newsgroup reorg
ted jardine
>I wrote a message to rick@seismo about the reorg. Here was his reply:
>
>>From glacier!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!hao!seismo!rick Sat Aug 30 10:33:59 1986
>>Date: Fri, 29 Aug 86 23:22:30 EDT
>>...
>>Subject: Re: Newsgroup reorg
>>
>>You are, of course, free to drop off the network.
>>You certainly aren't doing ME a favor by "passing the shit along".
>>Start a mailing list if its that important.
>
>Great attitude, huh?
This is indeed a most repugnant attitude. I am posting this follow-up to ask
two questions, both of Mr. Rick Adams and the readership of Usenet.
1. By what authority does Mr. Adams attempt to run this
network with such a heavy hand? Arpanet is owned by
DOD, but Usenet is not owned by anyone.
2. Do the readers of the net really want to permit what
is tantamount to censorship of legitimate, civil
communication? If it happens to net.rec.skydive, it
can also happen to anyone else's group.
I would like to politely invite Mr. Rick Adams to back way off. I think
that he has taken his "job" far too seriously, and is in need of a nice
long rest. It is he who should 'drop off the network', not any of us.
(Cogent mail accepted; flames to /dev/null).
TJ {With Amazing Grace} The Piper
(aka Ted Jardine) CFI-ASME/I
Boeing Knowledge Based Systems Center
...uw-beaver!uw-june!bcsaic!ted
Casey Leedom
>In article <2...@bridge2.UUCP> p...@bridge2.UUCP (Paul V. Fries) writes:
>>I wrote a message to rick@seismo about the reorg. Here was his reply:
>>
>>>From glacier!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!hao!seismo!rick Sat Aug 30 10:33:59 1986
>>>Date: Fri, 29 Aug 86 23:22:30 EDT
>>>
>>> [curt letter from Rick Adams omitted for brevity by Casey Leedom]
>>
>>Great attitude, huh?
>
>This is indeed a most repugnant attitude. [more flamage directed at Rick
>Adams by Ted Jardine also omitted for brevity by Casey Leedom]
I'm sorry to have included even that much. Triple indented inclusions are
not my favorite reading form. However, I wanted to make two points:
1:
I notice that while Paul Fries was quite willing to quote Rick's reply,
Paul did *not* quote his own letter to Rick. I'm not especially interested
in seeing that letter, I just want to point out that flaming Rick for his
"attitude" without seeing what provoked his response is foolhardy. Without
that context we don't know *what* Paul said to Rick. Think about it.
2:
The flames from Ted Jardine directed towards Rick that I omitted
questioned Rick's "authority ... [to] run this network with such a heavy
hand", accused him of censorship, and ended with:
>I would like to politely invite Mr. Rick Adams to back way off. I think
>that he has taken his "job" far too seriously, and is in need of a nice
>long rest. It is he who should 'drop off the network', not any of us.
>(Cogent mail accepted; flames to /dev/null).
Uhmmm, ... how can one say this delicately? Well, let me put it *this*
way: The day Rick "drops off the network" will be a very sad day, a day we
will all feel a long while for its loss. Rick has done more for this "net"
and its software than most. I don't think we want to be "inviting him to
leave".
I suggest that we stop this here and simply let Rick have bad days like
any of the rest of us. After all, when was the last time any of you snapped
at someone who was pestering you while you were trying to get work done?
Whether rightly or wrongly?
--
Leith (Casey) Leedom lll-crg.arpa!csustan!casey
Computer Science Department work: (209) 667-3185
California State University, Stanislaus home: (209) 634-2775
Turlock, CA 95380
p...@bridge2.uucp
To: glacier!decwrl!amdcad!lll-crg!lll-lcc!csustan!casey
Subject: Re: newsgroup reorg
References: <2...@bridge2.UUCP> <6...@bcsaic.UUCP>, <1...@csustan.UUCP>
Re your net response...
In the original mail, I stated that the net.rec.skydive group required
little storage and/or transmission time, that we move all the s**t that
we do not read, and that the possible benefits to those who are *interested*
in or *involved* with skydiving seemed, to me, to be worth what little burden
the group created. I asked that the group be left in its present condition.
(By the way, the original letter was hardly longer that this paragraph,
so the paraphrasing could not have lost much.)
You have seen the response. I found it offensive and frustrating. The
network seems not to be very user oriented at all. I have found the group
(i.e. net.rec.skydive) to be a valuable communications tool, with a better
signal-to-noise ratio than most of the groups I read. Yet, we will lose
it for no good reason. *Its* loss is what will sadden me.