anything: it would just be nice to be able to ftp/receive-mail/? (even an automated mail-sender would be sufficient) the jokes (they're free on usenet, right?). I don't really need (or want, actually...i'd prefer them online) a hardcopy of them. Also, contributors to the book get nothing in return, even though their work is sold for profit. That jokes can be snarfed from Rec.Humor adds injury to insult... Also, the idea of a compilation copyright seems somewhat ridiculous in this case. Does this mean that I can't archive RHF? I thought that USENET said that I could. Does anyone archive RHF now (A friend of mine just made the comment "He *says* he has a compilation copyright. He doesn't actually have one until it goes to court.")? What if 3 people each archived one third of the year's submissions? Knew I shoulda been a lawyer... Anand. -- Disclaimer \-'kla-mer\ n [AF, fr disclaimer v.] 1a: a denial or disavowel of legal claim: relinquishment of or formal refusal to accept an interest of estate b: a writing that embodies a legal disclaimer 2a: denial, disavowel b: repudiation { Webster's New Coll. Dict.} ++ {arpa | bit}net: anand@vax1.acs.udel.edu (<- prefer), iyengar@udel.edu csnet: iyengar%udel.edu@relay.cs.net uucp: ->unidot ->!cfg!udel!udccvax1!anand ->uunet -/ ->!harvard ->udel.edu!iyengar ->!allegra!berkeley -/
richmond@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) (03/12/89)
I would oppose the appointment of Matt Crawford as moderator, given his stated position to take no account of the potential offensiveness of submissions. If you'd like to read an excellent statement of why he should be more careful, look at the recent posting (in alt.hypertext, of all places) of the system manager who is cutting rec.humor (not clear whether he includes rec.humor. funny, too) because of offensivess. Note also that Stanford has cut rec.humor.funny (and I've never had any contact with them: they did this of their own volition.) There is a whole lot to discuss on the freedom of speech issue -- and I've had my say, and don't plan on starting up again, except to remind you all that while freedom of speech is an important right, freedom from fear and discrimination is also a basic right. When more than one right is at play, trade-offs have to be made between them. The choice is not easy, and I recall when I had a tough choice. I was the editor of my departmental journal at the London School of Economics, where I was an undergraduate. A white South African student submitted a paper for publication which was, to say the least, controversial. It painted a very unfavourable picture of Black parts of town in Johannesburg. Now, I disliked this paper a great deal, but decided it should be published, since it met the normal standards of academic publications, and -- though it certainly presented a white view -- was not racist. I decided to invite a Black African to submit a reply. What happened was that a whole bunch of students went to the Department Head to protest, and I got a whole bunch of flak. In a meeting with the Head, I said that although I did not like the piece, we should try to learn more about the problems of South Africa, and the views of whites, however unpleasant, should be included as a way of understanding the conflicts of South African society. I told him I would have had no hesitation in rejecting the article if there had been the slightest racial slur in it. I then went ahead, and sent the copy to the printers. Without telling me, a bunch of the protestors were authorized by the department head to black out passages they found offensive with ink. They did this to all copies except one box which I had luckily removed from storage. It took a long time for the heat to die down from that episode. Now, racist humour is an entirely different matter. Where the intent is to insult someone because of their race, stricter judgement is demanded. I'll stop here, and direct your attention to the entry in alt.hypertext. On a pragmatic basis, you should all consider the future of the rec.humor.funny newsgroup. Given that Stanford has already pulled the plug, and the alt.hypertext poster has done so as well, it seems likely that a policy of allowing unrestrained offensive material will simply lead to more sites cutting the newsgroup out. What we need is someone with a keen sense of humour, but also a sense of perspective. Jonathan Richmond ps: Please don't take this as another opportunity to start a flame war. Think through this whole business carefully and rationally, and please try to cool and polite when replying.
waters@polya.Stanford.EDU (Jim Waters) (03/12/89)
In article <9773@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> richmond@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) writes: >On a pragmatic basis, you should all consider the future of the >rec.humor.funny newsgroup. Given that Stanford has already pulled >the plug, and the alt.hypertext poster has done so as well, it seems likely >that a policy of allowing unrestrained offensive material will simply >lead to more sites cutting the newsgroup out. On a pragmatic basis, don't draw too many conclusions from Stanford's removal of rec.humor.funny. That was a rather hasty decision, made by the administration without consulting the people who do the work and/or pay the bills here (i.e. faculty and students). Indications are that now that our Faculty Senate has taken up the issue, rec.humor.funny very well may be reinstated. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Waters UUCP: decwrl!polya.stanford.edu!waters waters@polya.stanford.edu BITNET: waters%umunhum.stanford.edu@stanford
dewey@sequoia.UUCP (Dewey Henize) (03/12/89)
Oh boy, now there's one of the best reasons for keeping Brad we could get - JEDR is crawling out if his hidey-hole and giving us the supreme benefit of his experience. I know there are Moroney awards, which is interesting in itself, but who else has managed to get his initials to be a symbol for evrything stupid and wrong? Love it, just love it! Which paper are you going to try to lambast me in, JEDR? Or, if I'm lucky, will it be some comment like 'you aren't worth it'? Cause I'm not, of course, you wouldn't get anywhere near as much milage out of me. Hehehe. Just so you know where to scream - the only paper here is the American Statesman. We already know you can get the rest of the info you want from reading the maps... -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | There is nothing in the above message that can't be explained by sunspots. | | execu!dewey Dewey Henize | | Can you say standard disclaimer? I knew you could. Somehow... |
brant@manta.pha.pa.us (Brant Cheikes) (03/12/89)
[follow-ups directed to news.groups, where the debate on this issue is just warming up -b] In article <3074@udccvax1.acs.udel.EDU> Anand Iyengar writes: > My main gripe about his policy is that the only way that I can >get an RHF compilation is by buying his book. I'm not asking for him to >send out free copies or anything: it would just be nice to be able to >ftp/receive-mail/? (even an automated mail-sender would be sufficient) >the jokes (they're free on usenet, right?). Premise: putting the joke book together involves a hell of a lot more effort than just cat-ing a bunch of RHF articles together. So what you're saying is this: Golly gee, wouldn't it be nice if Brad would do all this work and then hand it out for free? (after all, to you FTP is for all intents and purposes free) Sure, that would be nice. FSF and comp.sources.[misc|unix] are excellent examples of people doing good work and giving it away for free. But are you telling us that high-quality effort should *necessarily* be performed free? Tell me about your career plans, Anand. >Also, contributors >to the book get nothing in return, even though their work is sold for >profit. Granted, this is a touchy issue, but only when it involves original humor. But a lot of what I see go by on RHF consists of quotes from TV shows (e.g., the Tonight show), "heard" jokes, and "true" (news story) jokes. If I send Brad a joke I heard Jay Leno tell on TV, and Brad puts it in his book, do I deserve compensation? I think not. So I question your use of the word "work" in the above context. As for the people who send in original stuff, I think they have the right to request that their submissions be omitted from any compilation. Brad has made it clear that he has in the past, and will continue in the future, to respect those wishes when expressed. Other than that, I expect some people would be honored to have their original jokes/stories/what-have-you included in a published compilation, even without compensation. Appropriate credit, of course, should be given (in an appendix, for example) for all included submissions (Brad: do you do this already?). -- Brant Cheikes University of Pennsylvania, Department of Computer and Information Science brant@manta.pha.pa.us, brant@linc.cis.upenn.edu, bpa!manta!brant
lear@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear) (03/12/89)
This is too rich to pass up.. First, I've decided to archive rhf, at least for now. You can find everything from last week until whenever I decide to stop on net.bio.net:pub/unix-hacks/rhf in compressed format. archive is for the current month, and MMMYY.Z (Mar89.Z) for previous months. I am still having some qualms as to whether it is actually ethical for Internet sites to pass mail TO funny@looking.UUCP. Although I've talked with several people in the know about Brad Templeton's copyright, and while these people seem to believe that it has little if any worth or meaning, it shows me a significant intent to ban competition to publishing rights, that tax payers of the U.S. should probably take offense. Anyway, at least for now, I will make archives available. What you do with them is up to you. I take no responsibility for your actions. -- Eliot Lear [lear@net.bio.net]
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (03/13/89)
In article <9773@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> richmond@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) writes: [an anecdote illustrating how much he values opposing points of view] Followed by: >What we need is someone with a keen sense of humour, but also a sense of >perspective. Given JEDR's own self-proclaimed keen sense of humor and the sense of perspective that he has revealed both in newspaper interviews and in articles on Usenet, I think we have the perfect candidate right here. When Brad Templeton originally proposed rec.humor.funny he said he saw no reason why others couldn't propose their own moderated rec.humor newsgroups. JEDR could propose rec.humor.jedr, containing only jokes that were offensive to none and funny to him. Expect the volume to be low. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi ARPA: dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest) (03/13/89)
richmond@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) writes: > [. . .] >Note also that Stanford has cut rec.humor.funny (and I've never had any >contact with them: they did this of their own volition.) > [. . .] >On a pragmatic basis, you should all consider the future of the >rec.humor.funny newsgroup. Given that Stanford has already pulled >the plug, and the alt.hypertext poster has done so as well, it seems likely >that a policy of allowing unrestrained offensive material will simply >lead to more sites cutting the newsgroup out. Mr. Richmond is badly mistaken -- every joke in rec.humor.funny has appeared on every one of the hundreds of computers at Stanford that give access to Usenet. In other words, the dimwitted attempt by certain bureaucrats to censor rec.humor.funny failed. The Stanford faculty senate is expected to discussed this issue shortly and is expected to confirm the "hands off" policy. Les Earnest Phone: 415 723-9729 Internet: Les@Sail.Stanford.edu USMail: Computer Science Dept. UUCP: . . . decwrl!Sail.Stanford.edu!Les Stanford, CA 94305
cc1@valhalla.cs.ucla.edu (It glows in the dark) (03/15/89)
In article <VIXIE.89Mar10011048@jove.pa.dec.com> vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
^I don't know of anybody on Usenet whose sense of humour I trust more than
^Brad's.
I don't know of anybody on Usenet who has gotten to show off their
sense of humor more than Brad. Do you think it possible that there
might be funnier people than Mr. Templeton out there?
^RHF is _funny_.
To you, maybe.
^Brad created it because he was sick of rec.humor,
^and RHF has become wildly popular.
And lots of us are sick of Brad. We should create our own Brad-less
group, huh?
Besides, you miss the point of the whole discussion (have you read
any of it?). Almost no one is saying that "Brad isn't funny"; the
argument is related to Brad's attempts at such stunts as compilation
copyrights and making money from books and gateways to commercial
groups. If we can find someone just as funny as Brad without these
controversial urges, Brad should be replaced. Or if Mr. Templeton
would renounce such acts, he should be allowed to continue; if not,
then he's outta here.
--Kencc1@valhalla.cs.ucla.edu (It glows in the dark) (03/15/89)
In article <9773@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> richmond@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) writes:
^I would oppose the appointment of Matt Crawford as moderator, given his
^stated position to take no account of the potential offensiveness of
^submissions.
^
^ [ ... ]
^
^What we need is someone with a keen sense of humour, but also a sense of
^perspective.
^
^Jonathan Richmond
I nominate Jonathan E. D. Richmond to succeed Brad Templeton as moderator
of rec.humor.funny, should the attempt to remove Templeton prove successful.
--Ken
(Of COURSE I'm joking, you ninny.)dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (03/15/89)
In article <21741@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> cc1@cs.ucla.edu (It glows in the dark) writes: >If we can find someone just as funny as Brad without these >controversial urges, Brad should be replaced. Or if Mr. Templeton >would renounce such acts, he should be allowed to continue; if not, >then he's outta here. Those who continue to post such articles should instead do what Brad did at one time: propose a moderated humor group reflecting his own sense of humor, collect votes, create the newsgroup, and make it work. I suspect the real problem is envy. Envy that Brad does things you don't. Envy that Brad is successful in the things he does. I'm glad things are more civilized these days. Back then they used to lock you up if you knew more about the center of the universe than they did, or make you drink hemlock if you had a different idea of logic then they did, and stuff like that. Now they just post nasty articles behind pseudonyms like "It glows in the dark". -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi ARPA: dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
cc1@valhalla.cs.ucla.edu (It glows in the dark) (03/16/89)
In article <6132@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: ^In article <21741@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> cc1@cs.ucla.edu (It glows in the dark) ^writes: ^^ [stuff I wrote deleted] ^Those who continue to post such articles should instead do what Brad ^did at one time: propose a moderated humor group reflecting his own ^sense of humor, collect votes, create the newsgroup, and make it work. I don't have the time myself, nor an adequate account, to carry out the running of rec.humor.funny. That doesn't mean that Brad should be allowed to continue. The existence or non-existence of other humor groups is not being debated here; the issue is whether or not Brad should continue as moderator of rec.humor.funny. Try to stay on the issue, boy. ^I suspect the real problem is envy. Envy that Brad does things you ^don't. Envy that Brad is successful in the things he does. Oh yes, thank you so much for telling me what my motivation is, with that TOTALLY UNFOUNDED remark. Care to back it up? WHY do you think that I am jealous of Brad's success? In fact, I wouldn't take his job if I could; I've seen all the trouble that people give him (on things that he's not to be blamed for). How can you say that I am jealous of him? Tell me, O great psychoanaylist, why am I jealous of him? ^I'm glad things are more civilized these days. Back then they used to ^lock you up if you knew more about the center of the universe than they ^did, or make you drink hemlock if you had a different idea of logic ^then they did, and stuff like that. Oh, so now Brad ranks up there with Galileo and Socrates. Yeah. Right. What are you, some kind of Templeton toadie? ^Now they just post nasty articles ^behind pseudonyms like "It glows in the dark". Oh, you're one of THOSE kind of people, who somehow think that the presence of a pseudonym in a posting somehow invalidates what the posting is saying. Crap. If you had noticed (you DID read my article, DIDN'T you?), I always sign "--Ken" at the bottom of my postings. My full name is Kenneth Lennis Bartlett; I am NOT trying to hide behind a pseudonym. Now think about it (you CAN do that, can't you?), if I were trying to disguise my identity, why choose something OBVIOUSLY a pseudonym like "It glows in the dark"? I'd probably choose a name like "Alex Gillis" or "Mark Williams" or something like that, huh? So it wouldn't draw attention to the fact that I'm "hiding" (which I am not!). So if you are following all that (I ASSUME that you can, but you know what they say about assuming), and if you think a little (I also assume you can think, although that's not entirely obvious from your posting), you can see that there is no more validity to a "real name" than a pseudonym. Can we REALLY be sure that your name is "Rahul Dhesi"? I'm not sure; maybe your name is "MaryAnn Willbergs" and you're hiding behind this pseudonym of "Rahul Dhesi"? Well, enough ranting from me. This guy just got me ticked off. I do, however, encourage anyone out there to disagree with my comments about Brad, as long as you can do it in a reasonable, intelligent manner (which Mr. "Dhesi" was unable to do his posting). Thank you. --Ken Bartlett
news@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU (USENET Master) (03/16/89)
>I would oppose the appointment of Matt Crawford as moderator, given his >stated position to take no account of the potential offensiveness of >submissions. From: drc@beach.cis.ufl.edu (David Cabana) Path: beach.cis.ufl.edu!drc I am not here concerned with who ought to moderate rec.humor.funny. I am concerned that anyone would suggest that a potential moderator ought to be ruled out because he is willing to permit free speech on a newsgroup. Mr. Richmond explains his reasoning: >If you'd like to read an excellent statement of why he should be more careful, >look at the recent posting (in alt.hypertext, of all places) of the system >manager who is cutting rec.humor (not clear whether he includes rec.humor. >funny, too) because of offensivess. > >Note also that Stanford has cut rec.humor.funny (and I've never had any >contact with them: they did this of their own volition.) Mr. Richmond is concerned that more sites will drop the offensive rec.humor.funny. He continues: >There is a whole lot to discuss on the freedom of speech issue -- and >I've had my say, and don't plan on starting up again, except to remind >you all that while freedom of speech is an important right, freedom >from fear and discrimination is also a basic right. When more than >one right is at play, trade-offs have to be made between them. Rights multiply without bound. The Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of speech. The genesis of the right of freedom from fear and discrimination is harder to trace. Mr. Richmond, no one can guarantee anyone else freedom from fear and discrimination. Our fears are our own creations. As for discrimination, I recall less muddled times when 'discriminate' meant simply to distinguish among choices. Now 'discrimination' means bigotry. Would that we were free of it. I do not believe that bigotry can be eliminated by silencing bigots, whether the censor be the state or the moderator of rec.humor.funny. Nor do I believe that such elimination ought to be attempted. Bigotry lives in the mind of the individual; to use the apparatus of the state (or the net) to silence those guilty of harboring the 'wrong' thoughts is both futile and (more importantly) evil. On that road lies tyranny. Compulsory censorship is disgusting and immoral; voluntary censorship is worse. If we are silenced by force, let us at least have lost the good fight. Those who consent to silence themselves have no one to blame but themselves. Nor will they ever escape the censor's eye, for it will be their own. >On a pragmatic basis, you should all consider the future of the >rec.humor.funny newsgroup. Given that Stanford has already pulled >the plug, and the alt.hypertext poster has done so as well, it seems likely >that a policy of allowing unrestrained offensive material will simply >lead to more sites cutting the newsgroup out. Pragmatism. Let us yield to every pressure, lest we suffer the slightest consequence. So what if Stanford pulled the plug? If they bow to the censors, shall we? (I understand that Standford did not pull the plug. Bravo.) Still, ideals are a forgotten thing; pragmatism holds the field. Let us be pragmatic. The censorship of rec.humor.funny will not save the world; it will (briefly, until they move on to their next conquest) make happy a few souls who would not permit spoken what they do not wish to hear. There are precious few opinions (or jokes) that will not offend somebody. I find the spoken or written support of censorship offensive; I will find a way to live with it. David Cabana drc@beach.cis.ufl.edu Should the above address fail, try drc@bikini.cis.ufl.edu
drc@beach.cis.ufl.edu (David Cabana) (03/16/89)
A somewhat long-winded posting of mine got somewhat scrambled in transit. I think it is still legible, but if anyone requests it I will repost. Otherwise I will save the bandwidth and let the current version stand. drc
dewey@sequoia.UUCP (Dewey Henize) (03/16/89)
Over and over, around and around. Nothing seems to be being said here. Slowly now. If there is widespread (as opposed to just loud) dislike of the job that Brad is doing, vote with your feet first. Quit griping about how its being done and how evil it is, and propose seriously a new group to replace it. Then get the 100 more yes votes than no votes. Then, or simutaneously, get a moderator. If what is being done in rec.humor.funny is really wrong and you can provide a real alternative, you can simply and easily put rec.humor.funny out of business. Or, if its still wrong to you but the majority of folks simply don't happen to agree with you, then you can have your moral stand. Or even perhaps, you'll be able to look at things from another light and decide that perhaps rec.humor.funny is ok. But whatever, if you don't show a working alternative first, you don't have anything to offer. If you provide just the same thing with a different moderator, there's no incentive for anyone to switch. But if you honestly believe it could be done better, than do it. Don't just talk about it. My time, like I'd hope most of your time, is limited. If there's a better service on Usenet that winnows out the jokes and still provides me with the range of humor rec.humor.funny does, I'll read it instead. I think that a whole lot of other people would as well. But if it ain't gonna be there, I see no reason to continue the pissing and moaning that's gone on the last several weeks - unless that's an end in itself, in which case it belongs in alt.flame. This is the perfect free market here. Cost of development is your time and effort, no additional capital expenses. Compete if you wish, do a better job, win the market. Or just talk about it and look pretty foolish. As for the supporters of Brad and his way of running rec.humor.funny, I'd actually suggest voting FOR a new group if someone is willing to put the effort into it. Get the choice out there and look it over. If it's better, use it. And if its not, let it die on the vine. Dewey Henize -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | There is nothing in the above message that can't be explained by sunspots. | | execu!dewey Dewey Henize | | Can you say standard disclaimer? I knew you could. Somehow... | -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (03/17/89)
>>... while freedom of speech is an important right, freedom >>from fear and discrimination is also a basic right... Freedom of speech means nothing if it's only the freedom to speak "clean", "pure" words, where somebody else defines what is clean and pure. It has to include the right to be obnoxious and offensive. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
jim@tiamat.fsc.com (Jim O'Connor) (03/18/89)
In article <1989Mar16.165623.20831@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > >>... while freedom of speech is an important right, freedom > >>from fear and discrimination is also a basic right... > > Freedom of speech means nothing if it's only the freedom to speak "clean", > "pure" words, where somebody else defines what is clean and pure. It has > to include the right to be obnoxious and offensive. A recent "Shoe" comic strip put this very nicely, to paraphrase: "To guarantee freedom of speech, we must be willing to accept dumbness of speech." The comic strip presented it much better, but you get the drift. ------------- James B. O'Connor jim@tiamat.fsc.com Filtration Sciences Corporation 615/821-4022 x. 651 *** Altos users unite! mail to "info-altos-request@tiamat.fsc.com" ***
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (03/18/89)
[since this discussion is also being held in news.groups, I added] [that group to the Newsgroups: line. I think that way everyone ] [can participate in one discussion instead of separate ones... ] In article <392@sequoia.UUCP>, dewey@sequoia.UUCP (Dewey Henize) writes: > > Over and over, around and around. Nothing seems to be being said here. > > Slowly now. If there is widespread (as opposed to just loud) dislike of > the job that Brad is doing, vote with your feet first. Quit griping about > how its being done and how evil it is, and propose seriously a new group > to replace it. Then get the 100 more yes votes than no votes. Then, or > simutaneously, get a moderator. Something is being done. Karl Denniger (did I spell it right?) has called for Discussion on replacing Brad as Moderator of rec.humor.funny, votes will be collected soon. > But whatever, if you don't show a working alternative first, you don't have > anything to offer. If you provide just the same thing with a different > moderator, there's no incentive for anyone to switch. But if you honestly > believe it could be done better, than do it. Don't just talk about it. The problem is not with the newsgroup, but with the person moderating it. He is making commercial use of his position as moderator. So the solution IS to replace the moderator, not change the group. > > As for the supporters of Brad and his way of running rec.humor.funny, I'd > actually suggest voting FOR a new group if someone is willing to put the > effort into it. Get the choice out there and look it over. If it's better, > use it. And if its not, let it die on the vine. No. The solution is not to start a new jokes newsgroup. People always seem to eager to start up a group every time they think of a new subject to discuss, or if there subject varies in the slightest degree from the main stream subject of a particular group. Newsgroups are not something that can be idly created and destroyed. The best solution is to make the existing newsgroup (in this case rec.humor.funny) work to fulfill your needs. But in this case (rec.humor.funny) no one has objected with the group itself but rather with Brad's use of the group to further his own commercial purposes. > > Dewey Henize -- John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps ______________| sparks@corpane.UUCP | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 not for r.h.f.
jha@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Jamie Andrews) (03/21/89)
In article <1989Mar16.165623.20831@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >Freedom of speech means nothing if it's only the freedom to speak "clean", >"pure" words, where somebody else defines what is clean and pure. It has >to include the right to be obnoxious and offensive. No one's trying to deprive people of the right to be obnoxious and offensive, Henry, otherwise you would have been kicked off the net long ago ((-: badaboom :-)) But seriously folks, why do some people think the only choices are absolute freedom of speech or total fascistic censorship? The law has always been dependent on juries and judges to decide matters of interpretation. If you're worried about "who will decide", you might as well free all people convicted because of the decision of a jury. Let's decide individual cases individually, as we've been doing all along in real life and on Usenet. Absolute freedom of speech is a RED HERRING. --Jamie. jha@lfcs.ed.ac.uk "Look at this tangle of thorns"
carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) (04/01/89)
In article <487@tiamat.fsc.com> jim@tiamat.fsc.com (Jim O'Connor) writes: >In article <1989Mar16.165623.20831@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >> Freedom of speech means nothing if it's only the freedom to speak "clean", >> "pure" words, where somebody else defines what is clean and pure. It has >> to include the right to be obnoxious and offensive. >A recent "Shoe" comic strip put this very nicely, to paraphrase: > "To guarantee freedom of speech, we must be willing to > accept dumbness of speech." Heyhey. Dont' you guys know the difference between freedom of expression and offensive behaviour? Free example: 1) I disagree that you should be allowed to say anything you wish about someone so long as you don't actually make criminal accusations. 2) You dumb f***s have no *** idea what you're talking about. You are all probably Commies anyway, so go eat s**t. Now, should both of these examples really be covered by free speech? -- Alix' Dad ( Carl Witthoft @ Adaptive Optics Associates) " Axis-navigo, ergo sum." {harvard,ima}!bbn!aoa!carl 54 CambridgePark Drive, Cambridge,MA 02140 617-864-0201 "disclaimer? I'm not a doctor, but I do have a Master's Degree in Science!"
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (04/01/89)
In article <749@aoa.UUCP>, carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) writes: > Heyhey. Dont' you guys know the difference between freedom of expression > and offensive behaviour? Free example: > 1) I disagree that you should be allowed to say anything you wish about > someone so long as you don't actually make criminal accusations. > 2) You dumb f***s have no *** idea what you're talking about. You are > all probably Commies anyway, so go eat s**t. > Now, should both of these examples really be covered by free speech? While I certainly won't defend the couth or ethics of some of the remarks that might fall under (1), or the couth and ethics of (2) -- all too often, anyone who expresses an opinion the least bit different from those of Person A gets called a Commie by Person A -- I *will*, without apology, defend the right of an individual to engage in such comments. I've defended Brad's right to pass along racist psuedohumor, although I *loathe* such crap. And I'll defend the right of leftwingers or rightwingers to spout their material. If we defend only what we like, we end up like the pastor in National Socialist Germany who kept quiet as various groups were hauled off, because he wasn't a member of any of those groups. Laissez faire, laissez passer -- Jeff Daiell -- The closer April 15th gets... The better the Libertarian Party looks.
csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) (04/02/89)
In article <749@aoa.UUCP> carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) writes: >Heyhey. Dont' you guys know the difference between freedom of expression >and offensive behaviour? Free example: >1) I disagree that you should be allowed to say anything you wish about >someone so long as you don't actually make criminal accusations. >2) You dumb f***s have no *** idea what you're talking about. You are >all probably Commies anyway, so go eat s**t. >Now, should both of these examples really be covered by free speech? Yes. -- Dave Mack
bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) (04/02/89)
In article <749@aoa.UUCP> carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) writes:
: Heyhey. Dont' you guys know the difference between freedom of expression
: and offensive behaviour? Free example:
: 1) I disagree that you should be allowed to say anything you wish about
: someone so long as you don't actually make criminal accusations.
: 2) You dumb f***s have no *** idea what you're talking about. You are
: all probably Commies anyway, so go eat s**t.
: Now, should both of these examples really be covered by free speech?
Absolutely. The latter would certainly be offensive to me, but is
considered normal in other parts of our society. Offensiveness is a
very personal judgement. There are no universal standards.
In fact, I find your apparent advocacy of censorship about as
offensive as I would your suggesting that I prefer sex with cows. Can
you prove that I don't find it as offensive?
How then do you propose to form objective laws to suppress offensive
speech? And without such laws, how do you propose to prevent any
random person from persecuting another by claiming that the other was
being offensive?
If you want a dictatorship, feel free to try to suppress offensive
speech. If not, you must live with it.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax } !twwells!bill
(BTW, I'm may be looking for a new job sometime in the next few
months. If you know of a good one where I can be based in South
Florida do send me e-mail.)gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu (Roger Tang) (04/03/89)
In article <3131@alembic.UUCP> csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >In article <749@aoa.UUCP> carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) writes: >>Heyhey. Dont' you guys know the difference between freedom of expression >>and offensive behaviour? Free example: >>1) I disagree that you should be allowed to say anything you wish about >>someone so long as you don't actually make criminal accusations. >>2) You dumb f***s have no *** idea what you're talking about. You are >>all probably Commies anyway, so go eat s**t. >>Now, should both of these examples really be covered by free speech? > >Yes. Sure. But a site also has the right to encourage the second person to exercise his right at another site. Or temporarily suspend #2's posting priviliges. Or put #2 on probation. Legally, the rights of a system administrator to police his/her site has little to do with the First Amendment. Only when an agent of the state, such as a state-run university, can we even entertain First Amendment arguements--and even then, only under certain conditions, depending on the terms access to posting was granted. Ethically and philosophically, of course, it's a different situation. But even here, I'm not willing to give any and every poster free and untrammelled posting rights. A poster must take some responsibility for his privilige (I repeat, PRIVILIGE); there's absolutely nothing wrong with a temporary suspension of posting privileges, a probation period or a restriction to local groups only IF a user violates standard user etiquette.
ath@helios.prosys.se (Anders Thulin) (04/04/89)
In article <749@aoa.UUCP> carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) writes:
: Heyhey. Dont' you guys know the difference between freedom of expression
: and offensive behaviour? Free example:
: 1) I disagree that you should be allowed to say anything you wish about
: someone so long as you don't actually make criminal accusations.
: 2) You dumb f***s have no *** idea what you're talking about. You are
: all probably Commies anyway, so go eat s**t.
: Now, should both of these examples really be covered by free speech?
Yes. Absolutely.
However, right to free speech is not right to a free lunch. Anyone
offended by either of these examples has equal right and freedom to
prosecute for slander or offensive or indecent behaviour. Or should
have.
--
Anders Thulin INET : ath@prosys.se
ProgramSystem AB UUCP : ...!{uunet,mcvax}!enea!prosys!ath
Teknikringen 2A PHONE: +46 (0)13 21 40 40
S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden FAX : +46 (0)13 21 36 35bbh@whizz.uucp (Bud Hovell) (04/05/89)
In article <749@aoa.UUCP>, carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) writes: > In article <487@tiamat.fsc.com> jim@tiamat.fsc.com (Jim O'Connor) writes: > Heyhey. Dont' you guys know the difference between freedom of expression > and offensive behaviour? Free example: > 1) I disagree that you should be allowed to say anything you wish about > someone so long as you don't actually make criminal accusations. > 2) You dumb f***s have no *** idea what you're talking about. You are > all probably Commies anyway, so go eat s**t. > Now, should both of these examples really be covered by free speech? Well, here's the news: they are covered. ^^^ Next. Bud Hovell :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : USENET: {attmail! | tektronix!percival! | pacbell!safari!} whizz!bbh : : TELEX: 152258436 (Whizz/Bud Hovell) VOICE: +1 503-636-3000 : : PAPER: Overture Systems Corp, PO Box 1812, Lake Oswego, Oregon USA 97035 : :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "You may not be interested in strategy - but strategy is interested in you."