cem@intelca.UUCP (Chuck McManis) (01/17/85)
Hmmm, a bit strongly worded I would say. Has it ever occured to you
that the net "died" a long time ago when it became evident that
no one wanted to pay to here someones opinion on how homophobic
Ronald Reagan is? Ever try to explain to your manager why you just
spent $1000 of the companies money this month to collect and relay 10
megabytes of opinion and (to the company) worthless information? It
isn't easy, try it sometime. A lot of the so called "backbone" sites
have unfortunately had that same problem, when the volume of traffic
brought the phone bills to the attention of upper management just such
a question was asked. And ALL of them said essentially, "There is no
plausable reason for our company to pay for this 'service', we do
however wish to keep our employees happy, so if you can do it cheaply
ok, if not then pull the plug." Period. End of discussion, no debate.
So I say to you, work with the STARGATE people to make it work the
way you want it to work or convince your management that your system
should be allowed to make 1-3 hour phone calls to the other side of
the country, better yet, set up your L.sys file so that you poll all
of the "backbone" sites. They never mind if you pay for the call.
Then you can explain to your manager why the phone bill is $3000. Your
choice, help STARGATE, or pay full price for the "unmoderated" news.
No one has restricted your freedom, simply tied it a little more closely
to your pocketbook.
--Chuck
--
- - - D I S C L A I M E R - - -
{ihnp4,fortune}!dual\ All opinions expressed herein are my
{qantel,idi}-> !intelca!cem own and not those of my employer, my
{ucbvax,hao}!hplabs/ friends, or my avocado plant. :-}roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (01/18/85)
> [...] let me apologize for the multiple postings, [...] and, in > general, making a mess of the net. [...] in this case, due to this > message's importance, I feel this is justified. > > [...] > you can call it moderation, but it's still a euphemism for > censorship. [...] What can we do about this? [...] Let the people who > conceived of this know that it is not appreciated. E-Mail bomb them. > Flame them until they drop. If you see them in public, spit on them. Hide > dog turds in their desks. Disrupt the next USENIX meeting. Check with > your local ACLU to see if there are any legal means to stop this. Harass > them in any way possible. Stop the STARGATE, Frank Adrian ____________ Oh god, where do I start? First of all, in my opinion, your posting was 6-1/2 Kbytes of crap. Seeing as how you choose to send it to about 8 newsgroups, you have used up 50 Kbytes of disk space on MY system, not to mention all the disk space and phone time wasted all over the net. Who do you think pays for that? If you were at my site, I would revoke your net privileges for abusing the >>privilege<< of using a machine purchased for a specific purpose to communicate your personal views. I won't be in Dallas, but if you disrupt the meeting there over this, I hope you get ejected. People (and their employers) pay good money to go to these meetings. If you have an opinion to voice, I am sure you will get the chance to voice it without having to resort to disruptive practices. I don't have anything to do with the STARGATE experiment, but I >>do<< think it is a good idea. Does that make me a candidate to be spat upon? If you do so, you can be sure I'll do more than just spit back! -- {allegra,seismo}!vax135!timeinc\ cmcl2!rocky2!cubsvax>!phri!roy (Roy Smith) ihnp4!timeinc/ The opinions expressed herein are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Public Health Research Institute.
lat@stcvax.UUCP (Larry Tepper) (01/18/85)
Frank writes... > .... You won't be able to > protest a bounced message, because the moderator is the only > person with a right to relay your message to the STARGATE. > If your article is bounced or edited beyond recognition you > won't be able to defend yourself - how are you going to get > a message past the moderator? In short, you can call it > moderation, but it's still a euphemism for censorship. The current Usenet phone network will still be around for mail transmission. You could send mail to root at 100's of other sites or to other moderators with your protest. As an experiment, Stargate will begin with some subset of the "technical" groups. I don't see moderated groups as a problem there. If Stargate ever gets to be a real thing, it might be good to set up some "official" channel via Usenet to let other sites know you have a protest. Again, though, I don't see much problem with a moderated unix-wizards or lang.c, for instance. -- It's getting lonely around here... {ihnp4 hao ucbvax!nbires}!stcvax!lat Larry Tepper Storage Technology, MD-3T, Louisville, CO 80028 +1 303 673 5435
ian@loral.UUCP (Ian Kaplan) (01/18/85)
Flame them until they drop? Well FLAME ON then:
I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH YOU. Dispite what you think, the net is not a
medium of free communication. It is supported by both the public at
large and many corporations. There are many other avenues open for
both political and sexual expression. But I do not think that the
censureship you mention will be a problem. Some of the slander may
disappear, but I do not think that these people are Darth Vader in
disguise. Phone bills are getting so large that the net will die
soon unless something like StarGate is implemented.
Lauren Wienstien (sorry if I mangled your name) has volenteered his
time to set up what is an emperimental project. I support his
efforts. I admire what he is doing.
Ian Kaplan
ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!ian
The opinions above are my own. tim@cithep.UucP (Tim Smith ) (01/19/85)
> Organization: Caltech HEP, Pasadena, CA Lines: 130 > Unfortunately, the people who have promoted this scheme > could not leave well enough alone. They felt that the > volume of "garbage" flowing through the net was too high. Like long messages posted to multiple groups? > They felt that the carrier of these messages might be able > to be sued for possibly libelous messages. Are you willing to pay for legal fees and damages awarded against the people who administrate STARGATE if it turns out that they are legally responsible for what goes through the system? Note that you can not just say that it would be wrong to hold them responsible. Only the courts and/or the legislature can decide this issue. Until this comes to pass, why should the STARGATE people risk their money and time? > this was their chance to play God and they took it. In > short, the new network will have no unmoderated news. > Since when is it "playing God" to protect yourself? If you want unmoderated groups, then get your Congresscritter to do something to make clear the legal situation. Then, after that is done, if the STARGATE people still want to moderate, you might be justified in saying that they just want to "play God". By the way, what say ye STARGATE people on this? If you could be sure that there were no legal problems with fully unmoderated news, would that be what we would get, or would we still have moderation? Note to Lauren: Don't waste time answering the above "by the way" if it will take time away from working on STARGATE! You certainly have justified STARGATE to enough of us to make the project worthwhile. > Any message that is to be transmitted through STARGATE > will be screened by a moderator for "suitability of con- > tent", "possibility of libel", and other vague criteria > which only he moderators will know. You won't be able to If we assume that the moderators are nice fellows who are only trying to meet legal requirements for this thing, then there should not be much of a problem with unknown "vague criteria". We can all go read the law. Yes, it will still be "vague criteria", but at least we will all know it! :-) > The new people in power bleat, "We're saving the net. > Without this the backbone sites will desert, anyway." What > good is saving the net if only the people in power can enjoy > it? If they cared about the net (and not just their cozy Assume for the sake of argument that you are correct in everything that you say. Then what are they doing wrong? If the net is going to collapse anyway, what is wrong with the STARGATE people setting up a net of their own? In fact, if the net is NOT going to collapse what is wrong with the STARGATE people setting up a net of their own? And if USENET can't compete, then maybe USENET should die! Look, if USENET is cheaper than STARGATE, or provides some functionality that STARGATE doesn't, and that is economically worthwhile TO THE PEOPLE WHO PAY THE BILLS, then USENET will not die! > little portion of it) they'd fight in their institutions to > save it. The news network, as it stands now, is something > unique and should not be drastically altered. Here is a little experiment for you to try. Go to the lobby of your building, or wherever it is you people throw the magazines that the company subscribes to. What do you have? At Callan we have things like BYTE, UNIX World, Systems & Software, etc. You get the idea. Now go to the person with the checkbook at your company and try to convince him/her that you want the company to get the following: 1: Playgirl 2: Chess Life 3: Modern Romances 4: The Advocate After the laughter stops, tell them you want to spend money and time to hook up to a computer network so that you can receive 1: net.women.only 2: net.chess 3: net.singles 4: net.motss Good Luck! > > What can we do about this? I really can't think of > much. The net has always been voluntary. One thing is cer- > tain, though. As soon as STARGATE goes into effect, the > chances for a free network surviving is nil. The institu- > tions involved can point to STARGATE and say that there's a > perfectly good network right there. There will be very lit- > tle chance to start a new network at that time. So the only The problem is that the people who pay the money aren't the people who want the net. How much would all of you out there who want the USENET to continue the way it is be willing to pay to read net.all? If the total at your site is more than the net costs at your site, then we are starting to make progress. If the total is MORE than your local cost, and if this is true at enough sites to generate money to pay costs at the backbone sites, then we are on our way! TANSTAAFL > Set up an alternative network to take this net's place when > it folds. Hopefully, there will be a place for unmoderated > news posting when this is over. > And what happens when this new net gets too big? When phone bills get too high? It will either collapse, or become a satellite net! ( And when this happens, may I suggest we call the satellite DEFENDER? :-) ) > The organizers have been less than honest with you. > They hide in net.news (and net.news.stargate), discussing > these things which will alter your news service, without > generally informing the public. The first you would have Gosh! You mean they post their STARGATE stuff to the proper newsgroups? They must be out to destroy USENET tradition! > > Stop the STARGATE, > Frank Adrian -- Duty Now for the Future Tim Smith ihnp4!{wlbr!callan,cithep}!tim
news@qantel.UUCP (The USENET News) (01/20/85)
Re: <386@hercules.UUCP> <387@hercules.UUCP> <388@hercules.UUCP>
I have removed these messages from all the newsgroups of all the
systems on which I am news administrator. Did I miss any, or were
there just these three?
In addition, I am patching the news software here so that articles
posted from @hercules.UUCP are not forwarded thru here. This guy is
obviously a danger to the future of the net (since, for some mysterious
reason, Lauren is paying some attention to him), and someone at
hercules (or teklds or tektronix or decvax) should consider doing the
same.
Steve Vance
{dual,hplabs,intelca,nsc,proper}!qantel!stv
Qantel Corporation, Hayward, CAlauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (01/20/85)
The obvious factors surrounding the system are certainly complex enough (in terms of libel, copyrighted materials, etc.) to make screening seem pretty important. Above and beyond that, I have discussed in the past the various technical, financial, and other issues that also point toward the need for screening (for example, the satellite carrier giving us the time for free on their system [incredible!] is not giving us the time just to send *all* our materials and cut our phone bills, but to help create a useful and high quality operation. Now, given a few million dollars (literally) I could probably go out and rent a full transponder with enough bandwith to send EVERYTHING (for awhile, anyway). We'd also have to pay a fortune for transmitter uplink time. It wouldn't be on cable systems, so *everyone* would have to have a private dish to receive it. But even if we assume no legal restrictions on content (a dubious assumption to say the least) I wonder how many people would be willing to spend money for such a service with so many (and ever growing) "low information content" messages? The data would have to run at an enormously high speed--greatly complicating the buffering hardware. As the net grew, there'd be no time to even get the data into computers for reading, much less *do* the reading. The scenario just above appears impractical. Not only don't we have the megabucks, but what would be created would be next to useless for most people and would die as a tremendous waste of money. --Lauren--
gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (01/21/85)
-- >> I have removed these messages from all the newsgroups of all the >> systems on which I am news administrator. Did I miss any, or were >> there just these three? >> In addition, I am patching the news software here so that articles >> posted from @hercules.UUCP are not forwarded thru here. This guy is >> obviously a danger to the future of the net (since, for some mysterious >> reason, Lauren is paying some attention to him), and someone at >> hercules (or teklds or tektronix or decvax) should consider doing the >> same. >> Steve Vance I thought that Mr. Adrian's behavior was obnoxious, but this takes the cake! This really *IS* censorship, and does more to justify the initial posting than any flame or character assassination ever could. But Mr. Vance will feel the heat when hordes of angry users demand to know what message it is that provoked all the responses they are reading. There is *NO* excuse for repression, ever. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 21 Jan 85 [2 Pluviose An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) (01/22/85)
> = Steve Vance > Re: <386@hercules.UUCP> <387@hercules.UUCP> <388@hercules.UUCP> > > I have removed these messages from all the newsgroups of all the > systems on which I am news administrator. Did I miss any, or were > there just these three? Gee, now you've confirmed his worst fears. > In addition, I am patching the news software here so that articles > posted from @hercules.UUCP are not forwarded thru here. I protest this use of authority to restrict an ENTIRE SITE's access to the network. You can be tyrant of your own machine but don't try to make decisions for the rest of us. I for one do not need your protection. Thank the Deity you aren't our newsfeed. > This guy is > obviously a danger to the future of the net (since, for some mysterious > reason, Lauren is paying some attention to him) That is Lauren's problem. I don't think he needs your protection either. If Lauren gives up, someone else will take his place. Technology marches on... > ....someone at > hercules (or teklds or tektronix or decvax) should consider doing the > same. Your actions are more reprehensible than those which provoked them. -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam
usenet@mhuxj.UUCP (NETNEWS Administrator) (01/22/85)
> In addition, I am patching the news software here so that articles > posted from @hercules.UUCP are not forwarded thru here. Congratulations. You've managed to lend credence to Frank Adrian's (baseless) charges of censorship. In other words, any submissions from hercules (even those not by Adrian) will be censored because YOU don't agree with Adrian. Why don't you just demand that hercules be cut off from the network? -- Joe Presley MHCC Usenet Administrator [ihnp4]!mhuxj!usenet
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (01/22/85)
> In addition, I am patching the news software here so that articles > posted from @hercules.UUCP are not forwarded thru here. This guy is > obviously a danger to the future of the net (since, for some mysterious > reason, Lauren is paying some attention to him), and someone at > hercules (or teklds or tektronix or decvax) should consider doing the > same. I think it is people like *you* who are a danger to the net. You are practicing blatant censorship, which is *exactly* what Frank Adrian is afraid of. You are proving him right. While I disagree with Frank's assesment that Stargate will lead to censorship, I fully support his right to post his opinions, even if *you* (or I) don't like them. Please remove your censorship patches. In the first place, Frank is probably not the only netnews reader at hercules. Why should others freedom be impinged? And I strongly object to your censoring his articles just because you disagree with him. Why don't you start your own private net? You obviously don't believe in freedom of speech, unless, of course, they agree with *you*. I sincerely hope this article was a joke, for if not, *it* represents the serious problem, not Frank. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!stcvax | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!stcvax} !hao!woods "...sometimes the light's all shining on me; other times I can barely see..."
tli@uscvax.UUCP (Tony Li) (01/23/85)
I'd say that this is going a bit overboard. Censoring Frank Adrian is just proving what he thinks is true - that the moderators are all a bunch of power-hungry administrators. I too debated with the thought some silly retribution, but I decided that this was just sinking to his level. Please route hercules.UUCP through again. We must be able to deal with Frank in public. > I have removed these messages from all the newsgroups of all the > systems on which I am news administrator. Did I miss any, or were > there just these three? > > In addition, I am patching the news software here so that articles > posted from @hercules.UUCP are not forwarded thru here. This guy is > obviously a danger to the future of the net (since, for some mysterious > reason, Lauren is paying some attention to him), and someone at > hercules (or teklds or tektronix or decvax) should consider doing the > same. > > Steve Vance -- Tony Li ;-) Usc Computer Science Uucp: {sdcrdcf,randvax}!uscvax!tli Csnet: tli@usc-cse.csnet Arpa: tli@usc-ecl
oacb2@ut-ngp.UUCP (oacb2) (01/23/85)
> I have removed these messages from all the newsgroups of all the > systems on which I am news administrator. Did I miss any, or were > there just these three? > In addition, I am patching the news software here so that articles > posted from @hercules.UUCP are not forwarded thru here. This guy is > obviously a danger to the future of the net (since, for some mysterious > reason, Lauren is paying some attention to him), and someone at > hercules (or teklds or tektronix or decvax) should consider doing the > same. When I first read those articles, I thought the views expressed were outlandish. I gather that most of those on the net shared my opinion. It now appears that the author may have had a better understanding of the personalities on the net than I do, as at least one administrator feels that stating unpopular views (or maybe just views which differ from his own) is sufficient reason for censorship. Perhaps we should all reconsider the warning. -- Mike Rubenstein, OACB, UT Medical Branch, Galveston TX 77550
preece@ccvaxa.UUCP (01/23/85)
> I have removed these messages from all the newsgroups of all the > systems on which I am news administrator. ----------- That's fine. If your job is to enforce local policy on notes on your machines and local policy is that such notes not be posted, that's cool. ----------- > In addition, I am patching the news software here so that articles > posted from @hercules.UUCP are not forwarded thru here. ----------- That's not cool. i don't pay you anything to censor my mail and you have just declared that you want to be a censor in the most malevolent sense of the word, one who believes he knows what others should be allowed to hear. My personal opinion is that we should all band together under a simple rule -- if you want unix.wizards and bugs and sources you have to pass EVERYTHING through to connected sites, whether you make it available to your own people or not. I think that should be the cost of getting the technical goodies. scott preece ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
rsk@stat-l (Rich Kulawiec) (01/23/85)
I have to disagree with Gordon (Moffet), but the site admins at Qantel (and elsewhere) whave every right to do whatever they please with incoming news...*except* where this affects a downstream site's newsfeed. While we may not agree with the action that's been taken at Qantel, we have no right to demand that the decision be reversed. For example, we have replaced the *.sources groups with pucc.sources; and we manually transfer articles into it. This was done because of the occasional security-breaking program/bug that showed up in *.sources, and also because of the games (which are off-limits at our site.) We have every right to do this, and since we don't feed news to anyone, only our site is affected. If I had the time, I'd probably patch our news software to ignore Adrian too; I think we could put the cpu time used to shuffle his mindless scribblings around to much better use...like figuring pi to 10000 places, say. -- Rich Kulawiec @ Purdue Unix Wombat Group rsk@purdue-asc.arpa (decvax,ihnp4,uiucdcs)!pur-ee!rsk.uucp (decwrl,hplabs,ucbvax)!purdue!rsk.uucp "First I'm going to bother everybody I meet, And then I'll probably go home and get drunk."
stv@qantel.UUCP (Steve Vance@ex2499) (01/23/85)
in Article <336@qantel>, I write: > In addition, I am patching the news software here so that articles > posted from @hercules.UUCP are not forwarded thru here. I have received several letters in response to this posting, though not as many as I expected--perhaps a lot of people are in Dallas and too busy to read net.news. And then, there's the propagation delay to consider--perhaps more responses are enroute. Although the Followups to my original posting that have reached my site seem uniformly against the concept of kicking sites off the Usenet for any reason, private mail to me has been almost all of the opposite inclination, namely that it IS possible to abuse the ability to post news (per net.announce.newusers etiquette) to such an extent that neighboring sites consider such drastic action. I stand by this latter position. I also, incidentally, wonder about the disparity between those opinions posted and those mailed. One of the letters I received was (apparently) from Frank himself, offering to never post another usenet article again if I would retract my suggestion that hercules be disconnected from the net. With that in mind, I hereby do so. -- Steve Vance {dual,hplabs,intelca,nsc,proper}!qantel!stv Qantel Corporation, Hayward, CA
gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) (01/25/85)
> = Steve Vance > I also, incidentally, wonder about the disparity between those > opinions posted and those mailed. On the one hand, net-behavior tends to mail nice things and post negative things. On the other hand, agreement with you would probably be as severely chastised as your original posting. > One of the letters I received was (apparently) from Frank himself, > offering to never post another usenet article again if I would retract > my suggestion that hercules be disconnected from the net. With that in > mind, I hereby do so. I do not consider this a generous offer on your part. I suppose it's Frank's business to censor himself that way, but I do not feel he should need to bargain thus with you to maintain hercules' connection to Usenet or his ability to post for that matter. -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam
wunder@wdl1.UUCP (01/25/85)
In several of the followups in this subject (quantel refusing to
accept news articles from hercules), the poster has said something
like "censoring Adrian just because you don't agree with him".
Well, I don't see it that way.
The letter from hercules!franka actually did *two* things:
a) it expressed, strongly, a personal (perhaps unpopular) veiw.
b) it advocated use of the net for harassment (flooding lauren with
e-mail), and advocated personal harrassment (leaving dog turds
in his desk).
If a site cuts off a message because of a), it is political censorship.
If a site cuts off a message because of b), it is to avoid being an
accessory in an illegal activity.
If I was to advocate flooding people with e-mail, and leaving dog turds
in their desks in order to make them support The Fight Against Birth
Defects, I would still be trying to (illegally) harrass people.
I think that the letter from hercules!franka is pretty close to lawsuit
material. It could certainly be done with expensive enough (or enough
expensive) laywers. I doubt that lauren would file a lawsuit, but
one, just one, lawsuit like that really would destroy the net. No company
president would want be open for PR *that* bad. The machines would
disappear overnight.
walter underwoodhoney@down.FUN (code 101) (01/28/85)
Note that the legal liabilities may not rest solely with the person who posts the message. Site/news administrators may get involved by the LA-BBS back door. And with some imagination, the officers of the sponsoring corporations could also get dragged in. Given the membership of USENET, it's fair to say that there are some pretty deep pockets waiting to get picked (if I may mix some metaphors). Next time you run into your CEO, you might ask his/her opinion on these matters. Peter
cem@intelca.UUCP (Chuck McManis) (01/31/85)
Come on people, lets be serious here. What Frank was attempting to
generate is legally defined as a conspiracy and as such he and others
that help him are subject to prosecution (dog turds? come on.) What
qantel was doing by removing his messages from their system and by
not passing them on, was to protect themselves from the same said
prosecution. (Of course we assume someone is willing to file a suit
rather than a flame and this would be rare indeed) The point to be
made here is that in order for qantel to really have been censoring
the news they would need to a.) Cut of some articles (or edit them)
without your knowledge, and b.) Make it impossible for you to poll
the hercules system for the "real" thing. Since they have done
neither I would say they were perfectly within their rights. Since this
system gets its news from qantel I wouldn't mind a bit if they cut
him off. In reviewing his postings to this network I have yet to
see anything that justifys giving him access to postnews, but that
is something his S.A. has to decide. (I can always IF Article.Id =
Hercules Then Command = 'N') Something that many people fail to
recognize is that most sites (except a few backbone sites that are
really overloaded) will certainly add you as a POLL ONLY site.
If they aren't paying the phone bill, and you call during offpeak
hours you should have no trouble at all getting/staying connected.
The backbone sites want something to reduce their phone bills, and
stargate would do that, if all of the systems that were connected
became "POLL ONLY" sites that would also do it. This net is to
big for censorship, no one could ever control it enough to do so.
P.S. Don't worry about your inability to send musings to the people
reading the moderated newsgroups, if they wanted to read them they
would read the unmoderated group.
--Chuck
--
- - - D I S C L A I M E R - - -
{ihnp4,fortune}!dual\ All opinions expressed herein are my
{qantel,idi}-> !intelca!cem own and not those of my employer, my
{ucbvax,hao}!hplabs/ friends, or my avocado plant. :-}