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