riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (05/11/84)
Hmm.
Perhaps we need a new newsgroup for this sort of thing: net.general.soaps.
:-)
--- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.")
--- {ihnp4,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddlejsq@ut-sally.UUCP (John Quarterman) (05/11/84)
I was kind of favorable to Maroney until he started using net.general
as a washing machine. He must be real important for everybody on USENET
to be expected to pay phone bills for all that.
--
John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712 USA
jsq@ut-sally.ARPA, jsq@ut-sally.UUCP, {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsqsmw@tilt.UUCP (Stewart Wiener) (05/13/84)
Three cheers for Tim Maroney! May he return to the netwaves soon! (leave it lie, down!*, leave it lie...) -- Stewart Wiener :-) someone just smiled for no special Princeton Univ. EECS :-) reason, looks like the smile's come princeton!tilt!smw :-) back into season...
jeff@heurikon.UUCP (05/13/84)
Gads!!! Either I'm an old-timer or else the academic world sure has
changed! I must commend Brooks for his (initial) patience with Maroney.
Anywhere else, and certainly in the "real" business world, unc!tim would
never have been allowed to drag out this issue as far as he did. I bend
over backwards to consider an employee's grievance, but I would have
thrown Maroney out at first base if he carried on here as he did at UNC.
I think he disproved his own case simply by posting so much (eloquent)
drivel to the net. If you didn't notice, he quadrupled the burden
by posting *separate* articles to net.general, net.net-people and
net.misc as well as putting the whole thing in net.sources. That's
about 240k! It looks like he tried to cancel some of them, but they
still got around the net.
He sees the issue as censorship. I think it boils down to some form of
paranoia and a perceived *right* to be on the net. The discussion of
his mail and these articles might be more appropriate for net.med :-).
What a waste of time. I'll leave it up to others on the net to flame
directly at unc!tim. He'll get enough to bring UNC's machine to a halt,
I'm sure. Somehow, I just don't think we've heard the end of this story.
--
/"""\ Jeffrey Mattox, Heurikon Corp, Madison, WI
|O.O| {harpo, hao, philabs}!seismo!uwvax!heurikon!jeff (news & mail)
\_=_/ ihnp4!heurikon!jeff (mail - fast)perelgut@utcsrgv.UUCP (Stephen Perelgut) (05/14/84)
<>
If it comes down to a net.vote, I vote against unc!tim. His
posting proves that he:
1) Violated an agreement by purposefully misreading the
intent. When he posted to unix-wizards
2) Violated an agreement by getting a friend to post for
him. [I like the response. Boot the "friend" off!]
3) Violated an agreement by mailing outside the local
environment to beg for help.
Any employee who does all that should be fired.
As for "it doesn't cost anything" arguments, what about the
sites outside the local area who have to transmit the mail and
news around the world.
Finally, anyone childish enough to vent his dirty laudry on the
network deserves what he gets.
I hope that any company that is thinking of hiring Tim takes into
account his record (including the 240K of whining drivel.)
--
Stephen Perelgut
Computer Systems Research Group University of Toronto
Usenet: {linus, ihnp4, allegra, decvax, floyd}!utcsrgv!perelgut
CSNET: perelgut@Torontofair@dual.UUCP (Erik E. Fair) (05/14/84)
>> Perhaps we need a new newsgroup for this sort of thing: net.general.soaps. >> >> :-) >> --- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.") >> --- {ihnp4,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle No, what we need is HftAW (Hackers for the American Way), because It Could Happen To You! (not really all that funny), Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucb-arpa.ARPA dual!fair@Berkeley.ARPA {ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!fair Dual Systems Corporation, Berkeley, California
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (05/15/84)
-- >> Gads!!! Either I'm an old-timer or else the academic world sure has >> changed! I must commend Brooks for his (initial) patience with Maroney. >> Anywhere else, and certainly in the "real" business world, unc!tim would >> never have been allowed to drag out this issue as far as he did. I bend >> over backwards to consider an employee's grievance, but I would have >> thrown Maroney out at first base if he carried on here as he did at UNC. >> He sees the issue as censorship. I think it boils down to some form of >> paranoia and a perceived *right* to be on the net... >> Jeffrey Mattox, Heurikon Corp, Madison, WI I'm sure glad I don't work for you, Jeff, although the feeling would probably be mutual. (Too bad, too, I lived in Madison for 12 years, think about settling down there some day..) What made my skin crawl was (1) how Tim's employers never stated to his face what he did wrong, and (2) how quick so many of his cohorts were to turn him in. The religious analogy, considering the anti-biblical-god musings that were probably at the root of this, is ironic. Sure, Tim has no *right* to the net. It's not a matter of rights-- UNC could probably get away with an 8x10 cell and 3 meals a day--I think that's all the Geneva Convention requires for POW's, but then you have to think about what kind of outfit they're running. One assumes that Tim is busting his buns to get something up, and access to the net is a nice way of showing appreciation. So we're down to management philosophies--goody. Sir Thomas Beecham was a brilliant conductor who, unlike martinets like Toscannini, never disciplined his orchestras. When asked how he achieved such marvelous results, he said: "WHY, I SIMPLY HIRE THE BEST MUSICIANS, AND LET THEM PLAY." Think about it, Jeff. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 14 May 84 [25 Floreal An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (05/15/84)
How about net.ejection, net.flushing, net.removal, ...
--
Be ye moby,
for I am moby.
Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{decvax!genrad, eagle!mit-vax, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds
Joy is in the ears that hear.lincoln@eosp1.UUCP (Dick Lincoln) (05/16/84)
> What made my skin crawl was (1) how Tim's employers never stated to > his face what he did wrong, and (2) how quick so many of his cohorts > were to turn him in. Let's be fair about this; we really don't know what Tim's employers did with him about this matter, nor how "quick" his accusers were. We have only heard one side of this case.
david@tekig.UUCP (David Hayes) (05/16/84)
For the voters to throw tim off of the net, I kinda like my netnews and if my boss required me not to use it and did not give any substantial reasons, I might also tend to ask questions. I don't think tim can fight the system and win, but it sounded like there was some heavy game playing going on, on both sides. Just goes to show if you p*ss off your boss, for whatever personal reason, regardless of your talent, it BYE BYE! dave
spaf@gatech.UUCP (Gene Spafford) (05/16/84)
Does anyone have part 6 of the Maroney Case History? Were there any
parts beyond 6? A rather large number of cancellation messages found
their way onto the net a few scant hours after the original articles
were posted. I suspect they were done by the system administration at
UNC rather than by Tim himself. I was going to read the articles when
I got into school the next morning, but found that most of the postings
were lost. Perhaps that's why Tim posted separate copies to multiple
groups...?
Censorship on the net is not new. There are a number of sites on the
net where news and even mail is censored. One friend of mine was
recently telling me about the major company where he works (which shall
remain unamed) where one of the major bozos not only censors incoming
and outgoing news, he also reads mail. At this site, they are so
paranoid about "security" that they have locked up virtually every
directory in the system. For instance, you have to find a privileged
operator to run an "lpq" command. You also cannot run the normal csh
because the bin directories aren't readable and the shell cannot form
the command hash list. And the ".." directory is unreadable on user
accounts. And so on. This is pretty amazing at a major company whose
name is known to all of us.
I believe that the person responsible for each site has a certain
amount of responsibility to deny users access to the net if they abuse
their privilege of access. Note that I said "privilege." There is no
right to net access. If I were administering a machine, and I was
aware of someone abusing their privilege, I would take appropriate
action. However, I would definitely observe some simple rules of
fairness and due process. Tim's case *appears* to be one of arbitrary
action compounded by some personal motives. The items that Tim posted
make the UNC administration appear to be somewhat arbitrary and petty
in their decisions. It also appears as if Tim was denied due process.
I, for one, will not attempt to either defend Tim or condemn the
administration at UNC. Only one side of the story has been partially
told, and every story has at least two sides. Still, I think Tim could
have used better judgement. In fact, I think everybody involved might
have benefitted from a little more restraint. Consulting an unbiased,
outside mediator might have been a good step. Tim has always impressed
me as a bright, although sometimes too hasty, individual; I wish him
well wherever he may be. On the other hand, the only impression I have
of Mr. Brooks at UNC is through this incident, and that impression is
not entirely favorable.
This is a very good example of a conflict with no winners -- only
losers. Let's hope we don't see any more cases like this on the net.
Let's all try to remember that privilege implies responsibility.
--
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!spafsteven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer) (05/17/84)
[This Message Rated R]
It seems to me that tim would be better off without having
to live around the likes at University of North Carolina;
they are the clearly wrong element to have the priviledge
of living in a free society.
It seems that there is very little difference between the
attitudes of the faculty at unc, and Soviet Russia: They
are both pseudo-dictators, who enjoy rubbing peoples noses
in s**t.
Simply because one has the legal "right" to perform censorship
for purely political reasons, does not mean that it is *moral*
to do so; you also have the "right" to stand by, while a woman
is being raped.
If I ever am unfortunate enough to meet the faculty of that
school, I will make sure to bring up this point.
Steven Maurerwetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (05/17/84)
[] I said to myself, "stay out of this." But, having read some of the comments concerning Tim's problems, I have to put my 2-cents worth in. Censorship is one thing, however, the blatent disregard for the edicts of my employer are another, be they good or bad. It seems to me, upon reading the tons of correspondence that passed between Tim and his employer, that Tim overplayed his hand to the point that he had backed himself into a corner with no way out. Sure, we would all like to express ourselves in any manner we see fit. However, when you consider that in expressing ourselves, we might be stepping on some toes, wouldn't it be better to just shut up or leave on our own accord? Some of Tim's later messages to his employer were, in my mind, bordering on insubordination. I can't think of any organization that would allow a person to continue their presence very long under Tim's attack. This is the real world out here. From what I could deduce, Tim was very fortunate to continue for so long behind those ivy walls. Don't get me wrong about Tim. I greatly enjoyed his articles, whether I agreed or not. But, when the powers that be tell me to knock it off, I figure I have two choices: knock it off or quit. Now, depending on what the economic situation is at the time, I will knock it off or quit. I have done both. I do not question the authority of the employer to give me the boot for the type of things Tim was doing in his messages to his employer. Some of the netters out there seem to think that Tim's rights were being curtailed. Wrong. Access to the net is nothing more than a privilege granted by the powers from rug row. The priviledge can be revoked at any time by the reserved parking spacers. This is how it works out here in the working community. Some employers may be much more liberal in their application of privileges than others, but if you step over their mythical line, you are going to get your head handed to you on a platter. I have seen any number of people fired for much less than what Tim was doing. I'm sorry to see Tim go, but, maybe he will be back from some other point on the compass. As to the remarks about the staff and faculty at UNC, why don't some of you people wait and find out what happened from their side of things? I don't think calling them agents of the USSR is at all fair if all you read was Tim's postings. You have to realize that the people on this net are, in reality, only one dimensional beings. All 99% of us know about each other are our postings to these forums. If you take your impressions about people from these articles, then you are going to be wrong 99% of the time when you meet them in person. Perhaps Tim wore a banana in his ear and pushed old ladies in front of trains, we don't know. On the other hand, maybe the employers made their people do 100 pushups in front of their terminals and ran over babies with their pickup trucks, we don't know. So, to make snap judgements about people and the situations they get into, based on net postings, is just not realistic. I am just as guilty of doing this as everyone else, so don't go flaming. Sometimes I read things on the net that causes some unseen force to make me press the 'f' key. On the other hand, I have managed to restrain myself on many, many more occasions. Perhaps this is the reason why I am still working and some others are not. T. C. Wheeler yer to
mat@hou5d.UUCP (05/17/84)
Im Maroney (unc!tim) has presented us with an unpleasant scene. Some of
the arguments I have heard against him:
1) Tim has no RIGHT to the net.
Admitted
2) Tim has violated an agreement with his employer.
Initially there could have been misunderstanding
about what ``work--related'' meant. Afterward --
see below.
3) Tim's employers have been very patient with a disgruntled employee.
Patient with respect to WHAT? Does Tim have a valid
complaint? If so, then all the patience in the world
on the part of the aggriever is irrelevant.
The real question here is this: was Tim denied access for economic reasons
(cost) or was he denied access because what he posted offended
``sensibilities'' that themselves violate Tim's basic rights? If Tim had
posted the infamous BLKTRAN, not many of us would rush to his defense, least
of all me. BLKTRAN is in conflict with the digniy of a group of human beings,
and that conflict is along racial lines. But what did Tim say? Tim said,
if I recall, something like ``the god of the Jewish and Christian scriptures
is a cruelm, sadistic sonofabitch and I would rather go to hell (if hell there
is) proudly than worship the monster.'' Now I think that Tim hasn't quite
got the right understanding of things, but that's besides the point.
It's Tim's right to believe this, and it's Tim's right to say it. And if
Tim's employer lets Tim and Tim's peers onto the net for general shooting of
the bull, then Tim should be allowed to say what Tim likes, short of slander
or misrepresentation of the views of others.
Now, I am not speaking on matters as they ARE, but only on matters as they
ARE PRESENTED to me.
--
from Mole End
Mark Terribile
(scrape..dig) hou5d!mat
,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (05/17/84)
I, too, would like to see the rest of this saga! Over here, all I have seen are parts 1 through 5, as I recall. Even the "complete" version, posted to net.sources, ended with the messages about and from Hobson, peripheral to the case. It's like reading a mystery with the last 10 pages torn out! WHERE'S THE REST? (Echoes of a similar "where's the..." of recent memory bring a rising gorge...) So, did anybody do a "save" on later episodes that we now here have been wiped out of existence by a mysterious flurry of "cancel" messages? If so, post them somewhere so we all can read this to the end! I take no position on who's right until I read them all. Will
eric@aplvax.UUCP (05/18/84)
There has already been so much verbage on this, I really hesitate to add to it. But no one has commented on one aspect of this whole affair. By posting the private correspondence between Tim and his bosses, he is violating their rights. As far as I know, one is not allowed to publicly publish private correspondence without the consent of the various authors. It seems extremely doubtful to me that Tim got this consent. It actually smacks of a childish attempt to "get even", rather than a constructive act. Yes, (seen from Tim's viewpoint) there were errors made by both sides. I do not think they could not have been resolved. I think now they are a lost cause. -- eric ...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!eric
spear@ihopb.UUCP (Steven Spearman) (05/18/84)
One point that I think has been missed in the discussion of the 'right' of an employer to terminate a 'privilege' like net access, is that Tim worked for a public tax-supported institution. A university which receives federal funds has much higher standards of accountability and lack of discrimination than does a private business. Further, academic freedom is a long standing 'sacred' right at institutions of higher education. Given the big assumption that unc!tim presented all correspondence fairly, it appears in light of the above that the administration did indeed overstep reasonable bounds, even though it is obvious that Tim could be somewhat aggravating to an administrator. -- Steve Spearman ihnp4!ihuxm!spear
boylan@dicomed.UUCP (Chris Boylan) (05/18/84)
this is not needed
Most of the discussion about the actions of Tim what's-his-name vs
Brooks, et al @ unc miss the critical issue involved. It is
inappropriate to prohibit SPECIFIC individuals from expressing
their views in such a situation. Had Brooks and Assoc. uniformly
bared use of USENET for none work applications they would have
been on solid group, however to apply this to one individual only
is clearly a violation of that individuals rights.
The actions of Brooks and Assoc. are particularly unseemly since
they are at a public institution.
Tim screwed up by not treating this access denial as a freedom of
speech violation since there are standard grevience procedures for
this type of thing and that failing, the courts would clearly see
it as a constitutional issue.
I don't particularly care what Tim (or for that matter Brooks et al)
had/have to say but I think Brooks and friends acted like real
slime in their obvious attempt to stifle Tim what's-his-name.
Flames to /dev/null
Don't mean to sound like a liberal because I'm not ...
--
Chris Boylan
{mgnetp | ihnp4 | uwvax}!dicomed!boylanjdb@qubix.UUCP (05/19/84)
> What made my skin crawl was (1) how Tim's employers never stated to > his face what he did wrong, and (2) how quick so many of his cohorts > were to turn him in. "If you're going to be shot, whose side do you expect me to be on?" J Heller, Catch-22 -- Dr Memory ...{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!qubix!jdb
steven@qubix.UUCP (05/19/84)
References:
I have been informed that not all of the faculty had a voice
in the decision making process regarding Tim Maroney. Thus my
heated and hasty argument complaining about the "faculty at the
University of North Carolina", should only have included the
"Computer Science faculty of UNC".
At the same time, I have become convinced that the CS Faculty
is on very very shakey legal grounds, to be promoting political
or religious censorship on a publically funded machine. While
an employer has the right to censor anything he chooses, that right
ceases when the employer starts to use equipment, or licenses which
are part of the public domain. Thus, for the same reason that
TV stations are forced to give over part of their time to opposing
views on their editorials, (they broadcast on the public airwaves),
public universities cannot prohibit the use of a network, on machines
which have been bought with tax money. This is only my opinion,
to this date, the right to restrict free net access has not been
chalenged in court.
Steven Maurerandrew@inmet.UUCP (05/19/84)
#R:tilt:-11200:inmet:4000067:000:336 inmet!andrew May 17 12:32:00 1984 > I hope that any company that is thinking of hiring Tim takes into > account his record (including the 240K of whining drivel.) And I hope that any hacker thinking of accepting employment (or study) at UNC takes into account the actions of Brooks, et.al... Andrew W. Rogers, Intermetrics ...{harpo|ihnp4|ima|esquire}!inmet!andrew
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (05/19/84)
I think TC Wheeler made some good points, but I'd like to take issue with a few... >Censorship is one thing, however, the blatent disregard for the edicts >of my employer are another, be they good or bad... I couldn't convince mysewlf that Tim wasn't just trying to figure out how far out of line he was and what he could do to get back to a reasonable situation. TCW's point that we can't tell much about the real people on either side of the issue is a good one - I apply it in this case and I can't decide if Tim is one of these pain-in-the-ass people who deserved to get the sack or whether he got caught on the bad side of some people who decided to make an example out of him and make his life difficult. >Some of Tim's later messages to his employer were, in my mind, bordering >on insubordination. I can't think of any organization that would allow >a person to continue their presence very long under Tim's attack. I saw problems on both sides here. I wouldn't work for an organization that would impose restrictions or penalties on me without the decency of a clear and fair explanation of what I'd done wrong. Of course, I've got my degree and experience; I'm eminently employable, so all this is too easy for me to say. >Some of the netters out there seem to think that Tim's rights were >being curtailed. Wrong. Access to the net is nothing more than a >privilege granted by the powers from rug row. The priviledge can be >revoked at any time by the reserved parking spacers. This is how >it works out here in the working community... >...if you step over their mythical line, you are going to get your >head handed to you on a platter... True enough, BUT (1) Just because there are lots of organizations that will put the screws to their people for arbitrary reasons and without explanation, that doesn't make it right. (2) If you get zinged by (what you see as) an arbitrary or capricious reaction, and you have a public forum available in which to present your case, that's fair. That's what Tim seems to be doing (regardless of whether he's right about it). Look, there's a large company in our area that requires its employees to submit to polygraph tests on request as a condition of employment (meaning they can summarily fire you if you ever refuse to take one). Now, I think that sucks something I can't even say in ROT13, and I'm glad that there are people from that company who have complained publicly to tell us about it. >As to the remarks about the staff and faculty at UNC, why don't some >of you people wait and find out what happened from their side of things? Agree, and we're waiting to hear from them. Hello, over there? >I don't think calling them agents of the USSR is at all fair... Right - a few people have been pretty quick to judge harshly on half the evidence. -- ...A friend of the devil is a friend of mine. Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303) 444-5710 x3086
custead@sask.UUCP (Der cuss) (05/19/84)
>>>UNC could probably get away with an 8x10 cell and 3 meals a day--
Egads...this is subversive. We didn't know that programmers at UNC
lived in such luxury. Now our programmers are going to want 8x10 cells.
That is certainly more space than programmers get in most organizations
I have seen.
Where are we going to find that kind of space? And as for 3 meals a day,
it boggles the mind. Look if you have a good deal like this, keep it
to yourself. If you go blabbing it all over the net, no one else will
be able to keep their staff.
Doing hard time at the U of S...
custead
ihnp4!sask!custeadbrad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (05/20/84)
Again and again nobody realizes just how much money this net costs, and just how much money people who post without thinking about it run us. The use of the net on somebody else's machine, using somebody else's phone bills is an exceptional privilege. I can't see how anybody can think otherwise. Ask the people who are paying. If I was paying Maroney's phone bill and somebody pointed it out to me you can bet I would think stronly of shutting him off. Several times I have seen him at the top of the big posters list, if my memory is correct. People help pay for the net because it increases the satisfaction of the user community, or because they are lied to by their employees and don't know they are paying for it. In either case, when somebody gets way out of line in the amount they post, you are no longer getting the utility you want. If you shut off the entire net, or restrict it to unix-wizards, you punish the other good people for what one A**hole is doing. Tim can't call it censorship. If he wants to post, he can. Like me, he can purchase his own Unix system, modem and phone line. Then he can post all he likes if some site will accept his news, and most will. You might argue that sites have a 'right' to fair acces to this net, but they are the only ones. -- Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ontario (519) 886-7304
hans@log-hb.UUCP (Hans Albertsson) (05/23/84)
[Chompsky Syntax Spec]
A point missed is that "Rights to retain a privilege" are relative,
meaning in this case:
Tim ( and a lot of others at UNC ) have access to a network
communication service motivated by their work.
As an added bonus, private and other spurious out{put,bursts} are
allowed or tolerated. This right must be considered to be granted
to all of those involved, and no selective censorship should be
tolerated. If one ( or more ) abuse their privileges in such a
manner that those footing the bills are disenchanted enough to want
to revoke the privileges, then so be it! But for ALL involved.
If Tim, and Tim alone, is being censored, on whatever grounds, then
that is very undemocratic, and an infringement of his "free speech"
rights.
--
{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!enea!log-hb!hans
Hans Albertsson,
TeleLOGIC AB
Box 1001,
S-14901 Nynashamn,
SWEDENsteve@zinfandel.UUCP (05/23/84)
#R:aplvax:-59300:zinfandel:4900017:000:827
zinfandel!steve May 21 11:50:00 1984
Publishing correspondence which Tim either sent or received
is one thing; but Tim also published at least
one letter he didn't directly send or receive:
From tat Mon Mar 19 13:48:56 1984
Received: by unc (4.12/4.7) id AA20836; Mon, 19 Mar 84 13:48:39 est
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 84 13:48:39 est
From: Teresa Thomas <tat>
Message-Id: <8403191848.AA20836@unc>
To: mason
Subject: Tim Maroney
Cc: stanat
Status: RO
The following is a news article that appeared on the net.
...
[subsequent tattling goes here]
...
I don't know who "stanat" is, but I am curious about where Tim found
this particular message, and what permission he got from
tat, mason, or stanat to read or publish the message, other than
the permission implicit in
-rw-rw-r-- ... mbox
zehntel!zinfandel!steve nelson