Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!csustan!casey
From: casey@csustan.UUCP (Casey Leedom)
Newsgroups: net.rec.skydive,net.news
Subject: Re: newsgroup reorg
Message-ID: <157@csustan.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 7-Sep-86 23:03:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: csustan.157
Posted: Sun Sep  7 23:03:41 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 8-Sep-86 06:03:08 EDT
References: <216@bridge2.UUCP> <676@bcsaic.UUCP>
Reply-To: casey@csustan.UUCP (Casey Leedom)
Followup-To: net.news
Distribution: net
Organization: Turkey Tech; Turlock, CA
Lines: 50
Keywords: Usenet reorganization
Summary: Don't jump to conclusions too rapidly about Rick Adams' "attitude"
Xref: mnetor net.rec.skydive:272 net.news:2020

In article <676@bcsaic.UUCP> ted@bcsaic.UUCP (ted jardine) writes:
>In article <216@bridge2.UUCP> pvf@bridge2.UUCP (Paul V. Fries) writes:
>>I wrote a message to rick@seismo about the reorg.  Here was his reply:
>>
>>>From glacier!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!hao!seismo!rick Sat Aug 30 10:33:59 1986
>>>Date: Fri, 29 Aug 86 23:22:30 EDT
>>>Subject: Re: Newsgroup reorg
>>>
>>> [curt letter from Rick Adams omitted for brevity by Casey Leedom]
>>
>>Great attitude, huh?  
>
>This is indeed a most repugnant attitude.  [more flamage directed at Rick
>Adams by Ted Jardine also omitted for brevity by Casey Leedom]

  I'm sorry to have included even that much.  Triple indented inclusions are
not my favorite reading form.  However, I wanted to make two points:

1:
  I notice that while Paul Fries was quite willing to quote Rick's reply,
Paul did *not* quote his own letter to Rick.  I'm not especially interested
in seeing that letter, I just want to point out that flaming Rick for his
"attitude" without seeing what provoked his response is foolhardy.  Without
that context we don't know *what* Paul said to Rick.  Think about it.

2:
  The flames from Ted Jardine directed towards Rick that I omitted
questioned Rick's "authority ... [to] run this network with such a heavy
hand", accused him of censorship, and ended with:

>I would like to politely invite Mr. Rick Adams to back way off.  I think
>that he has taken his "job" far too seriously, and is in need of a nice
>long rest.  It is he who should 'drop off the network', not any of us.
>(Cogent mail accepted; flames to /dev/null).

  Uhmmm, ... how can one say this delicately?  Well, let me put it *this*
way: The day Rick "drops off the network" will be a very sad day, a day we
will all feel a long while for its loss.  Rick has done more for this "net"
and its software than most.  I don't think we want to be "inviting him to
leave".

  I suggest that we stop this here and simply let Rick have bad days like
any of the rest of us.  After all, when was the last time any of you snapped
at someone who was pestering you while you were trying to get work done?
Whether rightly or wrongly?
-- 
Leith (Casey) Leedom				lll-crg.arpa!csustan!casey
Computer Science Department			work: (209) 667-3185
California State University, Stanislaus		home: (209) 634-2775
Turlock, CA  95380