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