cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (01/29/91)
Following is a posting from comp.dcom.telecom, the popular newsgroup on
telecommunications. The first part is a status report from Atlanta,
where Southern Bell is forcing customers to accept Caller ID without the
minimal safeguards of public choice, like per-call blocking. But it's
the moderator's addendum that I want you to especially notice:
Subject: Atlanta / Georgia Caller*ID Update
Message-ID: <16495@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 28 Jan 91 18:34:25 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 52
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 75, Message 9 of 12
I just spoke with Southern Bell's marketing department today to get
the latest info on Caller*ID. You may remember that according to my
"inside source" at Southern Bell, CLID was supposed to have been
available FOR ORDERING today (Jan. 28). That is not currently the
case. A "no-later-than" implemementation date for the metropolitan
Atlanta area was set for February 14, according to Southern Bell PR
folks (as of my conversation with them in late Dec. '90).
As of sometime in the past week or so, Southern Bell is referring all
--MORE--(32%)
CLID questions to their Marketing department - the folks who will
actually market (naturally) and take orders for this new service. My
call today to marketing - (404) 780-2525 - revealed that Southern Bell
will be holding training for their people beginning Feb. 14 and that
is quite likely the earliest date at which orders will now be taken.
Technically speaking, as of my last conversation with my "inside
source", the switching equipment and SS7 is all ready for CLID and the
appropriate software has been loaded to the various metro Atlanta
switches. What currently stands between this stage and the next in
which the service is actually offered to the public is a (1)
testing/debugging phase (currently in progress) and (2) training of
the order-takers (see above), currently scheduled for Feb. 14.
Bottom line and my personal assessment: CLID will not be on-line until
Feb. 14 at the earliest. With all due credit to Southern Bell, they
never went public with any date prior to Feb. 14. It now appears that
their "no-later-than" date has since become a "no-sooner-than" date.
The feelings that I get from my various conversations with Southern
Bell employees (including my "Deep Throat"), is that they have
received quite a few inquiries about CLID - and that the greater
number of their calls have been to ask about when-can-I-order-it? One
order clerk (with whom I spoke at relatively great length) did admit
that she had received a call from a somewhat upset "older gentleman"
--MORE--(76%)
along the lines of 'if Southern Bell follows through on offering CLID,
I'm going to have my phone disconnected!'
I'll keep the list posted, as I find out more.
Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu
[Moderator's Note: The service rep talking to the 'older gentleman'
should have called his bluff on the spot: If I'd been responding to
him I'd have probably said "Oh, my! Well, Mr. Jones, we'll certainly
be sorry to lose you as a good subscriber after X years. It has been
approved and will be available around February 14. Do you want me to
process the disconnect order on your service for the same day or would
you want me to have the service turned off sooner?" (pause, let him
take it from there ...) PAT]
Is this person biased, or what? Would you want the moderators of all
of the conferences that handle controversial topics popping off like
this, making those who hold opposing points of view feel foolish?
As a moderator, I'm offended. As someone with a regard for privacy
interests, I'm alarmed, because this newsgroup, comp.dcom.telecom,
wields a lot of informational power. But what to do about this?
Bob Jacobsonjgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) (01/29/91)
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes: >you want me to have the service turned off sooner?" (pause, let him >take it from there ...) PAT] >Is this person biased, or what? Would you want the moderators of all >of the conferences that handle controversial topics popping off like >this, making those who hold opposing points of view feel foolish? >As a moderator, I'm offended. As someone with a regard for privacy >interests, I'm alarmed, because this newsgroup, comp.dcom.telecom, >wields a lot of informational power. But what to do about this? Hey, so Townsend's a dickhead. WE've known that for a long time. What to do? Simple. Post your telecom information to alt.dcom.telecom so that in a few months, we can have a vote to make it a mainline group. The "free market" will then determine what readers like. Also, be sure to unsubscribe to comp.dcom.telecom (or store your .newsrc under a different name when not reading news) so that Arbitron won't report you as a telecom reader. And if he posts something really bogus and won't post your followup, simply forge an Approved: line on your article and let it fly. Net.anarchy is very effective at dethroning people if they get too big for their britches. (save the flames, guys. I eat 'em for breakfast.) John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade" (tm) Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | Home of the Nidgets (tm) Marietta, Ga | {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd |"Politically InCorrect.. And damn proud of it
dcm@baldur.dell.com (Dave McCracken) (01/29/91)
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes: >Following is a posting from comp.dcom.telecom, the popular newsgroup on >telecommunications. The first part is a status report from Atlanta, >where Southern Bell is forcing customers to accept Caller ID without the >minimal safeguards of public choice, like per-call blocking. But it's >the moderator's addendum that I want you to especially notice: >>Subject: Atlanta / Georgia Caller*ID Update >>Message-ID: <16495@accuvax.nwu.edu> >>Date: 28 Jan 91 18:34:25 GMT >>Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu >>Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu >>Organization: TELECOM Digest >>Lines: 52 >>X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu >>X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu >>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 75, Message 9 of 12 >>(...) >>[Moderator's Note: The service rep talking to the 'older gentleman' >>should have called his bluff on the spot: If I'd been responding to >>him I'd have probably said "Oh, my! Well, Mr. Jones, we'll certainly >>be sorry to lose you as a good subscriber after X years. It has been >>approved and will be available around February 14. Do you want me to >>process the disconnect order on your service for the same day or would >>you want me to have the service turned off sooner?" (pause, let him >>take it from there ...) PAT] >Is this person biased, or what? Would you want the moderators of all >of the conferences that handle controversial topics popping off like >this, making those who hold opposing points of view feel foolish? >As a moderator, I'm offended. As someone with a regard for privacy >interests, I'm alarmed, because this newsgroup, comp.dcom.telecom, >wields a lot of informational power. But what to do about this? As a regular reader of comp.dcom.telecom (aka the telecom digest) I am well aware of Pat Townsend's bias, as are most other readers of the group, I'm sure. He does not, however, use this bias in suppressing dissenting views. I don't feel that Pat's frequent editorial comments have hindered my ability to gain an understanding of the various sides of the topics under discussion. Indeed, many times I think his comments have led to a more complete discussion as people respond to him as well as the original poster. While I agree his bias is something to keep in mind while reading the group, he is doing an excellent job of providing a high quality discussion of the current state of telecom. That group is the only one I use the nn 'select all articles' command on. -- Dave McCracken dcm@dell.dell.com (512) 343-3720 Dell Computer 9505 Arboretum Blvd Austin, TX 78759-7299
oberman@rogue.llnl.gov (01/30/91)
In article <15377@milton.u.washington.edu>, cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes: > Is this person biased, or what? Would you want the moderators of all > of the conferences that handle controversial topics popping off like > this, making those who hold opposing points of view feel foolish? > As a moderator, I'm offended. As someone with a regard for privacy > interests, I'm alarmed, because this newsgroup, comp.dcom.telecom, > wields a lot of informational power. But what to do about this? > I don't recall Pat ever denying his biasses. People with a truely open mind also have truely empty ones. I have never seen signs that Pat biases the group according to his biases, so I don't see a problem. In fact, I look forward to his notes even when I don't agree with them. There is an unmoderated forum, alt.dcom.telecom, set up recently. It does not get much activity. It was set up be someone tired of Pat refusing his posts. However, it looks like the posts never made it to Pat since the person who was trying to post never get the automatic acknowedment of the posts. For whatever reasons, I have never had a post rejected by Pat. Maybe we agree a lot, but certainly not always. And I have seen many postings on CLID on both sides in that forum. Pat has refused ANY postings on Caller ID privacy issues on either side due to the large volume and a new forum was established for the discussion. Postings on implementation of SS7 and CLID continue, often with Pat's comments. R. Kevin Oberman Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Internet: oberman@icdc.llnl.gov (415) 422-6955 Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.
wex@dali.pws.bull.com (Der Grouch) (01/30/91)
In article <15377@milton.u.washington.edu> cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes:
Is th[e moderator of TELECOM digest] biased, or what? Would you want the
moderators of all
of the conferences that handle controversial topics popping off like
this, making those who hold opposing points of view feel foolish?
As a moderator, I'm offended. As someone with a regard for privacy
interests, I'm alarmed, because this newsgroup, comp.dcom.telecom,
wields a lot of informational power. But what to do about this?
I have no opinion about TELECOM DIGEST. I do not read it. However, I do
sit across the hall from Steve Elias, a longtime reader of that group who is
in the middle of a feud with the moderator who, Steve claims, is not only
biased but is actively censoring the content of the digest to reflect his
(the moderator's) views.
I do not know if these claims are true. However, Steve felt strongly enough
about the problem to create an alternative newsgroup, alt.dcom.telecom. You
should subscribe to this group if you are interested in these topics.
Please propagate this group if you feel its content is worthwhile. I do not
read this group and am not qualified to judge its merit.
Let me reiterate: I have no opinion vis a vis the concerns expressed by Bob
Jacobson and Steve Elias. I am posting this information because Steve is
away for at least a week and this article will likely expire here before he
sees it.
--
--Alan Wexelblat phone: (508)294-7485
Bull Worldwide Information Systems internet: wex@pws.bull.com
"Honesty pays, but it doesn't seem to pay enough to suit some people."tmkk@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Coleman) (01/30/91)
In article <15377@milton.u.washington.edu> cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes: > >Following is a posting from comp.dcom.telecom, the popular newsgroup on >telecommunications. The first part is a status report from Atlanta, >where Southern Bell is forcing customers to accept Caller ID without the >minimal safeguards of public choice, like per-call blocking. But it's >the moderator's addendum that I want you to especially notice: [...] >[Moderator's Note: The service rep talking to the 'older gentleman' >should have called his bluff on the spot: If I'd been responding to >him I'd have probably said "Oh, my! Well, Mr. Jones, we'll certainly >be sorry to lose you as a good subscriber after X years. It has been >approved and will be available around February 14. Do you want me to >process the disconnect order on your service for the same day or would >you want me to have the service turned off sooner?" (pause, let him >take it from there ...) PAT] > >Is this person biased, or what? Would you want the moderators of all >of the conferences that handle controversial topics popping off like >this, making those who hold opposing points of view feel foolish? Although I certainly don't agree with everything Pat has to say (his stance that BB Systems should pay business rates is one I particularly agree with), I still think he has the right to an opinion, same as everyone else. He has the right to express that opinion. The only thing I would object to is him censoring those who oppose his point of view (which I have not seen any indications of whatsoever; he published a couple notes from me on the BBS + Business Rates issue, and I've seen him post lots of other stuff which clearly diverged from his stated opinion). Sure, he's biased - we all are. But so is the editorial page of the newspaper. What to do about it, you ask? What do you do about the editor of the Washington Post or the New York Times? -- Scott Coleman tmkk@uiuc.edu "Unisys has demonstrated the power of two. That's their stock price today." - Scott McNealy on the history of mergers in the computer industry.
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) (01/30/91)
I believe Patrick was properly exercising his right to editorial remarks. Moreover, I found those remarks quite amusing - the man was threatening to cut his nose to spite his face. What's worse is that he was probably communicating with some poor clerk who couldn't care less. -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (01/30/91)
I guess different moderators have different styles. My style, if I disagree with a posting, is to post my own reply, as a reply. Putting snide comments on others' postings is almost calculated to get people's dander up. Pat is clearly a technophile. His postings should reflect that. Bob Jacobson
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (01/30/91)
Our node doesn't get alt.dcom.telecom...yet. I'll make the request. Bob J.
jet@karazm.math.uh.edu ("J. Eric Townsend") (01/30/91)
xposted to news.misc for lack of news.politics In article <15377@milton.u.washington.edu> cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes: >[regards to Townson's running of comp.dcom.telecom.] >Is this person biased, or what? Yes, he certainly is. Luckily, it's to the point where it's painfully obvious that he's strongly biased. Moderating a newsgroup is a bully pulpit, for sure. >... I'm alarmed, because this newsgroup, comp.dcom.telecom, >wields a lot of informational power. But what to do about this? 0. People could ask Townson to not put snide comments in articles he disagrees with. Failing that, 1. comp.dcom.telecom could be kicked into unmoderated mode. 2. A new moderator could be found, but Townson knows a lot about this stuff, so it might not be easy to find someone as skilled. Given ignorance or opinions, I'd prefer the former. The only real job of a moderator is to keep the subject on the topic, correct? -- J. Eric Townsend - jet@uh.edu - bitnet: jet@UHOU - vox: (713) 749-2120 "It is the cunning of form to veil itself continually in the evidence of content. It is the cunning of the code to veil itself and to produce itself in the obviousness of value." -- Baudrillard
milton@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Milton D Miller) (01/30/91)
In article <1991Jan30.000852.10527@lavaca.uh.edu> jet@karazm.math.uh.edu ("J. Eric Townsend") writes: > >xposted to news.misc for lack of news.politics > >In article <15377@milton.u.washington.edu> cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes: >>[regards to Townson's running of comp.dcom.telecom.] >>Is this person biased, or what? > >Yes, he certainly is. Luckily, it's to the point where it's painfully >obvious that he's strongly biased. Moderating a newsgroup is a bully >pulpit, for sure. > >>... I'm alarmed, because this newsgroup, comp.dcom.telecom, >>wields a lot of informational power. But what to do about this? > >0. People could ask Townson to not put snide comments in articles >he disagrees with. > >Failing that, >1. comp.dcom.telecom could be kicked into unmoderated mode. > >2. A new moderator could be found, but Townson knows a lot about this >stuff, so it might not be easy to find someone as skilled. Given >ignorance or opinions, I'd prefer the former. The only real job >of a moderator is to keep the subject on the topic, correct? > >-- >J. Eric Townsend - jet@uh.edu - bitnet: jet@UHOU - vox: (713) 749-2120 >"It is the cunning of form to veil itself continually in the evidence >of content. It is the cunning of the code to veil itself and to produce >itself in the obviousness of value." -- Baudrillard 3. Use alt.dcom.telecom (created within the last two weeks or so). milton
jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) (01/30/91)
In article <1991Jan30.000852.10527@lavaca.uh.edu>, jet@karazm.math.uh.edu ("J. Eric Townsend") writes: > 2. A new moderator could be found, but Townson knows a lot about this > stuff, so it might not be easy to find someone as skilled. Given > ignorance or opinions, I'd prefer the former. The only real job > of a moderator is to keep the subject on the topic, correct? That depends; on some moderated newsgroups, that's all the moderator does; on others, the moderator's personality is strongly reflected throughout (comp.risks, for example). There's no rule about it. Many of the groups with dominant moderators evolved out of mailing lists, and when people signed up for the mailing list, that's how it was (risks and telecom both fit into this category); there's no reason to expect every moderated group to be moderated the same way. As for me, I'd choose opinions over ignorance any day of the week, even though I often disagree with Townson. I would prefer it if moderators would restrain themselves from commenting on every little thing, though. It's annoying. It could be worse: he could insert bad puns after every article like Peter Neumann does in comp.risks! -- Joe Buck jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu {uunet,ucbvax}!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck
johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) (01/30/91)
The moderator of the Telecom Digest is extremely biased, and makes no
attempt to hide it. His attitude is far easier to understand when you
realize that in real life he works as a high-powered bill collector.
Sometimes I wish he were less adamant about his opinions, but I know from
experience that running such a mailing list or moderated news group is a lot
of work, and he puts a lot of effort into it. (I run comp.compilers, a far
smaller and less controversial group.) He does a credible job, and I'm happy
to live with him.
As far as Caller ID goes, I have noted many times that for the purposes of
deterring annoying callers, other CLASS features are at least as useful as
Caller ID. Call Trace records the number of the last call at telco, so
that you can call them later and report an annoying call. They can
retrieve the number and do something with it.
Another even more useful feature for stopping annoying calls is Call
Block. It lets you enter a set of phone numbers that you don't want to
hear from. When any of them call, they get a recording saying that you're
not accepting their calls, and your phone doesn't ring. As well as
entering specific numbers, you can also tell it to add whoever just called
to the blocked list.
Call Trace, unlike Caller ID requires neither presubscription nor special
equipment. By comparison, Caller ID requires a special box to display the
phone number that costs between $50 - $100, and you have to sign up. In
New Jersey, one of the few places where this is all turned on, Caller ID
costs $6.50/month, Call Block $4/month, and Call Trace $1/use.
--
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 864 9650
johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {ima|spdcc|world}!iecc!johnl
" #(ps,#(rs))' " - L. P. Deutsch and C. N. Mooersjef@well.sf.ca.us (Jef Poskanzer) (01/30/91)
In the referenced message, Robert Jacobson wrote: }I guess different moderators have different styles. My style, if I }disagree with a posting, is to post my own reply, as a reply. Putting }snide comments on others' postings is almost calculated to get people's }dander up. The old moderator of comp.sys.sun used to do this too, and was asked to stop. But the complaint in that case was mainly that his appended comments were often incorrect. For Pat I guess the complaint is that the comments are obnoxious. I see this as far less serious. --- Jef Jef Poskanzer jef@well.sf.ca.us {apple, ucbvax, hplabs}!well!jef "We've got provisions and lots of beer; the key word is survival on the new frontier."
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (01/30/91)
In article <1991Jan30.000852.10527@lavaca.uh.edu> jet@karazm.math.uh.edu ("J. Eric Townsend") writes: > Yes, he certainly is. Luckily, it's to the point where it's painfully > obvious that he's strongly biased. > >But what to do about this? >0., 1., 2. 3. Since his bias is honest and open, simply keep it in mind and put up with it. There is an alt.dcom.telecom for equal time for the folks who really really want it. Personally, I have less problem with Pat than some other moderators who seem awfully quick to reject articles on the grounds that they perceieve them to be largely repeating other messages that they have recieved (but not yet posted) on the subject. 4. Comp.dcom.telecom could be removed, and the TELECOM digest could remain purely as a mailing list. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
hwt@bwdlh490.BNR.CA (Henry Troup) (01/31/91)
Sure, he's so biased about Caller Id he set up a whole mailing list for discussing it! Why, if we was any more biased, he'd have created an unmoderated group for discussing Caller Id! Caller Id postings are still accepted in comp.dcom.telecom - provided they are on technical matters. Discussions/flame wars on the pros and cons are referred to the mailing list. Now grow up, eh! Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions | The .signature is the P.O. Box 3511, Stn. C. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 4H7| lowest form of humour uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 HWT@BNR.CA +1 613-765-2337 |
dveditz@dbase.A-T.COM (Dan Veditz) (01/31/91)
Bob Jacobson (cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu) noticed a posting in comp.dcom.telecom from Bill Berbenich in Atlanta (where, according to *Bob* "Southern Bell is forcing customers to accept Caller ID without the minimal safeguards of public choice, like per-call blocking."). He goes ballistic over the moderator's addendum. The article in question is in the TELECOM Digest Volume 11 Issue 75, Message 9 of 12 by Bill Berbenich (bill@eedsp.gatech.edu): > ... > One order clerk (with whom I spoke at relatively great length) did admit > that she had received a call from a somewhat upset "older gentleman" > along the lines of 'if Southern Bell follows through on offering CLID, > I'm going to have my phone disconnected!' > ... > > [Moderator's Note: The service rep talking to the 'older gentleman' > should have called his bluff on the spot: If I'd been responding to > him I'd have probably said "Oh, my! Well, Mr. Jones, we'll certainly > be sorry to lose you as a good subscriber after X years. It has been > approved and will be available around February 14. Do you want me to > process the disconnect order on your service for the same day or would > you want me to have the service turned off sooner?" (pause, let him > take it from there ...) PAT] To which Bob responds: > Is this person biased, or what? Would you want the moderators of all > of the conferences that handle controversial topics popping off like > this, making those who hold opposing points of view feel foolish? > As a moderator, I'm offended. As someone with a regard for privacy > interests, I'm alarmed, because this newsgroup, comp.dcom.telecom, > wields a lot of informational power. But what to do about this? First, Bob, you sound a little biased yourself -- Bill's article mentioned that almost all of the calls to Southern Bell have been requests for the service, which isn't exactly "forcing customers to accept Caller ID." Although I agree with your view of CLID, obviously not everyone does. But more to the point: the TELECOM moderator is a phone-service junkie. If he weren't he probably wouldn't have the interest to spend as much time moderating as he does, and he wouldn't have the knowledge that makes his comments worth reading. So yes, he does want to see CLID, but unless I've misread his posts he also wants to see per-call ID Blocking implemented along with it (if nothing else it's another phone service he can play around with). But that wasn't the point of his comment. The point is that the old man in all likelyhood will *not* have his phone disconnected, he was bluffing to make the poor service person feel bad or to let off steam. He may have been bluffing unconsciously, but the phone is too useful to give up on, and even if he did the phone company wouldn't really notice. A response such as Pat suggested would at least point out to the man the futility of making a statement in that way. If he really wanted to change things he shouldn't harass the service rep., he should write letters to the PUC and to the highest telco exec he could get the name of. Cancelling service is pointless and ineffective UNLESS you also send a letter to someone who counts explaining why you did it. As for moderators "popping off", that's one of the things I like about the TELECOM and RISKS digests because I usually find their comments to be informative, but I wouldn't want to see all moderated groups operate that way. I suppose it depends on why the group is moderated and what the moderator is expected to provide. Not everyone likes the way Pat does his job, so alt.dcom.telecom was recently created as an outlet for unmoderated discussions on the topic. To answer Bob's questions. Biased? You bet -- isn't everyone? "Popping off"? Editorials from the Moderator are part of the culture in some groups, and telecom is one of them. Making people out to be fools? I've not seen him do so to one of the participants of the group (though he does hold strong opinions), but then my interpretation of this incident differs from yours. Unconcerned about privacy? Not likely -- he often posts (and allows others to post) tips on how to keep phone numbers out of the hands of people you don't want to have them. What to do about it? I don't plan on doing anything, but you could try (in rough order): - writing to the Moderator in question and expressing your concern (maybe it's just a misunderstanding, or maybe the Moderator will see your point and change his policy). Face it, if you get shoddy treatment from the clerks at Sears, complaining to Penny's customers isn't likely to make Sears any better. - posting to the group itself -- I often see moderators (including the TELECOM moderator) post articles that disagree with them. - bringing the matter up in news.groups, which covers discussions about newsgroups, not just NEW groups. We've talked about specific moderators there in the past. news.misc gets some of this traffic as well. - starting an alternative unmoderated/uncensored group with all the other disgruntled readers (like alt.dcom.telecom). (Note that posting to a completely unrelated group is not on that list.) A good rule of life: if you don't like what someone has done, confront them privately first. Maybe they won't listen, but if they do you can avoid a lot of hassle, controversy, misunderstandings and ill-will. And just maybe it'll turn out to be *you* who misinterpreted things and you'll save yourself a lot of public embarrassment. -Dan Veditz dveditz@dbase.A-T.com uunet!ashtate!dveditz
jet@karazm.math.uh.edu ("J. Eric Townsend") (01/31/91)
In article <10590@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes: >As for me, I'd choose opinions over ignorance any day of the week, even >though I often disagree with Townson. I would prefer it if moderators I was thinking of sci.virtual-worlds, where the moderator is pretty hands off, but occasionally reminds us that we're straying off the topic. -- J. Eric Townsend - jet@uh.edu - bitnet: jet@UHOU - vox: (713) 749-2120 "It is the cunning of form to veil itself continually in the evidence of content. It is the cunning of the code to veil itself and to produce itself in the obviousness of value." -- Baudrillard
syd@DSI.COM (Syd Weinstein) (01/31/91)
Let's not forget that comp.dcom.telecom is not a USENET news group per se, its just a convienent way for USENET readers to receive the mailing list TELECOM DIGEST. Pat is not bound by USENET conventions at all, he is just being kind enough to run the gateway between the mailing list and network news himself. (He didn't use to run it himself, but...) Can a mailing list moderator be biased. Sure, and if the people don't like his bias, they leave the list and form another. -- ===================================================================== Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator Datacomp Systems, Inc. Voice: (215) 947-9900 syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd FAX: (215) 938-0235
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (02/01/91)
tmkk@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Coleman) writes: }Although I certainly don't agree with everything Pat has to say (his }stance that BB Systems should pay business rates is one I particularly }agree with), I still think he has the right to an opinion, same as }everyone else. He has the right to express that opinion. I know this a matter of style, but I think that (ab)using his prerogatives as moderator to engage in debate by 'editing' a posting he doesn't agree with to include his 'rebuttal' is *NOT* a fair go. If he has a contribution to make to the thread, he should just post/mail a separate item in the thread, under his *own* name; giving his personal biases the look of apparent-authority of being from the 'moderator' just doesn't seem right to me. Now, to have [moderator: ....] comments for simple factual corrections, or perhaps [in the case of the risks digest/newgroup] to make the occasional (innocent) joke or pun feels just right. That is, I guess I'm saying two things: not only should moderators not abuse their editorial prerogatives to force other peoples items carry the moderator's opinions, but I don't even think those opinions should come from the *moderator* at all... when it comes time to express opinions, I think the moderator should be 'demoted' to being "just another poster/mailer". /Bernie\
louisg@vpnet.chi.il.us (Louis Giliberto) (02/02/91)
My personal viewpoint is that the moderator has a right, just as anyone else to give his opinions. Because he is moderator does not mean he is stripped of his right of free speech. What I do have a problem with is the moderator either 1) stifling messages because he does not agree with them or 2) inserting his comments into the original message. This is tampering with other persons' rights. However, if the moderator responds in the normal way, he is merely expressing his opinion like everyone else. His job is to moderate, not to be an impartial judge. To stifle messages or tamper with them in any way is to abuse one's power and to violate a user's rights if the cause is to further one's own opinion. That's my $.02 Louis Giliberto louisg@vpnet.chi.il.us
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (02/03/91)
Pat and I have settled this offline, so I would appreciate it if the conversation on this topic ended. He has a right to run his conference as he chooses. I would not choose to run my conference like that, and I will probably be using his conference less as a result of our respec- tive different points of view. I think it is just as fair for a participant to point out apparent bias in a newsgroup, and seek a constructive response from other netliners, as it is for a moderator to exercise his right to free speech. Now that all the points have been covered, maybe it's time to press on with more substantive issues. Thanks for posting your feelings. Bob Jacobson (Moderator, sci.virtual-worlds)
hotte@sunrise.in-berlin.de (Horst Laumer) (02/05/91)
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes: >Following is a posting from comp.dcom.telecom, the popular newsgroup on >telecommunications. The first part is a status report from Atlanta, >where Southern Bell is forcing customers to accept Caller ID without the >minimal safeguards of public choice, like per-call blocking. But it's >the moderator's addendum that I want you to especially notice: > > [ stuff deleted ] > >>[Moderator's Note: The service rep talking to the 'older gentleman' >>should have called his bluff on the spot: If I'd been responding to >>him I'd have probably said "Oh, my! Well, Mr. Jones, we'll certainly >>be sorry to lose you as a good subscriber after X years. It has been >>approved and will be available around February 14. Do you want me to >>process the disconnect order on your service for the same day or would >>you want me to have the service turned off sooner?" (pause, let him >>take it from there ...) PAT] >Is this person biased, or what? Would you want the moderators of all >of the conferences that handle controversial topics popping off like >this, making those who hold opposing points of view feel foolish? >As a moderator, I'm offended. As someone with a regard for privacy >interests, I'm alarmed, because this newsgroup, comp.dcom.telecom, >wields a lot of informational power. But what to do about this? >Bob Jacobson create 'comp.war.moderators', and then non-moderators create 'comp.desert-shield.moderators' .... ( #include <smily.h> ) I believe he has had a bad day, but I take it as that. I wanna thank those folks who moderate the groups, thus risking rare instances of mismoderation. It shows they're humans like me ! BTW, does a moderator not have any opinion, or is it expected that he does not make it known to public ? Don't take it as a hook to start a flame war. Nevertheless, thanks to you for reminding the community and thus showing your opinion, too ! sincerely hotte -- ============================================================================ Horst Laumer, Kantstrasse 107, D-1000 Berlin 12 ! Bang-Adress: Junk-Food INET: hotte@sunrise.in-berlin.de ! for Autorouters -- me -- UUCP: ..unido!fub!geminix!sunrise.in-berlin.de!hotte
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (02/07/91)
I do want to put the comp.dcom.telecom issue behind me, but I do want to point out that the subject of Pat's and my attention was an old man who, fearing an invasion of his privacy by Caller ID (no block version), could only threaten the implausible retaliation of having his own phone cut off. Pat thought that was ironic. I thought it was sad. We're both right. Bob Jacobson
learn@igloo.scum.com (Bill HMRP Vajk) (02/08/91)
In article <1991Jan30.225646.23336@dbase.A-T.COM> Dan Veditz writes: > Editorials from the Moderator are part of the culture in some groups, and > telecom is one of them. Is it supposed to be informative, or a culture? We're talking about a comp. heirarchy group here. Last time such issues were discussed, the subheirarchy comp.society was created. Is it perhaps time, based on experience, to relocate this newsgroup? > Making people out to be fools? I've not seen him do so to one of the > participants of the group (though he does hold strong opinions), but then > my interpretation of this incident differs from yours. There have been some important misstatements made by Patrick based on hearsay. They ended up smearing further someone with legal problems. That's not easy to overlook. The real problem is that personal conclusions seem to be of the National Enquirer genre. They're sensationalistic in nature. The folks I talk with agree that Patrick has done a wonderful job of running the newsgroup. They agree, to a man, that the newsgroup/digest would be better served with far less commentary by Patrick. None of them has volunteered to take over, let alone sub for a day. Bill Vajk
wcs) (02/13/91)
]In article <1991Jan30.225646.23336@dbase.A-T.COM> Dan Veditz writes:
]
]> Editorials from the Moderator are part of the culture in some groups,
]> and telecom is one of them.
I'm seldom bothered by moderator's comments; PAT's are usually
helpful or ignorable, and aren't as bad as PGN's worst puns in RISKS :-)
As long as moderation doesn't become censorship or molassesey delay,
it's ok.
--
Pray for peace;
Bill
# Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M-312 Holmdel NJ
# "I can see all Southeast Asia, I can see El Salvador, ..."jet@karazm.math.uh.edu ("J. Eric Townsend") (03/02/91)
In article <1991Jan29.092504.1@rogue.llnl.gov> oberman@rogue.llnl.gov writes: >In article <15377@milton.u.washington.edu>, cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes: >For whatever reasons, I have never had a post rejected by Pat. Maybe we agree a I have -- Pat didn't like my grammatical style and use of gender-blurred pronouns. After a little back-and-forth, he used it anyway. -- J. Eric Townsend - jet@uh.edu - bitnet: jet@UHOU - vox: (713) 749-2120 Skate UNIX or bleed, boyo... (UNIX is a trademark of Bell Laboratories).