sjackson@pro-smof.cts.com (Steve Jackson) (02/18/91)
Since I'm not a telecom reader (and may never be now - sigh) I
have no opinion on the matter, other than what I've seen posted here.
If Pat Townsend has been accurately represented, I probably
disagree with a lot of his opinions. Nevertheless, he's entitled to them.
And I feel that a moderator can legitimately make editorial comments!
The objections that I saw here seemed very much like personal
flamage: "I don't like his opinions, and he's a prominent person, so
his evil opinions are a threat to me personally, so he must be a wicked
jerk." Pretty lame chain of logic!
Forging headers, etc., and blaming it on the wicked fascist
baby-eating moderator, is hypocritical in the extreme. That's not
net.freedom; that's vandalism.
The net may now have lost a service which was valuable to many.
It does sound to me as though Pat overreacted - but it's tragic to work
hard on a project and have it vandalized, and be subject to personal
attacks, because someone disagreed with your personal opinions. Speech
is free, but only for the politically correct, eh?
The Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) is
hosting a roundtable meeting in Washington next week. One of the chief
meta-subjects will be "How should the providers of net services interact
with their users?" This will be an interesting case study. I will be
there, and I'll be sure to bring it up, unless someone better-informed
beats me to it!
Apologies for the long post. But look! No trash.sig!cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (02/19/91)
You missed the point of the criticisms. Vandalizing aside, what most critics had to say about comp.dcom.telecom was that operating a newsgroup is a rare privilege, especially one as important and central to our concerns as telecommunications; and that the moderator was trivializing this privilege with his often off-the-mark commentary. The subsequent flame-on by the moderator and the responses posted here and elsewhere had little to do with the substance of the issue. Bob Jacobson
learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) (02/19/91)
In article <7618@crash.cts.com> Steve Jackson writes: > The net may now have lost a service which was valuable to many. Actually, the service is pretty much available for the asking, simply via mail instead of a "newsgroup." >Speech is free, but only for the politically correct, eh? Actually, speech is free, but so is some semblence of responsibility for the things one says and supports. Patrick's rights haven't been called into question here. But anyone can be called to account for the things they say, and regularly are. Good, bad, or indifferent, this is the nature of the beast we call usenet. I am unconcerned about Patrick's response to the confrontation. He has a right to do exactly as he pleases. My personal opinion has not been altered one bit concerning anyone involved in the microflamefest. In short, a few pushed Patrick's buttons, and on cue, he exploded. Of course, there were other explosions before Patrick became moderator of the Usenet group(s). One had to do with a system attempting to expand BBSing in the public library sphere, and another with FIDO management in some form or another. Those of us to whom the regional bbs scene has been near and dear as a source of information and data for some time have had the pleasure of witnessing Patrick's wrath before. In short, new business for some of you is simply a continuation of old business for others of us. This is not to say that when given his head, he doesn't do an excellent job. But still, there is always room for criticism just as there is always room for improvement.....for all of us. Bill Vajk
ccplumb@rose.uwaterloo.ca (Colin Plumb) (02/20/91)
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) wrote: > >You missed the point of the criticisms. Vandalizing aside, what most >critics had to say about comp.dcom.telecom was that operating a newsgroup >is a rare privilege, Privilege is, I submit, not an apropriate word. Moderating a busy newsgroup is a lot of work, the pay is lousy, and so are the holidays. *I* certainly wouldn't want the job. Anyone who can keep news flowing though a moderated newsgroup for a few months has my greatest respect. To those who aspire to the power, I say, please try. I don't believe there's any surplus of competent moderators on the net. If you want your own newsgroup to play with, just find enough material to get a few discussions rolling, create alt.foo.bar with yourself as moderator, and post an announcement to related groups elsewhere. Then cope with about three dozen mail messages asking if you can set up a parallel mailing list, as their sites don't get alt.*. Congratulations; you now have the opportunity to earn the respect of the net. -- -Colin