davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (02/07/89)
People seem to be trying to combine two different issues into one.
The issues are 1) Brad's politics and 2) Brad's skill as moderator.
His skill as moderator is subject to opinion, but based on his poll, those
who are still reading r.h.f think he's doing a good job. Fine. I'm
not going to argue this. On this point he's doing a good job as moderator.
His politics are what many people are finding objectionable. Now, I don't
mind his collecting the jokes, and selling the jokebook. I even bought
one. There were even some jokes there I hadn't heard before...
What I do find objectionable is Brad's wanting holier than thou attitude
about who can read the jokes that he collects.
Brad, the jokes you collect are sent to you to be distributed across the
country. If someone doesn't want their joke (or funny song) to go to portal,
or dasys1 (sp) or some other pay/time-period system, then they won't send it
to you. And if someone sends their joke to rec.humor, and you then use
it in r.h.f it amounts to the same thing. Anytime you say "I'm not going
to let <so and so> read this", you are committing an act of censorship.
I realize that you have been inconvenienced by what has gone on concerning
the "racism" issue. Remember, though...you chose to publish "racist" jokes.
(To paraphrase Superchicken) "you knew the job was dangerous when you took
it, Brad".
--
David Bedno (aka The Cat in the Hat) Now appearing at: davidbe@sco.COM -OR-
.!{uunet,decvax!microsoft,ucbvax!ucscc}!sco!davidbe -OR-
At home: 408-425-5266 At work: 408-425-7222 x5123 (I'm probably here...)
I've given you a pretty good answer.
Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with your question.gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (02/23/89)
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) wrote: > infringement of this copyright on the net. IF I ever excercise the right of > control, it would only be on somebody who was explicitly asked not to feed > the group, and refused (or refused to answer). If I ever do ask! > Let me also assure that I have no intention of bothering any site over money > that is what we would call a USENET site, even Portal, based on descriptions I > have received of it. > Let me assure you that my current intention is that as far as USENET is > concerned, the group isn't going to be run one *whit* differently from the > way it is now. This sounds a lot like: & I want the net to validate my "control" of this newsgroup, but I probably & won't use it anytime soon. When I do, you won't know the rules in advance. & If I think you're in the Usenet, you're in, and if not, you're out. Sorry. One thing in common with many of the copyrights currently in use on the net is that the complete terms are known in advance. There's none of this "you all get to use it unless I later single you out" stuff. You can look at the material and immediately determine what rights you have. Personally I'm not in favor of Brad's copyright (for what that's worth). I've used copyrights myself (on articles as well as on software) to enforce "how I want the world to use this stuff I did". But in my case, the copyrights were used to enforce openness, not to single out people who were causing me trouble. When I was writing software for Sun, it was coyrighted to make money with it, but I wasn't posting it to the usenet either. I missed the whole media debate over rec.humor.funny but I've been misrepresented in the media too (Hackers Conference 1988, depicted on national TV news as a bunch of criminals). The best solution I've come up with is: don't talk to those assholes in the media; identify the bad ones and get lots of other people to reject them too. Sure I was pissed -- still am! But let's not throw monkey wrenches into the Usenet over it. -- Copyright 1989 John Gilmore; you may redistribute only if your recipients may. (Stargate, BIXgate, and now Funnygate? Copyleft your work to avoid abuse!) John Gilmore {sun,pacbell,uunet,pyramid,amdahl}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@toad.com