chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (06/24/85)
[note: this has been crosslinked to net.news and further followups are being pointed there as this is the most appropriate group for this discussion] In article <131@ucla-cime.UUCP> kyle@ucla-cime.UUCP (Kyle D. Henriksen) writes: >>From: gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) >>I am beginning to feel that ucla-cs!alex has "gone too far". > >>It may interest you to know that the Usenet contact person >>at ucla-cs is Doris McClure, ihnp4!ucla-cs!doris. > Well I'm glad to see that someone out there is stupid enough to start >giving out system administrator's addresses. Thats right, these people have >nothing better to do than deal with idiots who decide that they don't like >what a particular user is posting to the net. I wish that you and the rest >of net fascists would find something better to do with your time besides >occupying the time of people who actually work. Well, I'll start by pointing out the obvious and say that part of being the System Administrators job at a site is taking complaints off of the net when one of the users steps beyond the bounds of proper use of the network. Anyone has the right to make a formal complaint, if they so wish, especially when discussing the incident directly with the transgressor doesn't help. (This is especially true when the screwup is because the person thinks that the network is a right and not a priviledge, and thinks they can do anything they want). If the SA doesn't want a lot of screaming fascists filling their mailbox, they should make sure that the people on their site aren't acting like mongoloid idiots with a lobotomy. Not that I'm accusing anyone at UCLA of acting that way, of course.... (I'm just implying it heavily...) As an official net fascist, and as usenet manager here at nsc, I did send a letter off to the ucla SA suggesting that she take a look at a couple of specific articles and see if she wanted that kind of material to be considered represtentative for her site. I do not read net.flame, I gave up on that cesspool long ago, but I got a couple of complaints from readers on my site and checked up on it. The situation in net.flame has degraded to the point where I'm not considering simply removing it from distribution on my site. I saw a number of articles (many from ucla-cs, but also from other locations) that I considered very close to libel/slander and a number of others that were simply disgusting. Since I'm always looking for ways to keep my phone bills in line, I find I'm tired of spending my company's money so that people like Scott Turner can shoot off his mouth in public. A final decision hasn't been made, but I think that between the recent postings coming out of ucla and other places on the net into net.flame (and sliming into better groups) and the ever growing volume of Usenet are going to force me into a decision to simply take the groups with the lowest volume of useful information and highest volume and send them into the great bit bucket in the sky. I'm very hesitant to make a decision of this sort, because it sets some rather nasty precedents, but at the same time I wonder if it might be time for such precedents to be set. I've been talking with a number of people on the net about ways to keep costs and volumes in line, and we simply haven't found any useful solutions [I keep Stargate separate from this discussion, because Stargate is really a separate network]. I think it is time for the network to shrink a bit and restructure itself to be more productive and professional in character. Since I can't find a group of people who are willing/able to coordinate this shrinkage, the best I can do is be arbitrary about it and try to shrink the net for my own site and my downstream neighbors and only accept the subset of the network that we feel serves our needs. -- :From the misfiring synapses of: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA The offices were very nice, and the clients were only raping the land, and then, of course, there was the money...
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (06/25/85)
>> Well I'm glad to see that someone out there is stupid enough to >> start giving out system administrator's addresses. If anybody at phri does something to offend you, write to me (address below) and I'll look into it; that's my job! > [...] take the groups with the lowest volume of useful information and > highest volume [of trash?] and send them into the great bit bucket in > the sky. Consider what an SA has to deal with. On the one hand, his users scream and yell that they want more disk space. On the other hand, they bitch and moan that they want N Mbytes of news every day. I've pushed our expiration time from 14 to 10 and now to 7 days, but I seem to be just barely keeping even. I agree, censorship is a terrible thing. If I had a newspaper that I paid to have printed and distributed I would scream like a stuck pig if someone told me what I could or couldn't print. Problem is, the people who want to read 20 articles a day on toilet paper aren't the ones paying for it. Granted, the *thing* length survey was pretty amusing, but does it justify all the other swill? People on my system are trying to do real work. Why should they have to contend with toilet paper for disk space, CPU time, and dial-in lines (not to mention phone bills), when THEY are the ones footing the bill? I couldn't justify keeping rogue on my system; I may not be able to justify news either if it comes to that. The comp center where I went to college doesn't get news because the director says most of it is just computerized CB radio (he's a ham, so I guess this is about as insulting as you can get). Contrary to his advice, I started getting news when I got my own site to run. It's starting to look like he is still making wiser decisions than I am. -- allegra!phri!roy (Roy Smith) System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute
frodo@wcom.UUCP (Jim Scardelis) (06/27/85)
> >> Well I'm glad to see that someone out there is stupid enough to > >> start giving out system administrator's addresses. > > If anybody at phri does something to offend you, write to me > (address below) and I'll look into it; that's my job! > Ditto with wcom (all three of my users!)....write to me. > > People on my system are trying to do real work. Why should they > have to contend with toilet paper for disk space, CPU time, and dial-in > lines (not to mention phone bills), when THEY are the ones footing the > bill? I couldn't justify keeping rogue on my system; I may not be able to > justify news either if it comes to that. > > The comp center where I went to college doesn't get news because > the director says most of it is just computerized CB radio (he's a ham, so > I guess this is about as insulting as you can get). Contrary to his > advice, I started getting news when I got my own site to run. It's > starting to look like he is still making wiser decisions than I am. > -- > allegra!phri!roy (Roy Smith) > System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute That's one of the reasons why we get a limited news feed from timeinc...we only get those groups that relate to our business, and a couple of 'fun' ones (like net.jokes), that help lighten up the day. Inews, at least the one we're running (2.10.2), can also reject articles from newsgroups you don't want to maintain online. -- Jim Scardelis uucp: {vax135|ihnp4}!timeinc!wcom!frodo ARPA: 1891@NJIT-EIES.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA "The opinions expressed herein are those of my computer, and not necessarily those of myself, Warner Computer Systems, or any other computer or company along the line. "
kyle@ucla-cime.UUCP (Kyle D. Henriksen) (06/27/85)
>From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) > Well, I'll start by pointing out the obvious and say that part of being the > System Administrators job at a site is taking complaints off of the net > when one of the users steps beyond the bounds of proper use of the network. Gee and I didn't even see it in the job description... > Anyone has the right to make a formal complaint, if they so wish, > especially when discussing the incident directly with the transgressor > doesn't help. (This is especially true when the screwup is because the > person thinks that the network is a right and not a priviledge, and thinks > they can do anything they want). If the SA doesn't want a lot of screaming > fascists filling their mailbox, they should make sure that the people on > their site aren't acting like mongoloid idiots with a lobotomy. Not that > I'm accusing anyone at UCLA of acting that way, of course.... (I'm just > implying it heavily...) Well since I don't agree with a statement you made, do I now have the RIGHT to incite people to write unsolicited letters to you and your superiors? I of course would not stoop so low. What really is disturbing you about the recent postings? The net serves a large community of users and I'm sorry that some of us just don't really care what is posted, we only read what we think is relavant. The techniques you are using are the traditional preludes to censorship, what do you want the SOVIET CHUQNET? By the way your last comment there could be considered libelous and damaging to a person's career... Have a happy day.
cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (06/30/85)
In article <134@ucla-cime.UUCP> kyle@ucla-cime.UUCP (Kyle D. Henriksen) writes: >>From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) >>[ Usenet is a perq, and some (his opinon)dumb guys from UCLA abused said perq] > >Well since I don't agree with a statement you made, do I now have the RIGHT >to incite people to write unsolicited letters to you and your superiors? > The net serves a large community of users and I'm sorry that some of us >just don't really care what is posted, we only read what we think is relavant. >The techniques you are using are the traditional preludes to censorship, what >do you want the SOVIET CHUQNET? By the way your last comment there could >be considered libelous and damaging to a person's career... Well, by your argument, I obviously have the right to do anything I like, hence I have the right to do the following: 1)>incite people to write unsolicited letters to you and your superiors< 2) Make comments which might.. >be considered libelous and damaging to a person's career...< So which is it? Can I do what I like, or are there restrictions ? By Kyle's own arguments, it is clear there should be restrictions, the most obvious of which are those imposed by the laws of the land. Kyle's arguments hold about as much water as a seive. The way he is leaning is to assert that the Usenet sites MUST pay whatever costs are necessary to ensure that all articles in all groups go everywhere. This makes as much sense as demand that newspapers MUST print any letter that they receive, even if they have decided to stop publishing letters to the editor. By virtue of who pays the bills, making ridiculous demands on a free service will simply lead to that service being discontinued. And that's all there is to it.. no whining please !! The best approach for people who still want their candy is to suggest useful ways of ensuring that the problems so far won't continue. Babbling in loud tones "It's my Usenet and I want it....waaaaah" only serves as an excuse to site administrators for cutting their costs, not a reasonable argument. > What really is disturbing you about the recent postings? Oh, and by the way, calling someone you don't know a "slut" in a public forum is actionable in a civil court of law. Is that good enough, or did you "n" past all those articles ?? Chris Shaw watmath!watmum!cdshaw or cdshaw@watmath University of Waterloo I was walking down the street one day, when suddenly... my baloney melted !
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (07/01/85)
In article <134@ucla-cime.UUCP> kyle@ucla-cime.UUCP (Kyle D. Henriksen) writes: >Well since I don't agree with a statement you made, do I now have the RIGHT >to incite people to write unsolicited letters to you and your superiors? No, you don't have the right, but you do have the privilege to make your feelings known. If you want the name of my boss, write to me and I'll give it to you. > The net serves a large community of users and I'm sorry that some of us >just don't really care what is posted, we only read what we think is relavant. If I was trying to change the net around to do what I thought was relevant[sic] then I'd be doing a much different job than I was now. I've made my views known in other recent postings, I won't waste disk space mentioning them again. >The techniques you are using are the traditional preludes to censorship, what >do you want the SOVIET CHUQNET? No. Please remember than I'm a net fascist, not a net communist. Please don't get your political philosophies mixed up. For the record, I don't want a Soviet Chuqnet (whatever that is). I just want a network that is pleasant to be a part of. I'm not for censorship, I'm just against people who think that freedom of speech implies a requirement to listen. The privileges of interacting with a public forum such as netnews implies a responsibility not to misuse that forum. Too many people, in my eyes, are doing so, and they are jepardizing the continuing existence of the net by giving those who would like to remove the entire net from their systems. Every person on this network has a responsibility to it. I refuse to support any long those people who will not hold up their end. My interest is only to keep the network working properly for those who do. >Have a happy day. Thank you. I will. -- :From the misfiring synapses of: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA The offices were very nice, and the clients were only raping the land, and then, of course, there was the money...
kyle@ucla-cime.UUCP (Kyle D. Henriksen) (07/05/85)
>From: cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw) >Well, by your argument, I obviously have the right to do anything I like, hence >I have the right to do the following: > 1)>incite people to write unsolicited letters to you and your superiors< Certainly you have the right to do whatever you want but if you were following you would know that I was not speaking of LEGAL rights but rather of ethical rights. > 2) Make comments which might.. > >be considered libelous and damaging to a person's career...< Again if you were following, Chuqi was complaining about libel, and I only made a point about his own behavior. >So which is it? Can I do what I like, or are there restrictions ? >By Kyle's own arguments, it is clear there should be restrictions, the most >obvious of which are those imposed by the laws of the land. Yes and I have never said anything to contradict that legal restrictions do apply. However I was speaking of restrictions based on person taste. >Kyle's arguments hold about as much water as a seive. The way he is leaning >is to assert that the Usenet sites MUST pay whatever costs are necessary to >ensure that all articles in all groups go everywhere. NO NO NO!!!! Any site can obviously do whatever it wants and I have no desire to tell that site how to conduct its buisness. I object to statements like "Remove net.xxxxxx because a user didn't like a posting". If a site needs to terminate newsgroups then be all means kill "net.flame ...", but don't tell me I should kill it because YOU don't like whats posted in the group. >Oh, and by the way, calling someone you don't know a "slut" in a public forum >is actionable in a civil court of law. Is that good enough, or did you "n" >past all those articles ?? Its not as actionable as you think, you have to show that the statement was libelous and/or defaming. If you did not suffer any damages from the statement, your going to have fun proving libel. Try suing the National Enquirer. At any rate I'm sick of the whole stupid discussion. If you want to kill a newsgroup for what appear to be arbitrary reasons don't expect me to like it and since this is a public forum I'm going to complain about it, if I deem it necessary. Kyle Henriksen OLDARPA: ucla-cime!kyle@UCLA-LOCUS.arpa NEWARPA: ucla-cime!kyle@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU UUCP: {ucla-cs,cepu}!ucla-cime!kyle