sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (03/27/89)
In article <13159@sequent.UUCP>, bry@sequent.UUCP (Bryan Jacobson) writes: > One of Mr. Denninger's first postings said something like: "Brad > don't use rec.humor.funny as a megaphone for your position in > this controversy/vote whatever". If you want to claim what someone said, why not include the actual quote if you are not sure? He was speaking of Brad using his newsgroup to spout his opinions on other peoples 'treatment' of him. And since many of his readers don't get any other news groups, if Brad used r.h.f. to do some soap boxing, those readers would only get his side of the story. That's not fair, they should get both sides. Brad took a 'survey', very vaguely stated, only in rec.humor.funny about his plans to 'sell' his material, without saying anything about it in any other group. Since his decision could affect usenet as a whole (making it a commercial enterprise for moderators) He should have brought the subject up in news.groups, news.admin, a group that deals with the subject of newsgroups in general, so that others could have input. > Brad, always the net.gentleman, has not mentioned the call for > removal and vote in r.h.f. > > But I think it should be mentioned. There should be 4 messages: > > 1. A very short one from Brad saying why the next 3 messages are > in r.h.f., and indicating that there is a more complete discussion > in news.groups for those who are interested. > > 2. A message from Karl Denninger stating his position. This should > be his original call for Brad's removal. > > 3. A message from Brad stating his position. > > 4. A very short message stating the exact voting issue, and telling > people how and when to vote. This I agree with. Both sides should get a message posted to r.h.f. A sort of point/counterpoint and the actual vote message. But not just one side OR the other. > > This needs to be done for the following reasons: > > - The readers of rec.humor.funny have a vested interest in the outcome > of the voting. Karl's suggestion that is like saying: "We're having > a vote on tearing down neighborhood X and building a freeway. People > in that neighborhood will not be allowed to vote because they are biased." > Hmm. sounds like that's what Brad did, except he was saying with his survey that let's vote on what we want to do to 'MY' neighborhood and we won't let any OTHER neighborhood vote on it, even though all neighborhoods might be affected by this survey. > And a personal note to Mr. Denninger: Hope this foils your attempt to > exclude many of the people who have seen the quality of Brad's work > from your little vote. The quality of Brad's work is not at question. The question is: 'is it Brad's work?'. I personally feel that the material belongs to whoever wrote it, and being a moderator Brad shouldn't be able to sell it. That's what the vote is about. Not if Brad is doing a good job at moderating r.h.f. Not about Brad in particular. But about moderator's ownership of the material they pass on to others, from others. To me they are more or less a selective 'filter' that censors out the extraneous garbage and lets only the 'good' stuff through. That doesn't give them the right to own the stuff they pass through. > And a paid political announcement: VOTE NO REJECT!!! ^^^^????!?? !!!!!! no comment. -- John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps ______________| sparks@corpane.UUCP | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 If at first you don't succeed, you're doing about average.