Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 Fluke 8/7/84; site fluke.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!microsoft!fluke!moriarty From: moriarty@fluke.UUCP (Jeff Meyer) Newsgroups: net.news Subject: Re: Re: Welcome to Usenet 1984 (Chuq's reply) Message-ID: <1515@vax2.fluke.UUCP> Date: Sun, 28-Oct-84 18:14:07 EST Article-I.D.: vax2.1515 Posted: Sun Oct 28 18:14:07 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 30-Oct-84 01:12:20 EST References: <1622@nsc.UUCP> <229@bragvax.UUCP> <1708@nsc.UUCP> Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Everett, WA Lines: 113 *Sigh* I really intended not to get involved in this rapidly expanding age of mod & net arguments (like I said before, I don't mind mod groups). But there are some matters brought up in Chuq's last letter that I very strongly disagree with, and don't see any way of ignoring :-). Chuq uses a two-point argument; the first I can understand, and agree with, to a degree, and the second I have some major arguments with. > This has been standard procedure for me for a long time. If someone > does something wrong on the net, I talk to them about it. If they > aren't willing to correct their actions and I think it is neccessary I > will contact the usenet coordinator about the situation and let them > know that someone on their site is creating problems. I've had to go to > this length three or four times this year. > Yes, I can understand someone who was tossing out thousands of articles, completely full of foul-mouthing or personal attacks, and unwilling to quit a reason to call in some help -- but let it be the USENET COORDINATOR at the site! That is their job, and that is what they are there for. What I think I, and others who read Chuq's first article didn't like was that it sounded as if he had gone to William's boss or a DEC executive. Well, why wouldn't that be a good idea, you ask (rhetorically, I presume)? Glad you asked. Here we come to the problem of what is "garbage"... obviously, someone doing massive foulmouthing on the net has little sympathy going for them. But what about a borderline case, where the poster may be spouting some wild ideas, or even sane ideas (there is a fine line between the two, and the line is VERY individual) which many people disagree with (lets say in a polite (by net standards :-) ) manner). Someone who doesn't like those ideas calls the Fromwitz Co. public affair officer, says Joe Blow is posting stupid religious/political/silly articles on the net. Said officer immediately puts a halt to posting by said user, as officer's job is mainly to worry about public image, and not net freedom of expression. This probably also goes down as a black mark on user's personal record. Now, what if the user were YOU, and someone who didn't like what YOU wrote calls in? I think you see my point. Going over heads is a nasty practice; when discourse doesn't work, I strongly suggest calling the coordinator. Again, I agree that there are some (a very, very few (thankfully)) who reasoning won't work with, and whose content is so completely crap that something above mail posting must be done. But let's not get carried away. If I understand correctly, Chuq called the Usenet site administrator, which seems to me to be the logic approach (I didn't get any letters from Williams, so I don't think I've got the ability or right to judge him). > 2) Like it or not, folks, every disclaimer in the world will not keep > you from generating impressions of your company to the other people on > the net. One person like Mr. Williams can do enough damage to make sure > that everyone thinks that Dec is a rotten group of people, when only a > small percentage of the people at Dec are rotten (*grin* a VERY small > percent, Dec friends...). The posters at a site are what the net views > as representative of that site, and I would use what I know of the > people on the net at a site in deciding whether I want to work there. Bogus. Totally bogus. I doubt very strongly that the net has gained the impression that all DEC people are "a rotten group of people" from Mr. Williams letter. Why? Because I believe (perhaps naively) that the majority of the people on the net are intelligent people. I don't judge the atmosphere or caliber of a company on one individual's posting; I don't believe any thinking person would. I CERTAINLY would use many other factors than postings before deciding whether to work there or not. Of course, there will always be people who will ignore an implicit or explicit disclaimer. I can't alter the fact, just as I cannot alter bigotry or prejudice, except in myself. But if I was to second-guess my readership, I would end up not printing anything which might offend those with the most serious or sensitive of temperment. It is destructive to those who read your work; it is destructive to the principle of communication of ideas; and most importantly, it is destructive to yourself, because you are limiting yourself for writing what you believe in. Of course, Chuq, one should try to keep a reasonable tone in one's notes (unless it's in net.flame); it not only gives others a good impression of your company, it gives them a good impression of YOU! But don't use the excuse that you're screwing up the company's rep -- if one runs a filter through all correspondence, one ends up with a bland concoction which is of little use to anyone. > 3) Contrary to some people's opinions, Usenet is not a right, it is a > priviledge. With priviledge comes responsibility. Where have I heard that before? Spider-Man? (No, no, that's "with great power comes great responsibility" :-) ). Absolutely correct -- it's rather like driving. But one of the things which makes it a privilege to post to this group is the freedom of ideas, and the conflicts of opinion. I can understand and agree with Chuq's actions in this case -- it sounds as if it is a very clear-cut, definitive case of someone really "misusing" the net -- posting abuse and personal attacks, which is definitely not something netnews was built for. What I wish to underline is 1) how to deal with someone who has crossed the line (talking via mail, and then a complaint to the Usenet site administrator, not someone who is responsible for this person's job, or higher up in the company that the person); and 2) (and more importantly) remember that this type of poster is RARE -- think before you take step #2. This is not just someone who you disagree with (even violently) -- this is someone who is being constantly abusive on the net (and not in net.flame -- it's de rigeur (sp?) there...). I just don't want to see people banged off the net just for being in opposition to the majority, or due to an over-zealous administrator who views the person as a danger. One unc!tim is enough. Oh, on a side note, is Bistromatics like Biometrics? Or what? "DANGER is my BUSINESS" Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc. UUCP: {cornell,decvax,ihnp4,sdcsvax,tektronix,utcsrgv}!uw-beaver \ {allegra,gatech!sb1,hplabs!lbl-csam,decwrl!sun,ssc-vax} -- !fluke!moriarty ARPA: fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA