charleen@deimos.ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna) (11/10/89)
In article <2388@stl.stc.co.uk> "David Wright" <dww@stl.stc.co.uk> writes: > >So how about it? Should we really let this news group die? Yes. It should never have been created. Opponents of the creation of misc.headlines.unitex feared that it would be a political tool, and as Patt has so amply demonstrated by her resignation as moderator, that's exactly what it is. Charleen I went to a job interview the other day, the guy asked if I had any questions. I said yes, just one, if you're in a car traveling at the speed of light and you turn your headlights on, does anything happen? He said he couldn't answer that, I told him sorry, but I couldn't work for him then. -- Steven Wright
fyl@ssc.UUCP (Phil Hughes) (11/15/89)
Generally, I agree with this posting. For me, misc.headlines.unitex has
been the most useful non-comp newsgroup and if my income wasn't based on
computers, unitex would be at the absolute top of my list.
Why can't we consider other moderators. If 4600 people read the group I
expect we could get some interest in providing moderation. I cannot
allocate enough time to deal with the volume of the group but I would be
willing to invest some time.
Don't let this important source of information die.
--
Phil Hughes, SSC, Inc. P.O. Box 55549, Seattle, WA 98155 (206)FOR-UNIX
amc-gw!ssc!fyl or uunet!pilchuck!ssc!fyl or attmail!ssc!fylusenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) (11/16/89)
)In article <2388@stl.stc.co.uk> "David Wright" <dww@stl.stc.co.uk> writes: )> )>So how about it? Should we really let this news group die? charleen@ads.com (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes: )Yes. It should never have been created. Opponents of the creation of )misc.headlines.unitex feared that it would be a political tool, and as )Patt has so amply demonstrated by her resignation as moderator, that's )exactly what it is. I don't understand the proof here. Actually, I don't understand the one of the definitions: "political tool." Can someone explain? And how that connects with Patt's resignation, etc.
aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (a.e.mossberg) (11/16/89)
Something no one has mentioned... Can a moderator terminate a group? After all, the group was approved by concensus, and whether or not Pat was able to continue as moderator should not have affected the existence of the group. Surely someone else could have volunteered to moderate the group. aem -- a.e.mossberg / aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu / aem@umiami.BITNET / Pahayokee Bioregion Capitalism needs and must have the prison to protect itself from the criminals it has created. - Eugene Debs
blm@6sigma.UUCP (Brian Matthews) (11/17/89)
In article <1072@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> aem@Mthvax.CS.Miami.Edu writes: |Can a moderator terminate a group? After all, the group was approved |by concensus, and whether or not Pat was able to continue as moderator |should not have affected the existence of the group. The group with Pat as moderator was approved by consensus, not the group alone. |Surely someone else could have volunteered to moderate the group. But then it wouldn't be the group that was voted upon originally. -- Brian L. Matthews blm@6sigma.UUCP
charleen@deimos.ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna) (11/17/89)
In article <5408@cps3xx.UUCP> gcf@frith.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: >)In article <2388@stl.stc.co.uk> "David Wright" <dww@stl.stc.co.uk> writes: >)> >)>So how about it? Should we really let this news group die? > >charleen@ads.com (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes: >)Yes. It should never have been created. Opponents of the creation of >)misc.headlines.unitex feared that it would be a political tool, and as >)Patt has so amply demonstrated by her resignation as moderator, that's >)exactly what it is. > >I don't understand the proof here. Actually, I don't understand >the one of the definitions: "political tool." Can someone >explain? And how that connects with Patt's resignation, etc. Sorry, I don't have articles handy, so there is no "proof." My none-too-perfect memory seems to recall, though, that some of the people who voted NO on misc.headlines.unitex were concerned that the net would be distributing UN propaganda. I certainly thought that some UNITEX articles were deliberately slanted. How does this tie in with Patt's resignation? Did she not resign because she was pressured by the powers-that-be to publish certain kinds of articles? Did she not attempt a political power play of her own by declaring the newsgroup dead simply because she was stepping down as moderator? I don't recall any discussion over installing another moderator, just her startling announcement that she was picking up her toys and going home. Charleen "I have two very rare photographs: one is a picture of Houdini locking his keys in his car; the other is a rare photograph of Norman Rockwell beating up a child." -- Steven Wright
aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (a.e.mossberg) (11/17/89)
In article <332@6sigma.UUCP> blm@6sigma.UUCP (Brian Matthews) writes: >The group with Pat as moderator was approved by consensus, not the group >alone. Not to my recollection. It was approved as a moderated group. Whether or not a specific person is moderating it shouldn't matter. After all, if [moderator x] of comp.sources.[your choice] resigns, that group wouldn't disappear. When I voted yes, I did not care that it was Pat in particular moderating it, only that the group was something I was interested in, and that it was a moderated group to cut down on trash. aem -- a.e.mossberg / aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu / aem@umiami.BITNET / Pahayokee Bioregion To be a revolutionary is to love your love enough to change it, to choose struggle instead of exile, to risk everything with only the glimmering hope of a world to win. - Andrew Kopkind
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (11/17/89)
>How does this tie in with Patt's resignation? Did she not resign >because she was pressured by the powers-that-be to publish certain >kinds of articles? Not exactly. What *did* happen was that the Unitex folks told her to post messages that were nothing more than blatant fundraising, of the order "send us money or we'll shoot your dog" type. She told them that this kind of message was against USENET policy (and against Internet policy as well). They got abusive. Patt resigned. They threatened to get her kicked off the net, then got abusive when Patt's sysadmin told them to stick it. Patt came to myself (as newgroup czar) and I brought in Spaf and Greg (as other long-time net.pharts). She originally wanted to unmoderate the group. I convinced her and Greg and Spaf that this was a really stupid idea, because (1) that'd just give them free rein to post their fundraising messages, and (2) the group would turn into a flame-discussion group rather than an information disemmination group. We suggested to the Unitex folks to drop the fundraising messages. Their responses to both myself and Spaf were abusive. Since they were unwilling to consider having the group except on their terms (we tried more than once), it made no sense to look for a new moderator since the first thing that would happen would be the moderator would have to fight over the fundraising messages. So I told Patt to resign and request having the group nuked. Under the circumstances, it was the proper thing. If we allow one charity to start fundraising on the network, you're opening up the doors for *every* charity to spend the networks money pushing their causes. The possibility of seeing a couple of hundred groups (no matter how good the causes) posting on the network looking for bucks was enough to scare me -- much as I like the Sierra Club or Amnesty International, USENET is a place for information, not fundraising drives. >Did she not attempt a political power play of >her own by declaring the newsgroup dead simply because she was >stepping down as moderator? No, if anyone did, *I* did. Patt followed my request. I sent out the newgroup. If you're going to yell at anyone, yell at me. But we were in a fairly nasty situation, with some rather unpleasant mail traipsing back adn forth and this wasn't something that would lend it to the typical USENET "we'll argue about it until March and then decide whether or not there's something we feel like doing" public format. I was kind of hoping this'd all just fade away and we could avoid bringing some of this public. That's not happening. I'm sure there will be people who don't like what I did. That's life -- flame away if you want. But not every thing lends itselt to long-running consensus discussions that USENET likes. And the flames that this might cause are nothing to the flames that'd happen when PBS starts running its auction over the net.... -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] All it takes is one thorn to make you forget the dozens of roses on the bush.
aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (a.e.mossberg) (11/17/89)
In article <36577@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >[explains the story of m.h.unitex] Okay, now I see. It would have been easier to make it public from the beginning. I agree with the decision now that I've seen the facts. Last word on my part re m.h.unitex aem -- a.e.mossberg / aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu / aem@umiami.BITNET / Pahayokee Bioregion I can see the future, and it's a place... about 70 miles east of here. - Laurie Anderson
dan@ccnysci.UUCP (Dan Schlitt) (11/17/89)
I won't duplicate Chuq's article here. If you want to read it go back to the original. As one minor participant in the discussion I want to affirm that Chuq has presented a good summary of the events. Chuq, spaf, and Greg did a good job of looking after the best interests of the net in this unfortunate situation. Although I am sorry to see the group disappear I think that the decision to rmgroup it was in the best interests of the net. There is a mailing list for those who are interested in seeing the unitex materials on a continuing basis. Further discussion is probably not going to be very productive. -- Dan Schlitt Manager, Science Division Computer Facility dan@sci.ccny.cuny.edu City College of New York dan@ccnysci.uucp New York, NY 10031 dan@ccnysci.bitnet (212)690-6868
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (11/18/89)
misc.headlines.unitex had one of the highest volume/reader ratios on all of USENET, at least on the dreaded arbitron sites. It was a huge pile of stuff (60K/day) sent to many thousands of sites, and read by less than one person for every three sites it went to. Now the content may indeed have been highly valuable to those reading it, (or else why were they reading it?) but that's true for all groups and if we have people parading around to get this group back after it's been rmgrouped, I see even more clearly why we will never rmgroup a single group through the net concensus method! Unitex should probably stick to it's own hiearchy, like biz, clari, gnu, etc. were only people who ask for it get it. Also, brief email with James Waldron, the Unitex director, showed him to be pompous and quite ignorant of USENET (ok, so that's nothing new) and I am not at all surprised to hear that Patt got fed up. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (11/19/89)
To make a constructive suggestion about m.h.unitex (what, a *constructive* comment in news.groups? Isn't that against the Canons or something? ;-) -- May I suggest that someone not directly related to UNITEX (and hence not as suscepible to pressure as someone in Patt Haring's position would be) propose a moderated newsgroup for the kinds of UNITEX messages that were intended for misc.headlines.unitex? As this would not be under the aegis of UNITEX, it would be easy (or easier, at least) to reject fund-raising and other unsuitable messages. (For those who want to flame this, let me remind you that the NSFnet *does* have rules, and I wouldn't be too surprised to find that UNITEX's version of m.h.unitex would violate them. Better to squelch one newsgroup than lose the use of NSFnet for any newsgroup because we won't follow the rules.) The resulting newsgroup would provide the kind of message traffic that the voters for m.h.unitex wanted when they voted for the newsgroup. ++Brandon (just making a suggestion, I will not participate in such a newsgroup) -- Brandon S. Allbery allbery@NCoast.ORG, BALLBERY (MCI Mail), ALLBERY (Delphi) uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu bsa@telotech.uucp *(comp.sources.misc mail to comp-sources-misc[-request]@backbone.site, please)* *Third party vote-collection service: send mail to allbery@uunet.uu.net (ONLY)* expnet.all: Experiments in *net management and organization. Mail me for info.
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (11/19/89)
>To make a constructive suggestion about m.h.unitex (what, a *constructive* >comment in news.groups? Isn't that against the Canons or something? ;-) -- >May I suggest that someone not directly related to UNITEX (and hence not as >suscepible to pressure as someone in Patt Haring's position would be) propose >a moderated newsgroup for the kinds of UNITEX messages that were intended for >misc.headlines.unitex? I hate to say this, Brandon, but Patt *was* not directly related to UNITEX. She was volunteering her time and her network account (the machine she used to do the postings was not related to Unitex in any way). Didn't help. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] All it takes is one thorn to make you forget the dozens of roses on the bush.
gcf@panix.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (11/19/89)
)In article <332@6sigma.UUCP> blm@6sigma.UUCP (Brian Matthews) writes: )>The group with Pat as moderator was approved by consensus, not the group )>alone. In article <1076@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> aem@Mthvax.CS.Miami.Edu writes: )Not to my recollection. It was approved as a moderated group. Whether )or not a specific person is moderating it shouldn't matter. ) )After all, if [moderator x] of comp.sources.[your choice] resigns, )that group wouldn't disappear. ) )When I voted yes, I did not care that it was Pat in particular )moderating it, only that the group was something I was interested )in, and that it was a moderated group to cut down on trash. When a comp group has a moderator and she or he resigns, there's usually an effort made to find another one. That's because comp groups are politically correct. (The term "politically correct" isn't just something to hit left-wing groups with.) As certain postings about ..unitex have shown, it's politically incorrect. So as soon as an excuse came along to eliminate it, it was eliminated. The rmgroups were probably sent out five minutes after Patt's resignation was received -- if not five seconds. You may recall, by the way, that when ..unitex was voted on the votes were challenged just as with a certain recent newsgroup vote. You'd think the orthodox would have the imagination to come up with new forms of attack occasionally, but I suppose a lack of imagination is one of the attributes of orthodoxy. -- * Gordon Fitch || gcf@panix | uunet!hombre!mydog!gcf *
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/20/89)
A simple solution: Why not just let UNITEX buy a cheap 386 clone and a UUNET account and start up a UNITEX distribution? Most of the hardcore sites would carry it (I'm sure uunet would... they carry everything, and texbell probably would as well). They can call the shots and make the rules. And they can even get the PEACENET folks involved again. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "vi is bad because it didn't work after I put jelly in my keyboard." -- Jeffrey W Percival (jwp@larry.sal.wisc.edu)
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (11/20/89)
As quoted from <36625@apple.Apple.COM> by chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach): +--------------- | >May I suggest that someone not directly related to UNITEX (and hence not as | >suscepible to pressure as someone in Patt Haring's position would be) propose | >a moderated newsgroup for the kinds of UNITEX messages that were intended for | >misc.headlines.unitex? | | I hate to say this, Brandon, but Patt *was* not directly related to UNITEX. | She was volunteering her time and her network account (the machine she used | to do the postings was not related to Unitex in any way). Didn't help. +--------------- But she was working *with* UNITEX, as evidenced by postings by a certain UNITEX higher-up (name and position forgotten). I'm talking about having it done by someone whose only relation to UNITEX is receiving their mailings and having the ability to post the relevant (and acceptable) ones somehow. (Scanner/OCR software, anyone?) The troublesome folks at UNITEX itself would not be involved. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery allbery@NCoast.ORG, BALLBERY (MCI Mail), ALLBERY (Delphi) uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu bsa@telotech.uucp *(comp.sources.misc mail to comp-sources-misc[-request]@backbone.site, please)* *Third party vote-collection service: send mail to allbery@uunet.uu.net (ONLY)* expnet.all: Experiments in *net management and organization. Mail me for info.
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (11/20/89)
> Why not just let UNITEX buy a cheap 386 clone and a UUNET account and >start up a UNITEX distribution? Most of the hardcore sites would carry it >(I'm sure uunet would... they carry everything, and texbell probably would >as well). They can call the shots and make the rules. It was suggested that Unitex explore distributing either via biz.* or clarinet. Whether they'll do it is another matter. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] All it takes is one thorn to make you forget the dozens of roses on the bush.
gcf@panix.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (11/20/89)
)>)In article <2388@stl.stc.co.uk> "David Wright" <dww@stl.stc.co.uk> writes: )>)>So how about it? Should we really let this news group die? )>charleen@ads.com (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes: )>)Yes. It should never have been created. Opponents of the creation of )>)misc.headlines.unitex feared that it would be a political tool, and as )>)Patt has so amply demonstrated by her resignation as moderator, that's )>)exactly what it is. )In article <5408@cps3xx.UUCP> gcf@frith.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: )>I don't understand the proof here. Actually, I don't understand )>the one of the definitions: "political tool." Can someone )>explain? And how that connects with Patt's resignation, etc. charleen@ads.com (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes: )Sorry, I don't have articles handy, so there is no "proof." )My none-too-perfect memory seems to recall, though, that some )of the people who voted NO on misc.headlines.unitex were concerned )that the net would be distributing UN propaganda. I certainly thought )that some UNITEX articles were deliberately slanted. I'm sure UNITEX articles were slanted; so are all other articles, with the exception maybe of things like the maps. This in itself would not make UNITEX unique. Actually, keeping UNITEX off the net is as much an act of propaganda as putting it on the net. )How does this tie in with Patt's resignation? Did she not resign )because she was pressured by the powers-that-be to publish certain )kinds of articles? Did she not attempt a political power play of )her own by declaring the newsgroup dead simply because she was )stepping down as moderator? I don't recall any discussion over )installing another moderator, just her startling announcement that )she was picking up her toys and going home. The only article from Patt I saw said she was resigning for two reasons: unspecified disagreements with the Unitex people, and a heavy workload. This is not exactly a power play in the usual sense of the words. The power play followed. Although she gave two weeks' notice, so to speak, the group was _immediately_ removed without any attempt to find another moderator. In summary: 1. Anti-Unitex people militated against its creation, saying it would be propaganda because in came from the U.N. 2. It was voted in anyway. 3. At the first opportunity, an anti-Unitex person destroyed it, before another moderator could be found. Who's being political? Who's playing power games? These questions are only partly rhetorical. -- * Gordon Fitch || gcf@panix | uunet!hombre!mydog!gcf *
rkh@mtune.ATT.COM (Robert Halloran) (11/23/89)
In article <548@panix.UUCP> gcf@panix.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: > (prior arguments deleted)..... >In summary: > >1. Anti-Unitex people militated against its creation, saying it >would be propaganda because in came from the U.N. I refer you to Brad Templeton's article in this group about the volume of traffic in the group vs. the number of people actually reading it. That argument was MY reasoning behind voting against it. I frankly couldn't give a damn where the stuff was coming from, I just didn't see the point in tying up our modems to bring it in if no one was interested in it. >2. It was voted in anyway. > >3. At the first opportunity, an anti-Unitex person destroyed it, >before another moderator could be found. I refer you to Chuq von Rospach's article on Patt's specific disagreements with Mr. Waldron of Unitex regarding posting of fundraising requests, which go against the policies of many of the Internet entities. Chuq's argument that any replacement for Patt would immediately find themselves in the same position of having to argue Internet policy to Unitex led to Patt (not The Great Net Gods Cabal (tm)) agreeing that the group should be removed. >Who's being political? Who's playing power games? Damfino. To look at Chuq's article, the attitude at Unitex was "We can do what we want, because we're the UN". After all the grief about starting the group to begin with, I hardly think Patt would have left it hanging without good cause, do you? >* Gordon Fitch || gcf@panix | uunet!hombre!mydog!gcf * Bob Halloran ========================================================================= UUCP: att!mtune!rkh Internet: rkh@mtune.ATT.COM Disclaimer: If you think AT&T would have ME as a spokesman, you're crazed. Quote: "Remember, kids, if some weirdo in a blue suit offers you some DOS, JUST SAY NO!!!"
waldron@newport.rutgers.edu (James Waldron) (11/24/89)
From: Jeanne Garner
To: Unitex
Subj: Causes and Bank Accounts
Bank Accounts & Greenpeace: An Opinion From the Hinterlands
Arriving by way of I-37 from almost any point in the United States, one
is effectively funneled by the freeway down to Ocean Drive, where the first
impression of Corpus Christi is that of an attractive small town lazily
sunning itself by the sea. It is deceptively affluent there on Ocean Drive,
where the azure water of the Gulf of Mexico, brightly dotted with the colorful
sails of the wind surfers, approaches the well-manicured grounds of the
estates lining this grand thoroughfare. Situated nearly alone in that section
of the South Coast of Texas, Corpus Christi is relatively isolated from the
rest of Texas, as, indeed, it is remote in almost every way possible from the
rest of the United States. No one, it is rightfully said in these parts,
comes to Corpus Christi on their way to anywhere else.
Once one leaves the opulence of the mansion-lined Ocean Drive, one begins
to see what the city fathers hope will never appear on any of the tourist
literature, for, to be sure, in Corpus Christi, tourism is nearly the only
industry, and the wages of tourism shall surely be minimum, to put it in terms
appropriate to the predominantly fundamentalist populace. There is plenty of
poverty to go around, and middle- to upper-class neighborhoods sport HUD's for
sale signs along with the so-called "poor" sections of town. With oil gone
bust, and drought unabated by prayers or technology, the air is one of
impoverishment. We see it in the frustration evident in the posture of the
man on the street, in the rusted car in the drive of a once-luxurious house,
in the lawns and parks no one can afford to water, now burnt nearly black by
the sun.
There is an equal and corresponding poverty of literacy and its companion,
information, as well, which cannot be totally explained by the city's location
at the end of a long road from anywhere. This conspicuous deficiency is
rooted more in the small town-ness of the city, and its ostrich-like
attitudes, so hopeful that if facts are not discussed, or are ignored, they
will go away. Unpleasant subjects, if discussed at all, must have prurient
value: satanism, perhaps, or sexual scandal involving the socially or
politically prominent.
The network news, such as it is, intrudes upon this enforced tranquillity
with some of the harsher realities of the outside world, or at least the
limited vision of world affairs that the newsertainment seems able to provide.
And, when such fare is imposed upon the local lead stories of how a proposed
Putt Putt Golf establishment will be a tourist bonanza, providing up to a
dozen new jobs, one can almost be forgiven for thinking events halfway around
the world seem, at best, a little unrealistic, perhaps even unimportant.
Thus it is, that while the rest of the city's populace was watching the
mini-cammed talking heads and the apparently same tapes shown over and over on
all three networks of agitated, churning crowds on Tianemen Square this
summer, those who owned computers and modems, and received an electronic
information service called Unitex from somewhere in Hoboken, New Jersey, began
reading items much more personal and descriptive:
BEIJING (AP) - The sky flickers orange and black
over the bridge at Muxidi as flames roll through two
buses. Bullets whistle and zing. Tear gas canisters boom.
''Fascists! Fascists!'' chants the crowd. The People's
Liberation Army has entered Beijing to liberate the city
from the people.
Bloodied residents, sprawled on three-wheeled
pedicabs, are pushed howling in pain up side streets
where ill-equipped doctors pound on chests. The doctors'
mouths are already red with blood from mouth-to-mouth
resuscitation.
''He's gone, we've lost him!'' one medic yells as a
man with a bullet hole in his chest gurgles and shakes.
-.-.-.-.-
In addition to such deeply moving accounts of the struggles for freedom,
life, and sustenance in a hostile world, we have read, variously, opinions
from the extremes of both right and left, and from all points in between,
uncensored and usually uncommented. On Unitex, unlike the evening
newsertainment programmes, intelligence is generally assumed, and we are not
insulted with explanations of what has just been said.
The city of Corpus Christi, Texas, is not located in a technologically
undeveloped part of the world; nor, I suspect, is this city unique in its
paucity of information on an international basis. Unitex provides a truly
vital service to such areas, in the U.S. and abroad, and produces it with the
efficiency and the speed only electronic technology can provide. In addition,
it is, for all practical purposes, free to all of us except for the price of a
phone call.
Recently Dr. Waldron, the moderator of this superb echo, sent out a
request for funding aid. Considering the quality of Unitex, it seemed a
reasonable request. And yet, one voice from Europe dissented. "We think it
is wrong", said Jilles Groenendijk of the Dutch BBS, "to charge for a
non-commercial information network."
Fortunately, it has not come to that. It is still free of charge (other
than for, as we mentioned, the phone call) to all who are able to access it.
And yet, the quality and quantity of information which Unitex brings to
everyone in three Fido-net zones all over the world, including the remote
South Coast of Texas, does not come without a price. And that price can be
enormous, both in terms of actual cold, hard cash, and in man hours spent in
preparation of the data. And, remember, we have not yet figured in the cost
of the equipment, and the phone bills.
Jilles goes on to suggest, "In stead of giving us money you do better,
giving it to GREENPEACE!"
Actually, Jilles has approximately one-third of a good idea. Giving
monies to the cause of your choice is important. Add personal involvement,
and it becomes even more potent. But without one extremely critical
ingredient, neither of the above two thirds may ever come to pass. That
ingredient is information. If there were no information network such as
Unitex or Greenpeace, the numbers of persons aware of the problems and
successes of our favorite causes would be greatly diminished. These services
have brought invaluable information to the attention of who knows how many
thousands of persons, many of whom may not have had access to it otherwise.
Let us not, please, cut off these sources.
This is an uneasy, unpredictable world. Nothing is certain, except for
this: an uninformed populace is terribly easy to mislead and, perhaps
eventually, to subjugate. Information and education may well be the most
priceless commodities we can hope to grasp. These are, in addition, the first
requirements in effecting change, no matter what viewpoint you may embrace.
Certainly they are the most effective weapons available for doing war against
the methods that would manipulate our minds in the slick tradition of Madison
Avenue.
Even in America, where much is made of freedom of the press, the "right"
of the free press belongs mainly to the person who owns the press. Like it or
not, we live in a money-based society, and nearly everything has a monetary
price attached to it. Dr. Waldron and Unitex, in spite of financial
shortages, have managed to continue to furnish the Unitex echo, uncensored,
critically up to date, and without demanding payment from the receivers. When
writing checks to Greenpeace or other worthy causes, please do not forget the
source of your information. Dr. Waldron and his group from Unitex cannot do
it all alone forever. Should Unitex have to cease operations due to lack of
funding, or even be diminished in scope because of that lack, it would be a
woefully harsh commentary on the importance of knowledge and information in a
world transformed daily by events that, without the reporting by inspired
writers around the world, may never come to our attention.
Freedom of the press, so closely linked with freedom of thought, can be
costly, and Unitex, with its almost total lack of bias, is one of the freest
of presses that I have encountered. Without it, who knows? A freelance
writer on the South Coast of Texas may succomb to the illusions of talking
heads with microphones, and come to believe that the Berlin Wall was a myth
all along, and that, after all, the important news of the week is the problem
of people--many of them unwashed--wading in the fountains in downtown Corpus
Christi. And, of course, whether or not witchcraft might be involved with
such irrational behavior.
--- Msg V4.0
* Origin: Le Hermitage (1:107/30157.2)
SEEN-BY: 19/9 101/192 105/42 107/3 501 607 820 132/111 141/488
SEEN-BY: 163/162 221/71 520/501 4000/1 30157/2
" Maynard) (11/25/89)
In article <Nov.24.08.59.52.1989.18208@newport.rutgers.edu>, Dr. James
Waldron posts a solicitation for funds for Unitex.
Ignoring the vicious slam against Corpus Christi - a very nice city - as
his example of a place that might be misled if there were no such thing
as Unitex, his solicitation for funds is contrary to the implicit
policies of Usenet, if not the explicit policy of the Internet.
To make the point by slandering a particular city is especially
offensive. Dr. Waldron, have you ever been to Corpus Christi? Why did
you choose that particular city, instead of some city in New Jersey? Or
is New Jersey immune to the syndrome?
This posting has insured that I will never send a dime to Unitex. I urge
anyone who reads this message to not send them any money either.
I voted against misc.headlines.unitex because I felt it should have been
under talk.politics. This posting has only reinforced that opinion.
Finally, if this was the kind of posting that precipitated Patt Haring's
disagreement with the Unitex people, I commend her for her stand. To
stand up for one's principles, especially when they force a split from a
group that one has publicly supported, is very difficult.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
{attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +----------------------------------------
"...when hasn't gibberish been legal C?" -- Tom Horsley, tom@ssd.harris.comdewey@sequoia.UUCP (Dewey Henize) (11/26/89)
Wait a minute. You mean that wasn't a forgery or a spoof? I mean, I read it and thought to myself 'NOONE can really be that pompous and self-centered. It's gotta be a bad joke.' and discarded it. Sigh. If it wasn't a spoof, then I'm sorry I ever let the old unitex group go through this site. I've never, even including the flame wars here, see anyone claim that exclusive a lock on truth and justice... Weeeeeee -- | ...!cs.utexas.edu!execu!dewey or | "If you will just quit shouting at me, I | | ...uunet!execu!dewey | will try to hear what you are saying" | | Execucom and I often have different ideas. THESE are mine, ok? Ok. |
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (11/26/89)
In article <TN#N_&@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: > >Ignoring the vicious slam against Corpus Christi - a very nice city - as >his example of a place that might be misled if there were no such thing >as Unitex, his solicitation for funds is contrary to the implicit >policies of Usenet, if not the explicit policy of the Internet. The other issues aside, why do people keep saying this? There are *no* "policies" of Usenet, implicit or explicit. There is only one standard, namely "is it worth reading?" And that's a personal standard. What is lesser known is that there are no policies regarding this on the internet. "The internet" is made up of dozens of different nets with independent governing bodies, and the last time I checked, only two, MILNET and NASAnet, had made policies that would relate to such postings. NSFnet, in particular, is *not* one of those bodies. Now we can get to the specifics of Waldron's postings. Waldron is pompous and fairly ignorant of USENET, that's for sure. It is also my personal opinion that pure solicitations for funds are going to be low on the "is it worth reading?" scale for many readers. On the other hand, that particular posting, regardless of what it said, was better written than the typical posting to this group, so I am happy to let things be. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
news@m2xenix.UUCP (news aka randy) (11/27/89)
jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: > Ignoring the vicious slam against Corpus Christi That was a real letter from a real person in a real Corpus Christi transposted from a real FidoNet's version of a real m.h.u. And the rest of your posting did not ignore it at all. Gak! [ and I mean to imply neither support nor lack thereof for m.h.u. ] So, is this sci.red.herrings.unitex. -- uunet!{ tektronix!nosun!qiclab, oresoft, intelhf }!m2xenix!news Randy Bush
waldron@newport.rutgers.edu (James Waldron) (11/29/89)
Let me introduce myself. I am Dorothy Nicklus, one of the
original co-founders of UNITEX and a principal United Nations
Representative for a large international organization.
I was a major financial contributor to UNITEX ($12000 per year)
which helped support the cost of operations and help finance
the information that was delivered to misc.headlines.unitex
With the assistance of Dr. James Waldron, Executive Director of
UNITEX, we were able to bring information to the university and
college community that would not otherwise be available. Much
of the data, news and information that UNITEX distributed was,
at one time, available only to governments and nations...not
individuals. UNITEX did a lot of pioneering (pre-Patt Haring
days) to make this information available to the public via
computer networks and gateways.
There has been some mention of NSF policy in these 'threads' of
discussion in this newsgroup and on this topic. In fact, The
National Science Foundation has said, "UNITEX is a major
orchestrator for the fast and reliable distribution and
dissemination of information on behalf of the United
Nations....", yes the NSF does know all about who we are and how
we do what we do.
In addition, the principal directors of UNITEX have training and
background in political science and international protocol and
procedures. Dr Waldron has been moderating UNITEX on other
networks for two years with a large degree of success. He is
principal contributing editor for UNITEX and is trained in these
matters.
What came about recently with the resignation of Patt Haring
should be clearly understood. Apparently there is a lot of
misunderstanding about UNITEX and what we have accomplished
independent of the charades that have gone on in this Network.
To see good research and hard work get the short-end of the
stick in favor of the petty ego-involved personalities that have
rallied around the removal of UNITEX is really appalling and
clearly shows that a few, loud, complaining individuals can ruin
it for everyone......
UNITEX is a nonprofit corporation with a world-wide user base.
But, that is not why I am taking this time to answer in this
message area....... As a United Nations Representative for a the
International Federation of Business and Professional Women
(IFBPW) and a supporter of the democratization of information,
I have some further comments and observations.
I met Patt Harring a few years ago. We were just starting up
UNITEX... she had an account on the Big Electric Cat (a public
access unix system with a UseNet news feed). I always took Patt
to be a fair an honest person.... Dr. Waldron and I thought that
the information from the United Nations mainframe databases and
other related services would make a valuable addition and
contribution to the UseNet community vis a vis a newsgroup. Patt
implored Jim to let her moderate the conference because of her
past experience with the Big Electric Cat and to help out as a
UNITEX volunteer as a newsgroup moderator. Patt did *not* have
training in the political science arena nor had she any working
knowledge of the UN or its related activities. I would have
preferred to have been moderator but Patt insisted. That was a
very big mistake and it led to the collapse of UNITEX as a
newsgroup on the Net.
About two months ago we noticed Patt was deleting our "tear line"
and putting in her name only.....that is why no one knows our
names. She also "failed?" to post some of major stories to the
newsgroup. Patt also posted several requests from other groups
and individuals into our misc.headlines.unitex which asked for
direct funds. Why did she get so outraged then when we simply
wanted to announce a membership drive for UNITEX? OK, I
understand the NET policy on fund raising and I will comply but
it is clear that the hard work and effort that went into making
this information *available* to an entirely new reader base, was
of no absolute importance to Patt Harring. Only her perception
of her needs and wants and her own power trip, so-to-speak.
Believe me, when she started to remove our names and credits from
UNITEX and replaced it with hers and refused to publish United
Nations articles and , in fact, was an outright censor on
articles she chose to censor, Dr. Waldron and I wanted to find
another moderator, then we found out what Patt knew all
along.....
.......The moderator *is* the NEWSGROUP on the USENET system! We
were unable to post UNITEX information or even any comments
since she flat-out refused to post our replies. THIS IS NOT WHAT
UNITEX WAS ABOUT OR WHAT WE FOUGHT HARD TO OBTAIN.......
information that can benefit all and should be available to all
as public news and awareness was jeopardized by the
small-mindedness and ego-mania of Ms. Haring.....
We couldn't even talk to Patt on the phone for weeks about it
because she only had her answering machine available and ignored
our phone calls. Patt became the "information broker" and her
dreams were fulfilled. She had nothing to do whatsoever with the
efforts used to obtain, gather and distribute this information
and had no 'stake' or investment in what this was all about, in
the first place. She was an opportunist of the worst degree and
took tremendous *advantage* her of moderator role......That I
find despicable and dishonest.
Patt's actions clearly show she cares little or nothing about the
students that did find a benefit to a different international
news source. As newsgroup moderator, she could "pull the plug"
on everyone (and she did).
But it's not over 'till it's over and UNITEX will be here long
after Patt has wandered into some other 'cause celibre' and
destroyed some other useful piece of work.
UNITEX does have a mailing list; the newsgroup however allowed
more people access to the information. C'est la vie.
For those that find UNITEX's information a benefit you may reach
us via our mailing list.
[rutgers!rubbs!unitex] or waldron@newport.rutgers.edu
I do hope that there is a better understanding of what UNITEX
was trying to do and accomplish and thank you for taking the time
to read this.
Regards,
Dorothy Nicklus
UN NGO Rep and Associate Director of UNITEX. msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark Robert Smith) (11/29/89)
Sorry, Dorothy. Patt Haring has been a member of the UseNet community for a long time. She has been valued for bringing timely information to the forum, and for posting interesting information of her own. She is NOT the ego-maniac you make her out to be. In fact, your ravings in this article make you and UNITEX sound more imbalanced than she is. Your article was written in such as fashion that it makes me believe that you had a personal falling-out with Patt, and that you are trying to make her look bad - like an immature spoiled brat. This article smacks of telling everyone that somebody is a bad person because they disagreed with you. Sorry, but I think I can believe Patt and Chuq and Gene Spafford much more than I can believe you. Mark -- Mark Smith, KNJ2LH All Rights Reserved RPO 1604 You may redistribute this article only if those who P.O. Box 5063 receive it may do so freely. New Brunswick, NJ 08903-5063 msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu
wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (11/29/89)
In article <Nov.28.11.13.15.1989.1633@newport.rutgers.edu> waldron@newport.rutgers.edu (Dorothy Nicklus) writes: > >Let me introduce myself. I am Dorothy Nicklus, one of the >original co-founders of UNITEX and a principal United Nations >Representative for a large international organization. >I was a major financial contributor to UNITEX ($12000 per year) [...] (Pardon me while I straighten my tie ...) >To see good research and hard work get the short-end of the >stick in favor of the petty ego-involved personalities [...] Good to see that UN Reps can sling mud with the best of 'em. >Why did she (Pat Harring) get so outraged then when we simply >wanted to announce a membership drive for UNITEX? I dunno. Do you suggest that she's opposed to promoting UNITEX ? Yeah, that's the ticket, she only took the job so she could torpedo your group. Or just maybe she understood that fundraising on the net is frowned upon, and was providing a necessary interface to accommodate the needs of UNITEX without stepping on the ground rules of Usenet. >We >were unable to post UNITEX information or even any comments >since she flat-out refused to post our replies. I imagine Pat would respond to this by saying that she'd refused to post unacceptable material, and further refused to post even less- acceptable metadiscussion. For all I know, your response may be closer to the truth... What I can't understand about your logic is this. You claim Pat only wanted the job as an ego-trip, to fulfill her mad lust for power. I futher deduce that she must have some affinity for your organization, or else she'd have found a more interesting group (to her) to moderate. Now, why would she cause your organization so much trouble *and* lose her position as moderator ? From your accusations, I could see her causing UNITEX problems to ensure her continued position, or jeopardizing the newsgroup to help UNITEX, but her actual course of action doesn't fit your claims. Instead, it sounds like *her* story is more true; she wanted to help UNITEX, but refused to overstep Usenet protocol, and the two finally became incompatible. - - - - - - - - valuable coupon - - - - - - - clip and save - - - - - - - - Bill Thacker AT&T Network Systems - Columbus wbt@cbnews.att.com Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero
waldron@newport.rutgers.edu (James Waldron) (11/29/89)
In article <11781@cbnews.ATT.COM>, wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes: > In article <Nov.28.11.13.15.1989.1633@newport.rutgers.edu> waldron@newport.rutgers.edu (Dorothy Nicklus) writes: > > > >Let me introduce myself. I am Dorothy Nicklus, one of the > >original co-founders of UNITEX and a principal United Nations > >Representative for a large international organization. > >I was a major financial contributor to UNITEX ($12000 per year) [...] > > (Pardon me while I straighten my tie ...) > > >To see good research and hard work get the short-end of the > >stick in favor of the petty ego-involved personalities [...] > > Good to see that UN Reps can sling mud with the best of 'em. > > >Why did she (Pat Harring) get so outraged then when we simply > >wanted to announce a membership drive for UNITEX? > > I dunno. Do you suggest that she's opposed to promoting UNITEX ? Yeah, > that's the ticket, she only took the job so she could torpedo your group. > > Or just maybe she understood that fundraising on the net is frowned upon, > and was providing a necessary interface to accommodate the needs of UNITEX > without stepping on the ground rules of Usenet. > > >We > >were unable to post UNITEX information or even any comments > >since she flat-out refused to post our replies. > > I imagine Pat would respond to this by saying that she'd refused to > post unacceptable material, and further refused to post even less- > acceptable metadiscussion. For all I know, your response may be closer to > the truth... > > What I can't understand about your logic is this. You claim Pat only > wanted the job as an ego-trip, to fulfill her mad lust for power. I > futher deduce that she must have some affinity for your organization, > or else she'd have found a more interesting group (to her) to moderate. > > Now, why would she cause your organization so much trouble *and* lose > her position as moderator ? From your accusations, I could see her causing > UNITEX problems to ensure her continued position, or jeopardizing the > newsgroup to help UNITEX, but her actual course of action doesn't fit your > claims. Instead, it sounds like *her* story is more true; she wanted to > help UNITEX, but refused to overstep Usenet protocol, and the two finally > became incompatible. > > - - - - - - - - valuable coupon - - - - - - - clip and save - - - - - - - - > Bill Thacker AT&T Network Systems - Columbus wbt@cbnews.att.com > Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero I have kept intact a posting by Brandon Allbery since I feel that although there was misunderstood criticism, it was administered with intelligence and 'style....' a rare combination nowadays... BA> From @hal.rutgers.edu:ncoast!allbery@hal Sat Nov 25 20:09:34 1989 BA> Date: Sat, 25 Nov 89 12:47:54 -0500 BA> From: allbery@ncoast.org (Brandon S. Allbery) BA> Message-Id: <8911251747.AA19371@NCoast.ORG> BA> To: waldron@newport.rutgers.edu BA> Subject: Re: misc.headlines.unitex moderator RESIGNS BA> Newsgroups: news.groups BA> In-Reply-To: <Nov.24.08.59.52.1989.18208@newport.rutgers.edu> BA> Organization: North Coast Public Access UN*X, Cleveland, OH BA> Your article does not take account of one fact: the NSFnet administrators BA> frown on the use of NSFnet for the purposes of soliciting monetary donations. BA> This is very likely to be codified in the near future. And, since the Usenet BA> depends on the NSFnet for a large part of interstate message flow, Usenet BA> guidelines echo the NSFnet guidelines in this and other respects. BA> BA> If you are willing to try to convince the NSF to accept your proposed use of BA> their network and to demonstrate its acceptance of that use, you can re- BA> propose the misc.headlines.unitex newsgroup. Otherwise, it's a question on BA> our part of whether to accept the newsgroup, with the knowledge that the BA> NSFnet will cut *us* off for doing so. Which won't do your newsgroup any good. BA> We aren't trying to deny UNITEX the use of the Usenet, we're trying to make BA> sure that the Usenet won't get a very large part of its connectivity removed BA> as a result of that use. Arguing with us about it won't help, since our hands BA> are tied by the rules of the network on which the Usenet depends. BA> BA> Brandon S. Allbery BA> System Administrator (Software) BA> North Coast Public Access *NIX BA> BA> Moderator, Usenet newsgroup "comp.sources.misc" BA> Thank you for trying to 'understand' what became an unfortunate situation regarding misc.headlines.unitex. Other postings by Phil Hughes [fyl@ssc.UUCP], Rick Burgess [rick@locke.hs.washington.edu] and Bill Stewart [wcs@ho95c.att.com] have also shown 'insight' into what UNITEX was all about and what it was trying to accomplish. Some of their replies are posted at the end of this message. UNITEX was *never* trying to blatantly solicit funds but in fact was trying to establish a membership drive to validate a need for funding from state and federal sources, including the National Science Foundation. Contrary to opinion on this net, we (UNITEX) were never consulted as how to proceed. Chuq Von Rospach never emailed me anything on this problem until all h*ll broke out and then of course we (UNITEX) were chosen as the bad guys and scapegoats for all the ills that befall the net. UNITEX has been sending information to various networks for two years and there were NEVER any so-called fund-raisers on our behalf. That is not what we were or are about. However, give most people half a chance and they will try and bring down anything they can,...especially what they don't or can't understand. The National Science Foundation wrote UNITEX a letter which complimented our effort to 'orchestrate, on behalf of the United Nations, the fast and reliable distribution of international information'....... I wonder what the purpose of all the attacks on UNITEX really accomplished? Considering that most people have such a tough time reading anmymore, I'm surprised it caused such a fuss..... Fast, irrational and rapid decisions made by Patt Haring exascerbated this situation out of control *before* we (UNITEX) had anything to say or do about it. UNITEX was not a champion of any political cause or movement per se. We were not employed by or for the United Nations. The pilot project that was undertaken was done soly to champion the freedom of information and to allow others access to this information that they would otherwise not have. That was all there was to it. Clear and simple. There are those who will make much more out of it than that. That's their problem. It only takes a few to try and ruin things. But all is not lost. Those who want to receive the kind of information that was distributed by UNITEX, certainly can. James Waldron ------------------------ TEAR HERE --------------------------- > From: RICK@locke.hs.washington.edu > Subject: Hello! I've heard some terrible news that Unitex is disolving... > To: waldron@newport.rutgers.edu > X-Vms-To: IN%"waldron@newport.rutgers.edu" > Status: RO > > Is there anything anyone can do to prevent this? I have found Unitex > very useful in the past month or so since I started getting it, and I > am very disappointed to see such a useful news source disappear so suddenly, > and right before a very important time for me, the Nicaraguan elections. > > > Sincerely, > > Rick Burgess > rick@locke.hs.washington.edu on internet ========================================================================= > From hpubvwa!ssc!fyl@beaver.cs.washington.edu Thu Nov 16 16:44:14 1989 > Subject: Unitex > To: waldron@newport.rutgers.edu > Date: Thu, 16 Nov 89 10:18:43 PST > From: Phil Hughes <hpubvwa!ssc!fyl@beaver.cs.washington.edu> > X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL10] > Status: RO > > I don't understand why Patt's resignation means the end of the news group. > I found it to be the most important group on the net. It seems with the > number of readers we could get a new moderator and get things back > together again. I would be willing to put some time into it. > > -- > Phil Hughes, SSC, Inc. P.O. Box 55549, Seattle, WA 98155 (206)FOR-UNIX > amc-gw!ssc!fyl or uunet!pilchuck!ssc!fyl or attmail!ssc!fyl > ===================================================================== > From: wcs@ho95c.att.com (William Clare Stewart) > To: waldron@newport.rutgers.edu > Subject: Re: UNITEX & INTERNATIONAL NEWS > Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism > In-Reply-To: <Nov.14.19.08.13.1989.6436@newport.rutgers.edu> > Organization: Conspiracy? What conspiracy? > > I don't want to be on your mailing list (too much volume for me), > but I'd encourage a newsgroup, moderated or unmoderated, if you want > to feed it. I'd prefer unmoderated, just on general principles. > > When Patt zapped the group, she said it would be a mistake to > de-moderate it, since the original creation had been with a promise > of moderation - but I think the main reason it was decided to make > it moderated was that she thought it should be. > > Bill > --- > # Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ 201-949-0705 api.att.com!wcs
bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (11/30/89)
In article <Nov.28.19.12.13.1989.2547@newport.rutgers.edu> waldron@newport.rutgers.edu (James Waldron) writes:
Other postings by Phil Hughes [fyl@ssc.UUCP], Rick Burgess
[rick@locke.hs.washington.edu] and Bill Stewart
[wcs@ho95c.att.com]... Some of their replies are posted at the end
of this message.
From: RICK@locke.hs.washington.edu
Subject: Hello! I've heard some terrible news that Unitex is disolving...
To: waldron@newport.rutgers.edu
X-Vms-To: IN%"waldron@newport.rutgers.edu"
Status: RO
From hpubvwa!ssc!fyl@beaver.cs.washington.edu Thu Nov 16 16:44:14 1989
Subject: Unitex
To: waldron@newport.rutgers.edu
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 89 10:18:43 PST
From: Phil Hughes <hpubvwa!ssc!fyl@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL10]
Status: RO
From: wcs@ho95c.att.com (William Clare Stewart)
To: waldron@newport.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: UNITEX & INTERNATIONAL NEWS
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
In-Reply-To: <Nov.14.19.08.13.1989.6436@newport.rutgers.edu>
Organization: Conspiracy? What conspiracy?
From the headers of the examples you provided, only one of these three
appears to be a posting (in the Usenet sense of a public message), and
the other two were private mail to you individually. Regardless of
the rightness of your purpose, it's generally considered poor
etiquette to post private mail without permission of the author, which
was not evident in two of the messages you selected for examples.
It's a good idea to learn the social structure and conventions of a
group before working with them, or at least before claiming to operate
within those conventions. This is an example of a minor area in which
you might benefit from consultation with some more experienced person
in the Usenet arena. The fundraising problem is another example,
though of a somewhat more major and sensitive issue.
I'm sad to see the UNITEX information stream cut off, and I'm sorry
that you had an apparently-unpleasant falling-out with Patt Haring,
but I'm glad she maintained the stance she held. That's just what she
should have been doing in her position as moderator: providing your
organization with an interface (technical/functional as well as
social) to the Usenet.
Since she did the Right Thing, and since any moderator who does the
Right Thing will likely encounter the same conflict with the UNITEX
organization, I regret to observe that m.h.u probably won't be
successfully revived.
(For those who wonder: No, I don't agree with the point of view of
many of the articles that appeared in m.h.u - in fact, I strenuously
disagreed with some of them, and with their being in that forum (so
strongly that Patt may be surprised that I'm saying good things about
her and m.h.u :-). But it was a Good Thing that the information was
available. The availability of information is always good, and to be
encouraged.)bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (11/30/89)
I'm probably a fool for even responding but...First, I don't know Patt Haring personally. I am the moderator of INFO-FUTURES (comp.society.futures) and Patt has contributed some unique items there, we've had some network contact, but that's it...that said... >Believe me, when she started to remove our names and credits from >UNITEX and replaced it with hers and refused to publish United >Nations articles and , in fact, was an outright censor on >articles she chose to censor, Dr. Waldron and I wanted to find >another moderator, then we found out what Patt knew all >along..... Censorship is something governments with police power do. At worst what Patt could have been doing is editing, the fact that you disapprove of her editorial decisions doesn't immediately make it "censorship". I doubt she can make laws prohibiting you from publishing elsewhere or even keep you off the USENET (apparently not!) I would think someone involved with international political issues and UN news would be a little more sensitive to a word like "censorship" and not use it for mere sensationalist effect. If Patt was eliding direct fund-raising requests then she was making a reasonable and responsible interpretation of USENET policies. The fact that the NSF has found your other activities admirable has no direct bearing on the policy involved. Although one can debate whether or not posting such requests for funding is strictly forbidden I suspect polling any number of system administrators would find a large plurality or even majority would have done the same thing. The fact that someone went through the messages and elided ones which may have violated the policy of the medium sounds like someone putting effort into the task, even if you disagreed with how that effort was aimed. Remember, it was Patt's system and Patt's USENET feed distributing this and Patt would have taken the heat for any breaches, including losing the system's network access entirely. I assume nothing stopped you from investing another $10K in a suitable computer system and a net feed and the salary of a person competent to run it and someone to post your messages. Hardly censorship, even if you can't afford the price of admission. There are a lot of things I can't afford either, but I hardly refer to that lack as censorship. The rest of your message really has the tone of a typical interpersonal flame with almost no information and lots of emotionality. In fact, you seem evasive about exactly what was being censored other than perhaps credentials. At any rate, this is not the right forum for this type of attack. You may even be right, but it's impossible to tell from your tirade and I doubt anyone listening can make a difference anyhow, so why bother? You might as well be shouting on a corner in Times Square. The end result is perhaps unfortunate but it hardly sounds impossible or even tragic. Just a set back. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com 1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs