Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mstar!mstar.morningstar.com!bob From: bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: misc.headlines.unitex moderator RESIGNS Message-ID: Date: 29 Nov 89 16:27:16 GMT References: <11781@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: news@MorningStar.COM (USENET Administrator) Reply-To: bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) Organization: Morning Star Technologies Lines: 60 In-reply-to: waldron@newport.rutgers.edu's message of 29 Nov 89 00:12:14 GMT In article waldron@newport.rutgers.edu (James Waldron) writes: Other postings by Phil Hughes [fyl@ssc.UUCP], Rick Burgess [rick@locke.hs.washington.edu] and Bill Stewart [wcs@ho95c.att.com]... Some of their replies are posted at the end of this message. From: RICK@locke.hs.washington.edu Subject: Hello! I've heard some terrible news that Unitex is disolving... To: waldron@newport.rutgers.edu X-Vms-To: IN%"waldron@newport.rutgers.edu" Status: RO From hpubvwa!ssc!fyl@beaver.cs.washington.edu Thu Nov 16 16:44:14 1989 Subject: Unitex To: waldron@newport.rutgers.edu Date: Thu, 16 Nov 89 10:18:43 PST From: Phil Hughes X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL10] Status: RO From: wcs@ho95c.att.com (William Clare Stewart) To: waldron@newport.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: UNITEX & INTERNATIONAL NEWS Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism In-Reply-To: Organization: Conspiracy? What conspiracy? From the headers of the examples you provided, only one of these three appears to be a posting (in the Usenet sense of a public message), and the other two were private mail to you individually. Regardless of the rightness of your purpose, it's generally considered poor etiquette to post private mail without permission of the author, which was not evident in two of the messages you selected for examples. It's a good idea to learn the social structure and conventions of a group before working with them, or at least before claiming to operate within those conventions. This is an example of a minor area in which you might benefit from consultation with some more experienced person in the Usenet arena. The fundraising problem is another example, though of a somewhat more major and sensitive issue. I'm sad to see the UNITEX information stream cut off, and I'm sorry that you had an apparently-unpleasant falling-out with Patt Haring, but I'm glad she maintained the stance she held. That's just what she should have been doing in her position as moderator: providing your organization with an interface (technical/functional as well as social) to the Usenet. Since she did the Right Thing, and since any moderator who does the Right Thing will likely encounter the same conflict with the UNITEX organization, I regret to observe that m.h.u probably won't be successfully revived. (For those who wonder: No, I don't agree with the point of view of many of the articles that appeared in m.h.u - in fact, I strenuously disagreed with some of them, and with their being in that forum (so strongly that Patt may be surprised that I'm saying good things about her and m.h.u :-). But it was a Good Thing that the information was available. The availability of information is always good, and to be encouraged.) Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com