Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!snorkelwacker!spdcc!xylogics!world!bzs From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: misc.headlines.unitex moderator RESIGNS Message-ID: <1989Nov30.023429.11809@world.std.com> Date: 30 Nov 89 02:34:29 GMT References: <3708@ccnysci.UUCP> <2388@stl.stc.co.uk> <9739@zodiac.ADS.COM> <52644@looking.on.ca> Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die Lines: 67 In-Reply-To: waldron@newport.rutgers.edu's message of 28 Nov 89 16:13:16 GMT I'm probably a fool for even responding but...First, I don't know Patt Haring personally. I am the moderator of INFO-FUTURES (comp.society.futures) and Patt has contributed some unique items there, we've had some network contact, but that's it...that said... >Believe me, when she started to remove our names and credits from >UNITEX and replaced it with hers and refused to publish United >Nations articles and , in fact, was an outright censor on >articles she chose to censor, Dr. Waldron and I wanted to find >another moderator, then we found out what Patt knew all >along..... Censorship is something governments with police power do. At worst what Patt could have been doing is editing, the fact that you disapprove of her editorial decisions doesn't immediately make it "censorship". I doubt she can make laws prohibiting you from publishing elsewhere or even keep you off the USENET (apparently not!) I would think someone involved with international political issues and UN news would be a little more sensitive to a word like "censorship" and not use it for mere sensationalist effect. If Patt was eliding direct fund-raising requests then she was making a reasonable and responsible interpretation of USENET policies. The fact that the NSF has found your other activities admirable has no direct bearing on the policy involved. Although one can debate whether or not posting such requests for funding is strictly forbidden I suspect polling any number of system administrators would find a large plurality or even majority would have done the same thing. The fact that someone went through the messages and elided ones which may have violated the policy of the medium sounds like someone putting effort into the task, even if you disagreed with how that effort was aimed. Remember, it was Patt's system and Patt's USENET feed distributing this and Patt would have taken the heat for any breaches, including losing the system's network access entirely. I assume nothing stopped you from investing another $10K in a suitable computer system and a net feed and the salary of a person competent to run it and someone to post your messages. Hardly censorship, even if you can't afford the price of admission. There are a lot of things I can't afford either, but I hardly refer to that lack as censorship. The rest of your message really has the tone of a typical interpersonal flame with almost no information and lots of emotionality. In fact, you seem evasive about exactly what was being censored other than perhaps credentials. At any rate, this is not the right forum for this type of attack. You may even be right, but it's impossible to tell from your tirade and I doubt anyone listening can make a difference anyhow, so why bother? You might as well be shouting on a corner in Times Square. The end result is perhaps unfortunate but it hardly sounds impossible or even tragic. Just a set back. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com 1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs