Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site sjuvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cadre!psuvax1!burdvax!sjuvax!jss From: jss@sjuvax.UUCP (J. Shapiro) Newsgroups: net.news Subject: Re: Re: net.flame and ucla-cs, more comments Message-ID: <1185@sjuvax.UUCP> Date: Mon, 1-Jul-85 01:35:18 EDT Article-I.D.: sjuvax.1185 Posted: Mon Jul 1 01:35:18 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 04:16:33 EDT References: <2906@nsc.UUCP> <913@daemon.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Haverford College, Haverford, Pa. Lines: 40 Alex @ UCLA-CS posted an article which brings to the fore a salient point: Many of the people who are speaking of removing net.flame did not consult with ALEX or Scott in an effort to find out why or wherefores. They simply flamed, which to my mind makes them as guilty as Scot and Alex (IF they are). Chuqi himself seems to have been guilty of this to some degree, but was enough of a mensch to admit that after speaking to Alex he feels he may have been hasty. How many of the rest of you have bothered to contact these people? I do not wish to underrate the potential problems of net.flame. I personally concluded that it served no real value 5 years ago. I would not miss it. I feel, however, that I am not out of line to INSIST that those of you who are using Alex and Scott as excuses for venting frustration admit this. If we are to remove a newsgroup - ANY newsgroup - let it not be due to misunderstanding or lack of communication WITH THE APPROPRIATE PEOPLE. I propose that when there is a problem with an individual's postings, the first person to contact is that individual. If the individual feels they behaved reasonably, and receives a reasonable amount of mail, it may be worth their while to post to the appropriate group a summary of what happened and what the reasoning was. If this does not bring a resolution of the problem, discuss it on the net. If the general concensus is that some censure is in order, send mail to the SA. But please, please, let us not make the mistake of hiding our reasons for doing things behind a smoke screen. This would indeed lead to censorship of the worst variety. I do not believe that Chuqi has been doing this. I do believe that many others have, and I think they are dead wrong. To reiterate: net.flame can go - I won't miss it. Scott and Alex may or may not be a problem. If either one is a problem, he is a problem entirely separate from the problem of the continued existence of net.flame. Jon Shapiro Haverford College