tim@unc.UUCP (Tim Maroney) (05/08/84)
From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 11 Jan 84 11:15:37 EST (Wed) From: Rick Snodgrass <rts@unc> Subject: RAship To: tim@unc Cc: bj@unc In-real-life: Rick Snodgrass Location: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Status: RO Tim, I've got some good news and some bad news. The good news is that Dr. Brooks has agreed to put you on the payroll as an RA, or some other title acceptable to the bureaucracy. Your task, as we have previously discussed, will be to finish development of the IDL system for C. If time remains this semester, the next task will be supporting Modula-2. The bad news is that your use of the system is to be restricted to that necessary to do your job. In particular, sending net news on newsgroups not relevant to your IDL work will not be allowed. [ description of TreePrint project omitted ] I look forward to continuing to work with you. Please tell me what the next milestone is, and when you expect to reach it. Although we won't be using IDL in softlab immediately, I already have four other projects were IDL would be perfect. Rick From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 12 Jan 84 13:03:20 EST (Thu) From: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Subject: Re: RAship To: Rick Snodgrass <rts@unc> Cc: bj@unc In-Reply-To: Message of 11 Jan 84 11:15:37 EST (Wed) from rts@unc Status: RO That is indeed good news. However, the other restrictions most certainly are not, since at any given time I tend to be in the middle of ten conversations on the news and in my private mail. Any particular reason? This does not impose much of a strain on the system, but even so I can restrict my news activities to the wee hours of the night. When can I expect to see the formal offer of employment? Are we still meeting on Fridays? I will resurrect the IDL project and send you my next milestone this weekend. (A few weeks of inactivity has thrown me off a bit...) From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 13 Jan 84 16:20:02 EST (Fri) From: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Subject: employment restrictions To: mason@unc, brooks@unc Status: RO I would like to discuss the restrictions placed on my use of the computer facilities. Particularly, I would like to know what motivated the placing of these restrictions, and why news posting was cited in particular. As far as I know, such restrictions have not been placed on any other staff member, and I feel that I am entitled to some explanation. Thank you. Tim Maroney From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 17 Jan 84 08:33:06 EST (Tue) From: Capt. Ralph A. Mason <mason@unc> Subject: Re: Important Questions To: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Cc: ram@unc, brooks@unc, jem@unc, howell@unc, rts@unc Status: RO Tim, to answer your questions re your employment 1. I intend to pojut on the bi-weekly payroll commencing 9 jan for 20 hours per week at 200dollars per week for 18 weeks. --untill 13 may 1984. 2. I would think your first pay chec k would be on 3 feb. 3.I have not assigned you a desk at this time as I assumed you would be using a terminal for most of your work. If you need a desk in addition to a terminal let me know and I will try to find something. there are no extra desks in the dept but we can possibly double up with your half time status. 4. With respect to your employment dutties you will be working for RTS 5. The restrictions on using mail and news outside the department are imposed based upon your excessive use of resourses in the past that have to be paid for with taxpayers money coupled with your questionable judgement as to what constitutes educational and research use of national networks, as jem has discussed with you in the past. If you have a need to use mail outside the department in connection with rts research He may authorize that useage. You may use mail and news inhouse within the department at any time. No personal use of any department facilities is authorized at any time duringh this employment. From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 17 Jan 84 13:26:18 EST (Tue) From: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Subject: Re: Important Questions To: Capt. Ralph A. Mason <mason@unc> Cc: tas@unc, rts@unc, jem@unc, howell@unc, brooks@unc In-Reply-To: Message of 17 Jan 84 08:33:06 EST (Tue) from mason@unc Status: RO Thanks for your reply. I am doing most of my work at a terminal, but a desk would provide me witha place to store the documentation I need and a place to hang my coat... I have been told in the past by Tim Seaver that outgoing news and mail cost us nothing. CSNET is an exception, but I don't use that except to receive the AI Digest which is also gotten by others here. Contrary to your assertion, I have never spoken with John Menges on this subject; perhaps you mean Tim Seaver? If so, that incident was caused by some completely irresponsible and unfounded accusations by Reed and Hedlund which were apparently motivated by purely personal reasons. In short, then, this ban does not save the department any significant amount of money, and since this is the stated purpose, I would ask that the ban be lifted. The resources which I use that cost the department are mostly disk space, which I am willing to accept a ceiling on. I would appreciate some sort of formal documentation of the claim that my news and mail cost the department excessively if the ban is not lifted, since as far as I know the calls to MCNC are free. Thanks for your cooperation. Tim Maroney From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 17 Jan 84 14:40:54 EST (Tue) From: Capt. Ralph A. Mason <mason@unc> Subject: Re: Important Questions To: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Cc: tas@unc, rts@unc, jem@unc, howell@unc, brooks@unc Status: RO With respect to your usage of the CS NET--FROm january to april last year you were the tenth highest user of the net using3.25% of our total usage which cost about 52 dollars of scarce communications money.In may you were the 4th largest user consumming 10.3 % of departmentusage July was 8% august 2.1%. The average usage of a grad student is about.1 to .2 % while I dont have usage data for last semester yet your past usage as I stated in an order of magnitude larger than other students. With respect to your thinking that Drs. hedlund and Reed have anything personal against you that is probably not true. I read some of the things that you were putting on the net and found them to be in poor taste--in my opinion--but more importantly I could not stand up before University officials and defend that type of usage as contributing to graduate education. I defend your right to free speech and you as an individual will be judged by what you say as we all are. However I do not believe that resourses--be it nets, terminals, computers, or just a heated room to work in --that are provided by the hardworking taxpayers of North Carolina should be wasted in any manner. Unless overruled by The chairman The ban remains in place as a condition of employment. If you can accept this I shall look for a desk for you. From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 17 Jan 84 14:42:08 EST (Tue) From: Tim Seaver <tas@unc> Subject: news and mail To: mason@unc Cc: tim@unc Status: RO Date: 17 Jan 84 14:33:06 EST (Tue) From: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Subject: The Ban To: tas@unc Capt. Mason has imposed a ban on outgoing news and mail from me, charging excessive use of resources. YOu told me a while back that such things cost us nothing, since they go over the leased line from MCNC. Has this changed? If so, please tell me how I can find out how much money my use of these facilities costs and how much the average cost for a staff member is. If not, please write Capt. Mason and tell him that the charge is unfounded. Regardless, please cc all correspondence on this topic to me. Thank you. Tim Maroney Tim is correct in this. Only csnet mail costs us money, and when I checked last, Tim's csnet usage was very low. All news is transmitted via cost-free (to us, anyway) lines. From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 17 Jan 84 14:53:39 EST (Tue) From: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Subject: Re: Important Questions To: Capt. Ralph A. Mason <mason@unc> Cc: tas@unc, rts@unc, jem@unc, howell@unc, brooks@unc In-Reply-To: Message of 17 Jan 84 14:40:54 EST (Tue) from mason@unc Status: RO Tim Seaver's figures contradict yours; what are your sources? However, according to your figures, I was never the top user. Have you imposed any such sanctions on the people above me? I should point out that you will never be called upon to stand before University officials to defend my articles; at most, you could be called upon to defend the use of the network at all, and in that context a small amount of "abuse" (although I do not consider it to be that) is unavoidable. If the posting of articles that do not directly further education or research is a waste of resources, then why does this site subscribe to the discussion groups at all? Why is any personal mail from anyone allowed? I hope you will not see this as excessive argumentativeness on my part. I simply feel that the ban as imposed is not fair, particularly given Tim Seaver's figures on my net usage. Tim Maroney From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 17 Jan 84 14:59:49 EST (Tue) From: Tim Seaver <tas@unc> Subject: csnet mail To: tim@unc, mason@unc Status: RO As long as I've been brought into this, I may as well present all of the information I have. 100% of Tim's csnet usage that I have detailed information about has been receipt of an Artificial-Intelligence Digest which is shared between Bruce Smith and Tim. It is not clear, therefore, that Tim is responsible for any csnet usage. If Bruce would continue to get the digest while Tim does not, Tim's receipt of the digest is obviously costing us nothing. From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 From: smb@ulysses Date: Mon, 23 Jan 84 16:01:38 est From: ulysses!smb (Steven Bellovin) Message-Id: <8401232101.AA16745@ulysses.UUCP> Received: by ulysses.UUCP (4.12/3.7) id AA16745; Mon, 23 Jan 84 16:01:38 est To: unc!tim Subject: Re: news ban Via: Ulysses; 23 Jan 84 17:13-EDT Status: RO From unc!tim Tue Jan 17 13:51:14 1984 Message-Id: <8401171851.AA06374@ulysses.UUCP> Received: by ulysses.UUCP (4.12/3.7) id AA06374; Tue, 17 Jan 84 13:51:09 est Date: 17 Jan 84 13:29:53 EST (Tue) Original-From: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Subject: news ban To: smb@ulysses Status: RO A ban has been placed on my outgoing news posting. One reason cited was "questionable judgment concerning the use of national networks for educational and research purposes". If you don't feel that this charge is just cause for throwing me off USENET, I would really appreciate a note from you to Capt. Mason and Dr. Brooks to that effect. I feel that it would have a significant impact, since you are well-repected around here as wellas being a "USENET founder". Thanks for any help you wish to give. Tim Maroney Sorry for any delay in responding; I just got back from D.C. Before I send any such note, I'd appreciate more specific information, like what you did that aroused such ire. From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 23 Jan 84 20:19:46 EST (Mon) From: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Subject: Re: news ban To: smb@ulysses In-Reply-To: Message of Mon, 23 Jan 84 16:01:38 est from smb@ulysses <8401232101.AA16745@ulysses.UUCP> Status: RO A ban has been placed on my outgoing news posting. One reason cited was "questionable judgment concerning the use of national networks for educational and research purposes". If you don't feel that this charge is just cause for throwing me off USENET, I would really appreciate a note from you to Capt. Mason and Dr. Brooks to that effect. I feel that it would have a significant impact, since you are well-repected around here as wellas being a "USENET founder". Thanks for any help you wish to give. Sorry for any delay in responding; I just got back from D.C. Before I send any such note, I'd appreciate more specific information, like what you did that aroused such ire. That's a very good question. No specific examples were cited. The charges are essentially two: (1) Wasting money. Capt. Mason quoted some figures that seem completely fabricated as to my expenditures; Tim Seaver responded that my expenses from use of news and mail are virtually nil, but Mason has not responded. (This information was made available to him last Wednesday). (2) "Questionable judgment concerning what constitutes educational and research uses of a national network." This is the charge I'd like you to say something about, if you don't feel it's accurate. Am I hurting USENET and UNC's reputation by my posting of sometimes inflammatory articles? Should I be ejected from the net? I really do wish that I could provide something more specific, but those are the charges as presented to me, which I assure you is not a situation I am pleased about. By the way, I might add that even this letter to you is a breach of the restrictions; however, please do not conceal the fact that I sent it. -- Tim Maroney, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill duke!unc!tim (USENET), tim.unc@csnet-relay (ARPA)
tim@unc.UUCP (Tim Maroney) (05/08/84)
From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 24 Jan 84 14:03:54 EST (Tue) From: Capt. Ralph A. Mason <mason@unc> Subject: spring semester work To: tim@unc Cc: fpb@unc, rts@unc Status: RO I have not put you on the payroll or looked for a desk for you as you have not answered my question--Can you or do you want to work under the restrictions on cs net usage. From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 24 Jan 84 14:19:19 EST (Tue) From: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Subject: Re: spring semester work To: Capt. Ralph A. Mason <mason@unc> Cc: smb@ulysses, tas@unc, rts@unc, fpb@unc In-Reply-To: Message of 24 Jan 84 14:03:54 EST (Tue) from mason@unc Status: RO Date: 24 Jan 84 14:03:54 EST (Tue) From: Capt. Ralph A. Mason <mason@unc> Subject: spring semester work To: tim@unc Cc: fpb@unc, rts@unc I have not put you on the payroll or looked for a desk for you as you have not answered my question--Can you or do you want to work under the restrictions on cs net usage. I definitely will work under whatever restrictions are imposed, so please add me to the payroll. However, when a restriction is unfair, I will protest it as an employee, as I am doing now. I trust that this will be acceptable to you. I have not answered that question because you have not answered one of the objections to the restriction. Tim Seaver pointed out in the middle of last week that there is effectively no monetary expense in my use of the networks. You have not responded to this evidence, despite the fact that your arguments have centered around the cost issue. Please do so. I might also add that your restriction would be accepted without question if it were, as you have stated above, a restriction on CSNET usage, since I rarely if ever use CSNET. However, it is not: it is a blanket restriction on all the networking facilities we have, including USENET. CSNET costs us money, but USENET costs us no money. It is USENET which I use. From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 24 Jan 84 14:23:08 EST (Tue) From: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Subject: news and mail ban To: mason@unc Cc: smb@ulysses, tas@unc, rts@unc, fpb@unc Status: RO I should add that I have been abiding by the terms of the restriction since I was told of it, and I am not at all pleased that my much-needed paycheck has been delayed without reason, since I have been performing exactly as requested. From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 24 Jan 84 14:45:00 EST (Tue) From: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Subject: paycheck To: rts@unc Status: RO Apparently Capt. Mason is attempting to use my paycheck to compel surrender. Could you please point out that I have been working the correct number of hours, under all restrictions as imposed, since I was informed of the RAship? I deserve to be paid on time without this withholding of money. I have been acting exactly as I have been told to. (I am also beginning to get very angry, but hopefully I am succeeding in concealing this.) From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 25 Jan 84 21:24:03 EST (Wed) From: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Subject: the ban To: smb@ulysses Status: RO If you would like, I will send you a copy of a file of messages in which the charges are explained and refuted, and the evidence refuting them is ignored by the administrators. It is roughly 400 lines long. If you would prefer, the file is generally readable as unc!/unc/tim/THE-BAN. I don't think this will tell you much, but it is available by whatever means. I hope you will decide to help me. This whole affair is unbelievable. -- Tim Maroney, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill duke!unc!tim (USENET), tim.unc@csnet-relay (ARPA) From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 25 Jan 84 21:51:47 EST (Wed) From: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Subject: paycheck To: brooks@unc Cc: rts@unc, mason@unc Status: RO Dear Dr. Brooks, Did you authorize Capt. Mason to withhold my paycheck if I protested the restriction on my use of network facilities? He appears to think you did, since he has deliberately delayed putting me on the payroll. I have been abiding by the restriction (albeit under protest), and I have been working the full 20 hours every week, performing satisfactory work. Rick has been operating under the assumption that I have already been hired, as have I; this is due to your letter of 11 Jan 84 informing me that I had been hired. There can be no justification, legal or moral, for failing to pay me or for delaying such payment, and I would appreciate it very much if you would ask Capt. Mason again to add me to the payroll. Please note that this is a completely separate issue from the fairness of the restriction itself. Pay may be withheld only on grounds of inadequate job performance; such grounds have not been raised, and they would not stand up if they were. Please pardon my somewhat acerbic tone, but I do need to be paid, and I have earned the money under the agreed-upon terms, so this has got me at wit's end. Tim Maroney From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 From: smb@ulysses Date: Thu, 26 Jan 84 11:28:36 est From: ulysses!smb (Steven Bellovin) Message-Id: <8401261628.AA00999@ulysses.UUCP> Received: by ulysses.UUCP (4.12/3.7) id AA00999; Thu, 26 Jan 84 11:28:36 est To: unc!tim Subject: restriction Via: Ulysses; 26 Jan 84 11:33-EDT Status: RO I've been trying to figure out the most effective way I can intervene on your behalf. The best solution might be if you filed a complaint with the student-faculty grievance committee (which to my knowledge has always existed but never met during my 10 years there....); as part of the proceedings, you could undoubtedly cite letters from me, tas, etc., testifying that (a) you aren't incurring expense to the department; and (b) your behavior does not in any way bring down the reputation of the department academically; and (c) the only ways your conduct is different is that you express unconventional political and religious beliefs, actions which are constitutionally protected. From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 25 Jan 84 22:48:00 EST (Wed) From: Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc> Subject: Re: paycheck To: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Cc: rts@unc, mason@unc Status: RO My take is that he asked you if you accepted the job under the restrictions he imposed, and that you never explicitly accepted it. Apparently you implictly accepted it, but did you tell him so? From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 26 Jan 84 17:32:18 EST (Thu) From: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Subject: Re: restriction To: smb@ulysses In-Reply-To: Message of Thu, 26 Jan 84 11:28:36 est from smb@ulysses <8401261628.AA00999@ulysses.UUCP> Status: RO I am not going to take the step of filing a formal complaint unless it is absolutely necessary, and I was hoping that your help would make that necessity less probable. A simple letter to Mason, cc'ed to Brooks, Rick, and myself (and possibly tas) in which you testify as to the truth of the three points you made in your letter, would be the best thing I could ask for at this stage. Thanks for your decision to help. From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 26 Jan 84 18:02:48 EST (Thu) From: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Subject: Re: paycheck To: Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc> Cc: rts@unc, mason@unc In-Reply-To: Message of 25 Jan 84 22:48:00 EST (Wed) from brooks@unc Status: RO Date: 25 Jan 84 22:48:00 EST (Wed) From: Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc> Subject: Re: paycheck To: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Cc: rts@unc, mason@unc My take is that he asked you if you accepted the job under the restrictions he imposed, and that you never explicitly accepted it. Apparently you implictly accepted it, but did you tell him so? Although the implicit acceptance of the restriction by accepting the job should have been enough, I also explicitly accepted the restriction. The question which Capt. Mason asked was not put forth until his letter of this Tuesday, after a week-long hiatus caused by his failure to respond to the evidence of Tim Seaver. Immediately upon receiving this letter, I wrote back to him explaining that I had accepted the restriction. Until this Tuesday, I had no idea that he thought I had not accepted the job; my letter to you in response to your letter of the 11th makes it quite clear that I had, and both Rick and myself operated under the assumption that I had. There was no implication from Capt. Mason that I had not been hired, until this Tuesday. In short, then, he did not ask any such thing until Tuesday, and on Tuesday I did explicitly accept the restriction. He has still taken no action, despite this. I repeat that I have been employed here since the 11th, I have fulfilled all the duties and restrictions imposed in my hiring, and have had my paycheck withheld. I am certain that this violates the law as well as minimal standards of fairness. I have made it clear to Capt. Mason that the restriction is accepted (under protest, pending his review of evidence from Tim Seaver); still, he has not placed me on the payroll, although he has had more than two days to do so since my explicit acceptance was received. Please instruct Capt. Mason that he was in error when he failed to place me on the payroll, and that this must be rectified as soon as possible. Finally, I am somewhat upset by your accusation that I have not answered his question, when in fact I have always promptly answered every question of his; it is he who has made a policy of not responding to mine, even on vital issues such as the source of his figures on my alleged CSNET expenditures. -- Tim Maroney, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill duke!unc!tim (USENET), tim.unc@csnet-relay (ARPA) From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 26 Jan 84 21:39:51 EST (Thu) From: Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc> Subject: Re: paycheck To: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Cc: fpb@unc, rts@unc, mason@unc Status: RO Calm yourself, I haven't accused you of anything. I told you my understanding of the situation and *asked* you if it was correct. As to the two days to act, Capt. Mason was completely absorbed in an urgent budget on Wednesday and on vacation Thursday and Friday. Nothing will happen before Monday. As for "withholding your paycheck", no such action has happened. No matter who moved the system, if you accepted a job on the 11th, you wouldn't get a paycheck during January because of the delays in the system. You may recall that a job has to be created for you, or at least, it did last I heard the status of the matter. If you started real work for Prof. Snodgrass on January 11, you will eventually get a check covering the period beginning January 11. I recall carefully explaining to you that getting you on the payroll would take time, when we discussed the whole matter in December. If eating money is the problem, we shall be glad to make an advance from the Bardez Loan fund, or I will make a personal advance. From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 26 Jan 84 21:49:17 EST (Thu) From: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Subject: Re: paycheck To: Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc> Cc: rts@unc, mason@unc, fpb@unc In-Reply-To: Message of 26 Jan 84 21:39:51 EST (Thu) from brooks@unc Status: RO I did not expect a paycheck in January. However, Capt. Mason's deliberate delay in adding me to the payroll has moved my expected first paycheck back from the Feb. 3 date he originally cited to the next payday. Please tell me where I can find information on the Bardez Loan fund. Can I take your response to mean that Capt. Mason should add me to the payroll ASAP, and that he has been instructed of this? From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 26 Jan 84 22:10:46 EST (Thu) From: Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc> Subject: Re: paycheck To: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Cc: brooks@unc, rts@unc, mason@unc Status: RO Come see me about the Bardez loan fund, or send mail as to how much you need. Repayment is due when you get your check; no interest. The fund is described in a notice on one of the obscure bulletin boards downstairs. Since Captain Mason is out of town, I have neither discussed the matter with him nor instructed him concerning anything. Nor will I until Monday, and not then until discussing it with him. From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 26 Jan 84 22:20:37 EST (Thu) From: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Subject: Re: paycheck To: Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc> Cc: rts@unc, mason@unc, brooks@unc In-Reply-To: Message of 26 Jan 84 22:10:46 EST (Thu) from brooks@unc Status: RO Thank you for your help. I am not happy about the delay until Monday, but there is obviously no alternative at this point. I will get back to you on the Bardez loan.
tim@unc.UUCP (Tim Maroney) (05/08/84)
From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 26 Jan 84 22:15:59 EST (Thu) From: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Subject: grievance committee To: weiss@unc Status: RO Steve Bellovin informs me that there is a faculty-student grievance committee. I have been given a restriction on use of networking facilities (use none ever) by Dr. Brooks and Capt. Mason; Dr. Brooks refuses to discuss the matter, having turned it over to Capt. Mason; Capt. Mason has cited figures which he refuses to explain the source of, saying I cost a lot of network money, and he has also refused to respond to evidence from Tim Seaver that my network usage costs almost nothing. There are a few other complaints. Is the committee still alive and kicking? From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 27 Jan 84 11:45:17 EST (Fri) From: Steve Weiss <weiss@unc> Subject: Re: grievance committee To: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Status: RO There is a grievance committee, but it is not for that kind of grievance. If you cannot get satisfaction from Ralph, write me a letter and I'll present it at a faculty meeting. From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 27 Jan 84 19:53:08 EST (Fri) From: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Subject: Re: grievance committee To: Steve Weiss <weiss@unc> In-Reply-To: Message of 27 Jan 84 11:45:17 EST (Fri) from weiss@unc Status: RO Thanks. I will probably get in touch with you next week. From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 27 Jan 84 23:10:17 EST (Fri) From: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Subject: yet more on this junk To: smb@ulysses Status: RO The grievance committee is, according to Dr. Weiss, not for that sort of grievance, but if Mason doesn't begin dealing in good faith next week, the matter will be brought up by Dr. Weiss with other faculty members. Gievn this, a letter from you seems to be the best approach. Please make the recipients Capt. Mason, Drs. Brooks, Snodgrass, and Weiss, and myself. Thank you. From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 29 Jan 84 21:16:13 EST (Sun) From: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Subject: Bardez loan request To: mason@unc Cc: brooks@unc Status: RO Since my paycheck has been delayed, I am requesting a Bardez loan in the amount of $350. I have read the posted document on the loans and understand the terms. Tim Maroney From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 31 Jan 84 18:17:06 EST (Tue) From: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Subject: networking restrictions To: mason@unc Cc: brooks@unc, tas@unc, weiss@unc, rts@unc Status: RO Capt. Mason, Now that the payroll issue has been resolved, we can continue discussing the issue of the appropriateness of the ban. As I see it, the main issue is whether or not my use of networking facilities costs the school any money, since the primary charge was that I was spending too much money, and the secondary charge was that the alleged "bad taste" of my submissions was a waste of resources. If there is no cost, then the first charge is shown to be false, and the second to be irrelevant. Two weeks ago, Tim Seaver claimed that my use of the networking facilities here costs nothing. However, some figures claiming that my expenditures were large were put forth by the administration at around the same time. The issue seems to be resolvable simply by determining which of these incompatible claims is accurate. If Tim is correct, then the restriction is groundless and should be lifted; otherwise, it is justified and should remain in effect, unless I promise to keep the cost at acceptable levels, now that I have been warned. I believe that you will readily accept that Tim is an expert on these matters, and I am inclined to accept his claims. What is the source of the administration's figures? Thank you for your cooperation. Tim Maroney From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 31 Jan 84 22:09:20 EST (Tue) From: Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc> Subject: Re: networking restrictions To: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Cc: weiss@unc, snodgrass@unc, mason@unc Status: RO I have erred in leaving Captain Mason to take the heat for a joint decision for which I will gladly take full responsibility. Even were he inclined to lift the networking restrictions, I would not do so. Cost is not the issue. Appropriateness is. I am quite unwilling for you to represent this department to the world at large with the kind of communications you have been sending. This is not the result of any second-hand charge from Hedlund and Reed, or their friends. After the matter came up, we read for ourselves a sample of the correspondence. You may not use our facilities for the dissemination abroad of such bitterness, anger, and intemperate abuse. If this policy gives you trouble, I shall be happy to discuss it with you man-to-man and face-to-face. Neither Captain Mason nor I shall enter into any more correspondence about it. Indeed, I would welcome a chance to talk about this with you, but it's your option. :wq From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 31 Jan 84 22:22:37 EST (Tue) From: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Subject: Re: networking restrictions To: Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc> Cc: weiss@unc, snodgrass@unc, mason@unc In-Reply-To: Message of 31 Jan 84 22:09:20 EST (Tue) from brooks@unc Status: RO Good. However, before any such meeting, I would like to see copies of the specific articles to which you are objecting. For the record, I would like to say that although I have lost my temper on the net more than once, it has never been without provocation in the extreme, such as people responding to rational arguments with personal attacks on me. We can discuss this at our meeting. From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 1 Feb 84 13:19:08 EST (Wed) From: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Subject: offending articles To: brooks@unc Cc: weiss@unc, rts@unc Status: RO As I stated, I would like to know which articles you object to before we meet, but I realize you may not have copies saved. If you will tell me the subjects of the offending articles, I will see if they are among those which I have saved on my own tape. From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 2 Feb 84 13:50:37 EST (Thu) From: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Subject: off-site mail To: brooks@unc Status: O Since you have now made it clear that the objection to my use of the network relates only to news posting, may I consider the ban on outgoing mail lifted? (If you prefer, we can discuss this at our meeting, but it seems fairly clear-cut.) I do not like failing to respond to people who write me letters; it is rude. Tim Maroney From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 2 Feb 84 17:35:54 EST (Thu) From: Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc> Subject: Re: off-site mail To: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Cc: fpb@unc Status: RO Date: 2 Feb 84 13:50:37 EST (Thu) From: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Subject: off-site mail To: brooks@unc Since you have now made it clear that the objection to my use of the network relates only to news posting, may I consider the ban on outgoing mail lifted? (If you prefer, we can discuss this at our meeting, but it seems fairly clear-cut.) I do not like failing to respond to people who write me letters; it is rude. Tim Maroney The ban stands. I don't have in hand copies of documents I read last fall, but can retrieve some. Since the problem wasn't subject but expression, there is no easy way to characterize them. I'll be out of town Monday and Tuesday but hope to be prepared for a meeting by Wednesday. I am willing, but may or may not be able, to identify documents to you before a proposed meeting time. From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 2 Feb 84 20:02:59 EST (Thu) From: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Subject: Re: off-site mail To: Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc> In-Reply-To: Message of 2 Feb 84 17:35:54 EST (Thu) from brooks@unc Status: O I consider knowing which articles you objected to to be a precondition of any meeting, and I will wait any reasonable amount of time for them to be retrieved before meeting. From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 3 Feb 84 13:41:25 EST (Fri) From: Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc> Subject: Re: off-site mail To: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Cc: fpb@unc Status: RO Just to put things back into perspective: I gladly offered a meeting; I didn't ask for one. I understood you to have a grievance and to want a hearing. If this is the case, let me know. Date: 2 Feb 84 20:02:59 EST (Thu) From: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Subject: Re: off-site mail To: Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc> In-Reply-To: Message of 2 Feb 84 17:35:54 EST (Thu) from brooks@unc Status: RO I consider knowing which articles you objected to to be a precondition of any meeting, and I will wait any reasonable amount of time for them to be retrieved before meeting. From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 3 Feb 84 17:26:33 EST (Fri) From: Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc> Subject: Re: meeting To: Tim Maroney <tim@unc> Cc: rts@unc Status: RO I'm sorry; during this interval Wednesday has now been scheduled with architects. How would Thursday at 11:00 do? From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 8 Feb 84 22:52:43 EST (Wed) From: Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc> Subject: Meeting To: tim@unc Status: RO I have found in Ralph's file the two messages that precipitated our discussion and action last fall. Copies are in your physical mailbox. From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 Date: 9 Feb 84 08:01:51 EST (Thu) From: Frederick P. Brooks Jr. <brooks@unc> Subject: Messages To: tim@unc Status: RO After sending you last night's mail, and on the way downstairs to put the messages in your mailbox, I got interrupted by Henry Fuchs and accidentally left for home with them still in my pocket. I'll put them there when I come in, about 10:00 a.m. From root Mon Feb 27 16:09:22 EST 1984 From: smb@ulysses Date: Thu, 9 Feb 84 14:18:40 est From: ulysses!smb (Steven Bellovin) Message-Id: <8402091918.AA25106@ulysses.UUCP> Received: by ulysses.UUCP (4.12/3.7) id AA25106; Thu, 9 Feb 84 14:18:40 est To: unc!tim Subject: Re: request Via: Ulysses; 9 Feb 84 14:23-EDT Status: RO Yes, I would be willing to talk with Dr. Brooks by phone. My schedule is pretty flexible (though I tend to dislike anything that requires met ot think before 10am....). Or I can write a somewhat longer letter by netmail; that might be an easier way than playing telephone tag with fpb. I'm sorry I haven't sent anything sooner; life here has been pretty hectic lately. [[Note from Tim: I am sorry that no on-line copy of these articles exists -- I was given only hardcopy, which has been packed now as I am travelling to my new home in Pittsburgh tomorrow morning. However, the first article was an obviously tongue-in-cheek piece condemining those who did not sign their full names to eternal torment; the second was a short extract from a reply to an article of mine in which I had said that heterosexuals with a fanatical hatred of homosexuals were probably unsure of their own sexuality. Both were discarded as evidence by Brooks in our meeting. 7 May 84.]]
dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (05/08/84)
I'd like to point out that any news submission costs the net in general a fair bit of money. Some sites pay for far more of this than others. All sites are responsible, in some sense, for what they transmit to the net. Any site which pays less than its share of communications costs does so due to the good graces of its neighbours. So, if a particular site pays nothing for its news, this is *not* a good reason for anyone at that site to post anything that they please. If anything, that organization should be particularly careful of the use of the free services provided by others. I do not wish to make any comment about the worth of Tim's postings, other than that I do not remember being personally upset by any of them. But I do not think that "it doesn't cost us any real money" is a valid argument against suggestions that someone is making excessive use of news. Whether or not the people trying to restrict Tim's use have a right or sufficient reason to do so is another question. I have no first-hand knowledge of the situation, so I won't try to make any judgements. Dave Martindale