amg@pyuxn.UUCP (Alan M. Gross) (06/19/84)
Talk about how to reduce the netnews load--let's
not start this topic again.
--
Alan M. Gross
{ariel,burl,clyde,floyd,
gamma,harpo,ihnp4,mhuxl}!pyuxn!amgspaf@gatech.UUCP (Gene Spafford) (06/22/84)
I received the following in my mail yesterday. As requested, I am posting it to news without comment other than that Tim is obviously alive and well. Anyone who missed the series of articles Tim posted and that have prompted the discussion to which he refers may contact me for a copy of the entire series of 5. If you wish to contact Tim, please mail directly to him at the addresses given --- don't send them to me! >Hello, Gene. How are things in the clouds? Some friends have been feeding >me the discussions on unc!tim's last posting. I liked your article, and >most of the articles in fact, but there are a few facts which it appears I >should share. Yes, that's right -- I'd apreeciate it if you'd post this to >net.followup and the other places the discussion has been going on; but if >that would be going out on a limb, I hope that this letter will help satisfy >your own curiosity. Of course, posting it would by no means imply that you >agree with any or all of it. > >First, many people have made a statement that unc!tim's last postings >represented only "the defendant's claim to innocence". The postings are a >complete record of the charges, arguments and evidence (except the articles >from Spring 1983 which Brooks put forth as evidence and then dropped -- I'd >include them if I could find them, because they make UNC's case look even >more ludicrous). If Brooks or Mason had any other reasons for their >decisions, I was not informed of them. It would only continue the violation >of due process to introduce yet more new charges at this late date. > >I didn't state exactly what I thought they did wrong when I posted the >record, because I wanted people to find the improprieties for themselves >instead of parroting my charges. If they didn't find similar problems, I >would have had to conclude that I was being deluded by my own closeness to >the matter. Happily, this was not the case. And now for that delayed >statement of complaint: > >The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America >contains the following clause: "nor shall any state deprive any person of >life, liberty, or property without the due process of law". There is no >question that I was deprived of a liberty (i.e., the ability to do >something), one which I had had previously and which every other person with >a UNC account was granted. (I read with some amusement the articles from >people who tried to paint the incident as if I had come in off the street >and demanded to use the UNC computers.) There is no question that Brooks >and Mason acted as state officials; in fact, Mason frequently stressed this >aspect of the case with his continual references to himself as a protector >of the taxpayers' monies. Finally, there is no question that due process >was grossly and blatantly violated, with anonymous accusers, false figures >quoted as evidence, no specific charges, introducing new charges as the old >were shown invalid, deliberate stalling by the authorities, refusal to admit >me to meetings in which the matter was discussed, etc., etc. This action >thus constitutes a clear violation of my civil rights under the due process >clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The fact that the liberty of which I >was deprived was the liberty of expression makes the act constitute a >violation of my civil rights under the First Amendment as well. Note that >the First Amendment violation rests on the violation of Fourteenth Amendment >due process guarantees; if I had been deprived of the liberty after due >process, there would be no First Amendment problem; however, if due process >had been followed, I would not have been deprived of the liberty in any >case, with no evidence against me, and the absence of those accusers who >were afraid to face me or let me know their identity. > >Another fact, one that I should have included in unc!tim's last postings, is >that I did NOT violate my employment restriction. By prior arrangement with >Dr. Snodgrass, the faculty member I was assisting, my employment with UNC >ended on 30 April 1984. The postings took place on 7 May 1984. I had been >told by Dr. Snodgrass that my schedule was up to me, provided I worked the >total number of hours corresponding to a semester; I worked extra hours in >April and explicitly arranged with Dr. Snodgrassthat my last day of work >would be the 30th. No contrary representation as to my period of employment >had been made by Brooks or Mason, until Brooks tried to fire me on 8 May >1984, which was a bit too late.... On 7 May 1984 the unc!tim login was a >guest account, which I was using to do a little unpaid wrapup on the >project. The restriction was based on my employment; when my employment >ended, so did the restriction; and all guest accounts at UNC are privileged >to post news. > >In short, I did not violate any contract, verbal, electronic, or written, >nor did I act against the orders of my employers (being an unemployed hacker >at the time). This is a minor point. If I had not had the opportunity to >post without violating the restriction, I would have posted anyway. The >restriction, as I have shown, was a clear violation of my civil rights, and >thus not binding; I would have been willing to defend this position in court >if necessary; but the other way was more expedient and did not require me to >violate my word. Even though that word was not legally binding, I prefer to >avoid such things. > >About the probable religious or political factors in the decision of Mason >and Brooks: I think some are entirely too skeptical about this possibility. >Teresa Thomas (the dreaded "mystery complainer"), Fred Brooks, and Ralph >Mason are all right-wing fundamentalist Christians. I am an outspoken >left-wing occultist. Fundamentalist Christians are told by their preachers >that occultists are evil tools of Satan who are working to bring about >demonic reign on Earth, and most of them believe this crap. I would be >surprised to learn that the willingness of Brooks and Mason to accept secret >accusations without evidence in my case was not a result of, or at least >strongly influenced by, religious or political factors. Let us not forget >also that the gag order took place directly in the middle of the "Even If I >Did Believe..." discussion, to which I need not reiterate the reactions in >the fundamentalist Christian community. Finally, I have previous experience >with censorship attempts. When they were directed at me in the past (in the >form of letters to the editor of the paper I worked on, advocating my >dismissal), they were invariably made by Christians offended at my critical >comments on dogmatic Christianity. People are more likely to censor on >religious grounds than any other, as my own experience and history will >attest. > >The stated rationale for the censorship explicitly included charges based on >the content of my articles (see the record); but no articles were put forth. >Two from an earlier complaint were introduced and dropped, but it is plain >from Mason's correspondence that he had only a vague recollection of the >earlier incident, and Brooks (by verbally reiterating Mason's statement that >I had talked with Menges in the fall, instead of Seaver in the summer) >showed an equally fuzzy memory. The two articles themselves could not be >located for some weeks, so they had probably not been re-examined at this >complaint. Something else must have been shown to them or reported to them >for them to have made such a big deal out of it; stale, fuzzy memories >hardly have that much emotional or intellectual force. So why have I never >been shown the articles at the basis of this complaint? Why, except if the >article was in the "Even If I Did Believe..." discussion, showing that their >action was religiously motivated? > >This does not prove my conjecture; the secrecy of Brooks and Mason has >hidden the facts; but that secrecy itself creates a strong appearance of >impropriety, for which they have no one but themselves to blame. > >A few words on the prior incident may be in order here: It occurred in the >summer of 1983. It was handled similarly to the second incident, the one I >have posted the record of, with me abruptly informed that I was abusive and >what did I have to say for myself? No examples of abusive articles were >shown to me, and the identities of the complainants (Dan Reed and Kye >Hedlund) were hidden. Hedlund, acting on a complaint from Reed that I was >"giving UNC a bad name", told Mason I was "abusing CSNET". I don't know >whether Mason still believes this: it was explained to him in the summer, >and had to be explained again this spring, that I almost never use CSNET. >This farce did not result in censorship then, but it laid the basis for the >later action, despite its total unfoundedness and the fact that I was never >shown what it was they wanted me to stop doing. > >There appear to be a few unresolved issues about the posting itself. It was >undertaken at about 10pm on 7 May 1984. (I'm getting tired of naming names, >so I'll just give logins.) unc!mp, a friend of Brooks, spotted the postings >and called unc!howell, a UNC administrator who had always given me a >friendly hello when he saw me, who gave orders to unc!shaddock, a research >assistant, to terminate my login and stop the articles from getting out. He >did (or maybe it was mp who terminated my login -- I'm not sure). Then >unc!shaddock logged in at mcnc, the USENET backbone site in the area, and >terminated all communications between the mcnc and decvax USENET backbone >sites, in the middle of a uucp session between them. I should mention that >mcnc is NOT a subsidiary of UNC; I don't think he had sufficient >authorization to do this sort of thing, but I could be wrong. Then he spent >the next few hours chasing down and cancelling articles, using my account to >do the cancellations. I suppose it was too bad that the articles had >already gotten to decvax, and that the cancellation messages couldn't get to >them because the mcnc-decvax link had been broken by unc!shaddock. What I'm >trying to say is that those weren't my cancellation messages, and it's lucky >the thing got out at all. If UNC had had their way, you would never have >seen the record of the incident. Do you think they thought they had >something to hide, maybe? > >The articles were posted to multiple groups separately, rather than singly, >because I anticipated an attempt to cover them up. Since I was right, there >is no reason to apologize, although I am sorry for the necessity. (It >certainly doesn't show the disregard for the net that shutting down the >backbone-backbone link for many hours to enforce the cover-up did.) > >No one appears to have noticed that the letter from Dr. Bishop, criticizing >my articles but recommending that my net privileges be reinstated, was sent >to Brooks, and I was NOT a recipient. I assume that Brooks requested >Bishop's opinion. The letter was never shown to me (I violated no protected >files in retrieving it, or in the whole course of this incident or the >previous, despite some irresponsible accusations by Brooks and Mason to that >effect). If Brooks had had his way, I would never have known that he had >ignored Bishop's opinion after requesting it. Clearly, all he wanted was >support for the decision he had already made. Hypocrisy at its best. > >There were only five parts of unc!tim's last postings. Brooks didn't like >the way the affair was going, so he decided to stall until the end of my >temporary job. Notice how long his delays in responding are, and how many >times I was forced after weeks of silence to send a reminder. Eventually, I >got sick of banging my head against a brick wall and gave up on the idea >that Brooks or Mason would ever give anything like a fair hearing; >obviously, I would have to seek the vindication that was rightfully mine >elsewhere. Incidentally, uninvolved people in the dept. privately told me >in February that they thought Brooks would just stall as long as he could; >they appear to have been correct. Brooks' final letter falls into the >period of stalling, and was written solely to introduce yet more new >charges; his statement that "we" had considered the case and had been about >to give me my privileges back is nothing more than a deliberate attempt to >decieve me into thinking the matter had at last been considered by the >faculty, so that the true intent of his letter would not be so obvious. > >Despite the claims of some of my critics, the dates and addresses of letters >form an extremely important portion of the record. Otherwise, how would you >see where they stalled, how long went between my reminders, and what they >tried to hide? There is one thing to note -- you should ignore all the >"From root" lines -- they are not the initial dates of posting, but >represent an artifact of the conversion of UNC's mail system. Sorry I >forgot to delete them. > > >Some critics have alleged that I was unduly argumentative in the dealings. >This is simply false. I did disagree with the charges against me, and gave >evidence to support my position; although this was apparently enough to earn >the permanent enmity of Mason and Brooks, my letters were calm and rational >in virtually all cases. How could I defend myself without disagreeing with >the charges? > >It has been alleged that my postings at the time of the restriction, that >is, the "Even If I Did Believe..." discussion on net.religion, were >incontestably abusive. Well, the discussion did become abusive, but not >from my side. There was not a single article from Norris that was not >chock-full of personal attacks directed at me. However, my articles >remained rational despite this, not returning his attacks in kind, but >sticking to logical examination of the relevant arguments. I even saluted >my opponents' efforts -- this salute was read as a sarcastic personal attack >by Norris and others, but that was certainly not my intention. > >I am sure that some people felt that the premise was inherently abusive. >Not at all. The article was a defense, not an attack. Since the creation >of net.religion (hell, since the beginning of Christianity!) others and I >have been repeatedly assailed by vicious and insulting dogmatic attacks, >from Christians who assert that we are inferior fools for not accepting >their religion as absolute truth. If people want to find abusive articles, >I suggest they look in Bickford's deliberately insulting postings, or search >through the archives for such past greats of Biblical insult as Bob Langdon >at In Touch Ministries (a Christian broadcasting ministry on the net). >There can be only one good response to this harassment, a rational defense >of the position of not being a Christian. This is what I wrote. > >There is a very real double standard here. Christians are held blameless >for viciously condemning all other religions, which they typically know >nothing about; yet if someone who has studied their scriptures and religions >rationally defends his own position as a non-Christian, without saying that >anyone else must hold the same position, the air is filled with outraged >cries: "How dare he attack God in this way? What spiritual pride! He is a >tool of Satan! Truly, he must be a vicious and hateful man!" But wishing >don't make it so... > >(I am reminded here in particular of a discussion my companion Pam Troy had >with a Maranatha missionary last summer. He insisted that she was wrong for >not becoming a Christian; when she responded that others might say he was >wrong for not being, e.g., a Buddhist, he said, "Huh! Who'd want to worship >some fat navel-gazer, anyway?" Who's abusing whom? Another good example, >this one from the net, is Gary Samuelson's attack on Thelemism, which proved >beyond a doubt that he had never read a single line of Thelemic scripture. >The attack was on something he made up that had absolutely nothing to do >with the religion. Similar examples from my experience and others' are >innumerable. It is exasperating to a student of the religions of the world >to hear someone who has never heard the word "Tao" claiming to know >everything there is to know about religion.) > >I am not here saying that I have never posted an abusive article. When I am >deliberately provoked, for instance by the hobbit in the smoking laws debate >who threatened to piss in my dinner, I sometimes lose my temper. This is a >flaw. I am a human being and therefore have some of those. I have also >very (VERY) infrequently posted abusive articles unprovoked; in all these >cases (actually, I only remember one, the John Crane incident), I came to my >senses and posted an apology. I can't promise never to make a mistake, but >I can promise to try to make amends afterwards (except in cases where I was >deliberately provoked and/or personally attacked). Abusive articles of any >sort form a very small fraction of my total postings, and it is a mistake to >characterize me as either usually or often abusive. I believe that this >illusion has been created by the unfortunate fact that people remember >abusive articles much longer than others, and the equally unfortunate fact >that some people do not understand satire (which is a perfectly valid >technique of rational argument, based on the reductio ad absurdum disproof >technique). > >That's all for now. I hope that this has helped to make a few aspects of >the case somewhat clearer. Thanks for your supportive articles, Gene, and >if you post this, those thanks should be considered extended to everyone who >wrote such articles. May you all have many years of informative and >entertaining use of USENET. (We here at C-MU's Information Technology >Center will probably join USENET this summer, but the people who will be >administrating it have a lot of other stuff to do first.) >-- >Tim Maroney, Information Technology Center, Carnegie-Mellon University >Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 >(ARPANET mail) cmuitcb!johnd!tim@cmu-cs-h >(uucp mail) {sritek,nsc,cmucsh}!cmuitcb!johnd!tim -- Off the Wall of Gene Spafford The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech @ CSNet-Relay uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,ihnp4,masscomp,ut-ngp}!gatech!spaf ...!{rlgvax,sb1,uf-cgrl,unmvax,ut-sally}!gatech!spaf