Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucsfcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!arnold
From: arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: c*nc*l <148@psueea.UUCP> and many others
Message-ID: <704@ucsfcgl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-Nov-85 21:32:40 EST
Article-I.D.: ucsfcgl.704
Posted: Fri Nov 15 21:32:40 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 16-Nov-85 20:56:20 EST
References: <x148@psueea.UUCP> <d39@utastro.UUCP> <134@desint.UUCP> <5667@amdcad.UUCP> <386@wuphys.UUCP> <721@ecsvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold)
Distribution: net
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab
Lines: 50

Bennett E. Todd III writes:
>and Ken Arnold (arnold@ucsfcgl) stated:
>>How do you know?  Maybe the articles that were being deleted were the
>>kind *you* think belong on net.sources.  Did you see them before they
>>were cancelled?
>>
>>If the person doing it would step forward, I'd favor cutting of their
>>net privileges.  Of course, that's what I favor anyway...
>
>This isn't a straightforward question. According to conventions of
>proper, responsible behavior on USENET, Ken is justified in his
>vehement response. If people behaved properly and responsibly, then
>all would be well. ...  I am inclined to assume that whoever decided
>to censor net.sources simply cancelled discussions taking place there;
>I don't think (s)he would be inclined to cancel sources, because I
>don't see this as vandalism. I have gotten a look at quite a few of
>the articles that were clobbered, and they are all completely
>inappropriate for net.sources. Inasmuch as there is NO way to get the
>mob of jabbering idiots to behave themselves, or to approve any
>mechanism of enforcement, I applaud the actions of whoever it was
>originating the Cancel messages -- and I sincerely wish (s)he would
>resume, as net.sources has resumed being an awful mess.  When a
>society is unable to control a destructive abuse, I approve of
>responsible individuals taking the law into their own hands.

I, too, approve of *responsible* citizens taking the law into their
own hands.  Of course, I consider myself the only competent judge
of who is responsible, and you probably think the same way.  Your
assumption that whoever was doing this wouldn't cancel sources because
*you* don't see them as vandalism is hardly the point.  The question
is really what this self-appointed "responsible citizen" considers
vandalism -- since you (presumably) are not this person, your opinions
are not governing the cancellations.

Taking the law into your own hands is really only responsible if
it is done *publicly*.  oliveb!facist, in order to be acting
responsibly, would have had to have posted something like "I
am tired of junk in net.sources, and since people aren't cutting
it out, I am going to do something about it which I regret, which
is canceling articles which are not sources, but are discussion of
sources.  If you don't like it, I'm sorry, but some brakes need to
be put on."  Then I (and you) would know what there criteria were,
and could support him (which I probably would have, reluctantly).

Sneaking around like a thief and trying to hide what you are doing
and who you are is cowardly, irresponsible, and disrespectful of
the rule-abiding people (like you and I) on the net.  Need I repeat
that two wrongs don't make a right?  Cheez....

		Ken Arnold