olorin@cs.utexas.edu (Dave Weinstein) (01/14/90)
Due to the upgrade of the Operating System of the network from which
the vote was being conducted, votes sent between (approximately) January
2nd and Janary 10th (the deadline) could not get through. Therefore,
in all fairness to those who attempted to vote during that period, the
vote has been extended for a comparable amount of time to January 20th,
1990.
Also, the voting address has changed somewhat, the new address is
olorin@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu. However, votes sent to the old address should
still arrive.
( Repeat Announcement of Call for Votes )
In accordance with the current guidelines, this is an official call for
votes regarding the creation of talk.religion.pagan, a moderated
newsgroup.
Proposed Charter
----------------------------------------------------
The newsgroup talk.religion.pagan shall be for the
discussion of issues relating to the pagan community
(pagan in this instance is in reference to both the
older pagan traditions of Native Americans and other
such cultures, as well as the newer "neopagan" traditions
of this century). It is explicitly not a place for
proselytizing or preaching. The newsgroup shall be
moderated, but the moderation is explicitly limited
to the weeding out of off-charter messages (it is by
no means to extend to the editing of messages, or
the removal of messages because of a disagreement
between the moderator and any other party). (The
moderation is only included because that seems to
be the _only_ way to ensure that off-charter attempts
to prosyletize are not posted).
The proposed moderator is olorin@walt.cc.utexas.edu
(Dave Weinstein). In the event that the moderator is
unable to continue moderation, a vote (conducted by
either the present moderator or by a neutral volunteer)
will be held, lasting 21 days, on the newsgroup, to
determine the new moderator (the new moderator will
need to win merely a plurality of the vote; there will
be no run off).
Dates of the vote: December 11, 1989 - January 10, 1990
Vote extended due to system downtime: New deadline January 20, 1990
Send votes to: olorin@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
Alternative (*should* still work): olorin@walt.cc.utexas.edu
--Dave
---
Dave Weinstein GEnie: OLORIN
olorin@walt.cc.utexas.edu olorin@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
Disclaimer: My employer has nothing to do with my opinions.tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (01/16/90)
In article <23146@ut-emx.UUCP> walt.cc.utexas.edu!olorin@cs.utexas.edu (Dave Weinstein) writes: >Due to the upgrade of the Operating System of the network from which >the vote was being conducted, votes sent between (approximately) January >2nd and Janary 10th (the deadline) could not get through. Therefore, >in all fairness to those who attempted to vote during that period, the >vote has been extended for a comparable amount of time to January 20th, >1990. When days went by after the end of the voting period for talk.religion.pagan and nothing was heard from the vote collector, I became suspicious, particularly since a friend of the collector continued to solicit votes after the end of the voting period. Now we have a unilateral declaration of an extension of the voting period, obviously because the collector hopes to get more yes votes. It is obvious that if there were enough votes at present, then the collector would not have called for an extension. It is equally obvious that if there had been a real problem with vote delivery starting two weeks ago, as claimed, we would have heard about it before now. The voting period is over. Post the tally. You do not have the right to redefine the rules to your convenience. If this vote didn't go to your liking, then you do have the right to start a new call for discussion after a waiting period, and if consensus is reached during the discussion period (a condition that was not met in this case), then you have the right to issue a new call for votes. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "God must be a Boogie Man." -- Joni Mitchell
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (01/16/90)
Some background for news.groups readers. Turnbow has been calling for the moderator of the proposed newsgroup talk.religion.pagan to delete anything Turnbow finds offensive, not just proselytizing messages. Since the original charter calls for the moderator to use his powers only to delete proselytizing, I considered this a call to extend the moderator power beyond the proposal which people have been voting on; that is, to give him a power which he would not have by mandate from a hypothetical successful vote for talk.religion.pagan. Turnbow continues to insist that anything "inflammatory" should be deleted. In article <130273@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@sun.UUCP (William A. Turnbow) writes: >> proselytizing or preaching. The newsgroup shall be >> moderated, but the moderation is explicitly limited >> to the weeding out of off-charter messages (it is by >> no means to extend to the editing of messages, or >> the removal of messages because of a disagreement >> between the moderator and any other party). > > Tim -- here is a recap of the charter. I can't seem to find how >you got the idea that moderation was limited to eliminating 'fundy' >messages. Anything that is off charter, including gratuitous flaming >seems to be covered. This is creative editing. The actual passage, from which Turnbow has carefully deleted the beginning and the end, does explicitly limit the moderation to the removal of proselytizing: [The newsgroup] is explicitly not a place for proselytizing or preaching. The newsgroup shall be moderated, but the moderation is explicitly limited to the weeding out of off-charter messages (it is by no means to extend to the editing of messages, or the removal of messages because of a disagreement between the moderator and any other party). (The moderation is only included because that seems to be the _only_ way to ensure that off-charter attempts to prosyletize are not posted). "Off-charter messages" is clearly stated to apply only to messages which proselytize or preach; the sole purpose of moderation is said to be the removal of such messages. The sentences directly before and after Turnbow's quote plainly contradict Turnbow's interpretation, so they were edited out, leaving only the vague central sentence. This is also the person who continued to call for votes after the end of the voting period; I hope this makes clear his level of honesty. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com FROM THE FOOL FILE: "In any religion or form of worship, followers should be allowed to think for themselves. In every religion that has a god other than Jesus Christ, adherents are not allowed to think for themselves." -- Lauren Stratford, "Satan's Underground"
olorin@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Dave Weinstein) (01/17/90)
In article <9692@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >In article <23146@ut-emx.UUCP> walt.cc.utexas.edu!olorin@cs.utexas.edu >(Dave Weinstein) writes: >>Due to the upgrade of the Operating System of the network from which >>the vote was being conducted, votes sent between (approximately) January >>2nd and Janary 10th (the deadline) could not get through. Therefore, >>in all fairness to those who attempted to vote during that period, the >>vote has been extended for a comparable amount of time to January 20th, >>1990. > >When days went by after the end of the voting period for >talk.religion.pagan and nothing was heard from the vote collector, I >became suspicious, particularly since a friend of the collector >continued to solicit votes after the end of the voting period. Now we >have a unilateral declaration of an extension of the voting period, >obviously because the collector hopes to get more yes votes. It is >obvious that if there were enough votes at present, then the collector >would not have called for an extension. It is equally obvious that if >there had been a real problem with vote delivery starting two weeks >ago, as claimed, we would have heard about it before now. > To begin with, there was in fact an announcement in the second call for votes to the effect that mail delivery would be somewhat flaky due to an upgrade. At the time, I was under the impression that it would only be an intermittent problem. As it turns out, the /etc/passwd with the user accounts was removed for the duration, so any mail sent to olorin would bounce with a "No such user" message, and in fact one voter (a "no" voter) reported *just* such an occurence to news.groups during that period. Secondly, I resent the implication that I would deliberately prolong the vote because we were losing, but not if we were winning the vote. I'm sorry Tim, but you *do not* know me, and in all fairness have no way of making any such assertion honestly. Finally, how would you expect me to announce a problem with vote delivery when the machine and network I would be using was unavailable? If you still doubt the existence of the machine downtime, please send mail to the system administrators here. >The voting period is over. Post the tally. You do not have the right >to redefine the rules to your convenience. If this vote didn't go to >your liking, then you do have the right to start a new call for >discussion after a waiting period, and if consensus is reached during >the discussion period (a condition that was not met in this case), then >you have the right to issue a new call for votes. The voting period cannot be fairly said to be over when a significant body of votes could not be received. I do believe that this extension is in the spirit of the guidelines, and quite frankly I am not surprised that you are the only person ranting about it. Throughout this entire process you have consistantly been attacking the idea of talk.religion.pagan, and the fact that you have seized on this particular issue does not surprise me in the slightest. --Dave --- Dave Weinstein GEnie: OLORIN olorin@walt.cc.utexas.edu olorin@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu Disclaimer: My employer has nothing to do with my opinions.
williamt@athena1.Sun.COM (William A. Turnbow) (01/17/90)
Sorry folks, but for some obscure reason, I am responding to this and feel a need to keep matters somewhat clear. In article <9698@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: > [The newsgroup] is explicitly not a place for > proselytizing or preaching. The newsgroup shall be > moderated, but the moderation is explicitly limited > to the weeding out of off-charter messages (it is by > no means to extend to the editing of messages, or > the removal of messages because of a disagreement > between the moderator and any other party). (The > moderation is only included because that seems to > be the _only_ way to ensure that off-charter attempts > to prosyletize are not posted). > >"Off-charter messages" is clearly stated to apply only to messages >which proselytize or preach; the sole purpose of moderation is said to >be the removal of such messages. ----------- I'm sorry Tim, but the charter clearly indicates that any messages you may post about auto-body work, COBOL or anything else off charter can be weeded out. If only prosyletizing messages were to be removed or moderated, wouldn't the charter have specifically said "...the moderation is explicitly limited to the weeding out of prosyletizing messages"? That isn't what it said. What's the big deal here, you would think this was a life and death matter. Like mellow out. -wat- --- An it harm none, do what you will. *** Remember to VOTE YES to talk.religion.pagan (moderated). *** *** Send your vote To: olorin@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu ***
ptgarvin@uokmax.uucp (Patrick T. Garvin) (01/17/90)
In article <9692@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >In article <23146@ut-emx.UUCP> walt.cc.utexas.edu!olorin@cs.utexas.edu >(Dave Weinstein) writes: >>Due to the upgrade of the Operating System of the network from which >>the vote was being conducted, votes sent between (approximately) January >When days went by after the end of the voting period for >talk.religion.pagan and nothing was heard from the vote collector, I >became suspicious, particularly since a friend of the collector This is your natural state, IMHO. >continued to solicit votes after the end of the voting period. Now we >have a unilateral declaration of an extension of the voting period, >obviously because the collector hopes to get more yes votes. It is I object! Council is leading the witness! 8) If you will recall, someone attempted to vote no and got a bounced message saying something to the effect that the user was unknown. I myself was getting bounced mail messages when sending mail to a mailing list we both are on. >-- >Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com -- "Sometimes, even a blind pig finds an acorn." -- stolen from STella ptgarvin@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu / ptgarvin@uokmax.UUCP | Eris loves you. in the Society: Padraig Cosfhota o Ulad / Barony of Namron, Ansteorra Disclaimer: Fragile. Contents inflammable. Do not use near open flame.
ptgarvin@uokmax.uucp (Patrick T. Garvin) (01/17/90)
In article <1990Jan16.192438.26798@uokmax.uucp> ptgarvin@uokmax.UUCP (Patrick T. Garvin) writes: >[...] I myself was getting >bounced mail messages when sending mail to a mailing list we both are on. This sentence is hosed, let me rephrase. Both Olorin and I are on a Discussion-list, where one sends mail to a distributor-site and then one gets error-messages whenever the site can't deliver your post. I sent mail to the distributor-site and got bounce-messages stating that Olorin was an unknown user at his site. -- "Sometimes, even a blind pig finds an acorn." -- stolen from STella ptgarvin@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu / ptgarvin@uokmax.UUCP | Eris loves you. in the Society: Padraig Cosfhota o Ulad / Barony of Namron, Ansteorra Disclaimer: Fragile. Contents inflammable. Do not use near open flame.
ralls@cisco.com (Vicki Ralls) (01/17/90)
I for one apprecaite the extended days. I tried three
times to post my vote and was not able to get thru. (Now
at least I know why).
Posted below is the response I recieved in one of my attempts.
Please note that it says "User unknown" just as advertised.
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 22:06:01 -0800
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON@cisco.com>
Subject: Returned mail: User unknown
To: postmaster@cisco.com
To: <ralls@cisco.com>
----- Transcript of session follows -----
>>> RCPT To:<olorin@walt.cc.utexas.edu>
<<< 550 <olorin@walt.cc.utexas.edu>... User unknown
550 olorin@walt.cc.utexas.edu... User unknown: Not a typewriter
----- Unsent message follows -----
To: olorin@walt.cc.utexas.edu
Cc: ralls
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 12:35:48 PST
From: Vicki G. Ralls <ralls>
I VOTE YES to talk.religion.pagan (moderated). spotter@eve.wright.edu (Steve Potter) (01/17/90)
In article <130316@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@sun.UUCP (William A. Turnbow) writes: >In article <9698@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >> between the moderator and any other party). (The >> moderation is only included because that seems to >> be the _only_ way to ensure that off-charter attempts >> to prosyletize are not posted). >> >>"Off-charter messages" is clearly stated to apply only to messages >>which proselytize or preach; the sole purpose of moderation is said to >>be the removal of such messages. >----------- >or moderated, wouldn't the charter have specifically said "...the moderation >is explicitly limited to the weeding out of prosyletizing messages"? That >isn't what it said. I'm afraid I have to agree with Tim on this one. It does clearly state that moderation is only to be used "to ensure that off-charter attempts to prosyletize are not posted." That sounds exactly like a clear statement of the use of moderation. Sorry, its still no to talk.religion.pagan as a moderated newsgroup. It also seems to me, that there would be no need for a moderator as there have been no problems lately on t.r.newage with prosyletizers which was the whole reason this newsgroup was suggested. VOTE NO TO TALK.RELIGION.PAGAN (MODERATED) VOTE YES TO TALK.RELIGION.PAGAN (UNMODERATED) SPotter Hear me today! Listen to me tomorrow! Understand me next week! Remember: everything you say may be used in a book.
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (01/17/90)
In article <9692@hoptoad.uucp>, tim@hoptoad (Tim Maroney) writes: >The voting period is over. Post the tally. There's another problem here--the announcement came with no acknowledgement of votes, so there is no way of telling if one's vote has been counted or not. -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 "The *evident* character of this defective cognition of which mathematics is proud, and on which it plumes itself before philosophy, rests solely on the poverty of its purpose and the defectiveness of its stuff, and is therefore of a kind that philosophy must spurn." -- G. W. F. Hegel
" Maynard) (01/17/90)
In article <9692@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >In article <23146@ut-emx.UUCP> walt.cc.utexas.edu!olorin@cs.utexas.edu >(Dave Weinstein) writes: >>Due to the upgrade of the Operating System of the network from which >>the vote was being conducted, votes sent between (approximately) January >>2nd and Janary 10th (the deadline) could not get through. Therefore, >>in all fairness to those who attempted to vote during that period, the >>vote has been extended for a comparable amount of time to January 20th, >>1990. ...at this point, Tim goes ballistic: >When days went by after the end of the voting period for >talk.religion.pagan and nothing was heard from the vote collector, I >became suspicious, particularly since a friend of the collector >continued to solicit votes after the end of the voting period. Now we >have a unilateral declaration of an extension of the voting period, >obviously because the collector hopes to get more yes votes. Your conclusion is hardly obvious. The reason presented is reasonable, and there is precedent. OS upgrades happen to the best of us. It's not at all unreasonable for the vote process to accommodate such unforeseen and uncontrolled events. Your vendetta against the group is showing. One person's vehement disagreement doesn't constitute a lack of consensus. Unlike sci.aquaria, this is not an attempt to defraud the admins of the net; therefore, if the vote passes, I suspect that it will be honored. As for me, I hadn't intended to vote in this issue. Your tirade, however, has convinced me that a YES vote is appropriate. I intend to do so as soon as I can find the address to mail the vote to. -- 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 +---------------------------------------- "There is no doubt I should be tarred and feathered." - Richard Sexton
jt1o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Joseph L. Traub) (01/18/90)
Folks,
The only thing I have to say about this whole mess, is that it makes me
glad that
I voted YES! for the moderated newsgroup.. I could deal very well with
NOT having to read the insults and flames that have been flying recently
between
Tim Maroney and everyone else...
Maybe you folks should all take a hint from alt.callahans.. It's well
over 700 messages
and has absolutely NO flames.....
Anyhow, folks, please stop senseless bickering... it certainly adds
nothing to this
newsgroup!.
Moonchilde (Aka jt1o@andrew.cmu.edu)
_______________________________________________________________________________
** |
* * |Joseph Traub -- Carnegie Mellon
* * |Internet: jt1o@andrew.cmu.edu
****************************************** |UUCP: harvard!andrew.cmu.edu!jt1o
* Blessed * * Blessed * |
* Be! * An it * Be! * |__________________________________
* * harm none, * * |
* * do as thou * * |"If pro is the opposite of con,
* * wilt. * * |then what is congress?"
* IO * * IO * |
* EVOHE ** EVOHE * |___________________________________
* IO * * IO * |
* KORE * * KORE * |This space intentionally left blank
* * * * |This one too!
* * * * |And ditto once again!
** ** |
___________________________________________|___________________________________tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (01/21/90)
>>>> The moderation is only included because that seems to >>>> be the _only_ way to ensure that off-charter attempts >>>> to prosyletize are not posted. In article <961@thor.wright.EDU> spotter@eve.UUCP (Steve Potter) writes: >>I'm afraid I have to agree with Tim on this one. It does clearly state >>that moderation is only to be used "to ensure that off-charter attempts >>to prosyletize are not posted." That sounds exactly like a clear >>statement of the use of moderation. In article <130363@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@sun.UUCP (William A. Turnbow) writes: > Prosyltizing is off-charter, yet it doesn't say that only off-charter >messages of the type 'prosyletizing' will be weeded out. Prosyletizing is >an example of of an off-charter subject matter that would be moderatated. I guess the problem is that you can't read. Look at the damn quote. It says that the "only" reason for moderation is "to ensure that off-charter attempts to proselytize are not posted". "The moderation is only included because" of that, and nothing else. > If you have a rule A, and rule B is a subset of rule A, > then if you apply rule A and rule B, > then you end up with rule A being the final rule (since B is only > a subset of A anyway). > > This is basic logic or set theory. No kidding; it's also sophistry that has nothing to do with the point at hand. Try basic grammar and basic definitions, not contrived quasi-mathematical arguments. The would-be moderator was at pains to narrow the scope of the moderation, and did so explicitly through the unambiguous term "only". > To give another example. If you have a law saying murder is illegal, >and the law state that this is to prevent people from shooting each other, >that doesn't mean that killing via a knife is acceptable. If the law reads that "This law is only created because it seems to be the only way to get people to stop killing each other with guns", then it would in fact be considered to apply only to guns. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com It is not only fallacious to ignore points, or to answer them solely with preconceived and contrived arguments: it is also very, very rude. Someone who behaves in this way has only themselves to blame if things become heated.