Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!brandx.rutgers.edu!webber
From: webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.misc,news.stargate,news.sysadmin,news.admin
Subject: Re: Spaf Pro-vote / Plea for Order
Message-ID: <273@brandx.rutgers.edu>
Date: Wed, 1-Jul-87 08:51:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: brandx.273
Posted: Wed Jul  1 08:51:14 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 2-Jul-87 03:54:22 EDT
References: <266@brandx.rutgers.edu> <15982@gatech.gatech.edu> <6948@shemp.UCLA.EDU>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 35
Keywords: Coherent Rules, Exponential Flaming
Summary: generic reply to what i have seen alot in my mail
Xref: mnetor news.groups:1122 news.misc:659 news.stargate:212 news.sysadmin:256 news.admin:578

In article <6948@shemp.UCLA.EDU>, dgreen@CS.UCLA.EDU writes:
> In article <15982@gatech.gatech.edu> spaf@gatech.UUCP (Gene Spafford) writes:
> 
> >So here's the offer:  send me
> >mail if you think I'm doing a rotten job at what I'm doing and/or you
> >think the net is worse off under the current organization.  
> 
> I'll throw in my vote that you are doing a good job under trying 
> circumstances.  ....

Glad someone finally responded to the net.  For the record, I view
each of these messages as clear support for the statement in my
original net ombudsman message to the effect that `spaf has done alot
of good for the net'.

I must really thank spaf for putting me on the cc's of all these
messages.  It has allowed me to personally reply to a number of people
who would not ordinarily have bothered to speak with me.  Of course,
less he think that I am saying anything bad about him behind his back,
I have made sure he was on the cc of all my replies.  Please keep them
coming. 
 
> It really is time for a USENET constitution, or at least a set of clearly
> specified rules.  Otherwise this flaming stuff just keeps getting bigger.

Clearly.  Definitely. I hope the new net ombudsman (weemba@berkeley.edu)
take the addressing of this matter as a high priority item.

>I'm confident that a set of coherent rules WILL be created eventually, because
> events will force them to be.  The question is whether it will be now, when

Hmmm.  How do you stand on balanced budget ammendments?


----- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)