Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cepu!ucla-cs!alex
From: alex@ucla-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group
Subject: Re: Removing net.flame
Message-ID: <6173@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 27-Jun-85 20:38:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.6173
Posted: Thu Jun 27 20:38:29 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Jun-85 03:07:36 EDT
References: <3892@alice.UUCP> <1818@amdcad.UUCP>
Reply-To: alex@ucla-cs.UUCP (Mud)
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 52
Xref: watmath net.news:3529 net.news.group:3201

Summary:

In article <1818@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes:
>
>Why don't we just take UCLA off the net? Seems that's where all the abusers
>are. Was it by coincidence that I just read a UCLA student was convicted of
>"breaking into a Dept of Defense computer network"?

Perhaps you who are net wizards will listen to a few comments from
one of the dynamic duo from UCLA who seem to have caused this mess:

(1) The followup line changing was stupid, but was well intentioned.
    It was in response to Sophie and Jeanette's double postings to
    net.women and net.flame.  I'd figured that they'd see net.auto
    and net.motss if they followed up to the flame and would therefore
    change it and stop double posting.  Obviously it didn't work.  I
    have apologized (twice now, by the way) and don't think it is to
    likely that it will happen again.

(2) In calling someone an abuser you really have to judge the context
    of their messages, as well as the content.  A posting to net.general
    critizing someone's sexual habits is quite possibly slander and is
    certainly abusive.  However, when the same posting is done in net.flame
    in response to a satirical posting, it should be reasonably clear that
    the posting is satirical and not offensive, especially when
    the person who it was directed to responded in kind.  Similarly,
    calling someone an ---hole on the net in response to their calling
    you an ---hole is quite possibly immature, but is probably not
    abusive.  How many net.flame users really take the insulting and
    name calling seriously?

(3) Be careful that you as a system administrator don't automatically
    assume a posting is offensive because it offends you PERSONALLY,
    especially when it is likely to be shown to you out of context.
    I just read a net.news posting saying that Ken Arndt is the
    only regular contributor worth reading.  I can think of plenty
    of people, myself not included, who find his postings absolute
    trash and very offensive.  Our personal mail (srt and I) is well
    in favor of our postings (and there have even been people who
    thought changing the followup lines was great) so there a many
    people who like them (as hard as that may be for you to believe).

(4) Finally, show some restraint.  How many of you bothered to check with
    us before ranting and raving about how abusive our postings are?  It
    is clear that many of you are simply looking for an excuse to get rid
    of newsgroups or opinions you don't like.  Many of you were pretty
    quick to judge a whole institution on one or two postings to net.flame.
    Our postings to other groups are useful contributions to the net.
    net.flame is supposed to be used for venting frustration and anger,
    and possibly providing comic relief, and not for providing
    professional knowledge to others.  Don't critize those who are using
    net.flame for its intended purpose.

Alex