Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:13122 comp.binaries.ibm.pc:547 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!elroy!spl1!laidbak!guardian From: guardian@laidbak.UUCP (Harry Skelton) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.binaries.ibm.pc Subject: Re: Moderation of comp.binaries.ibm.pc Message-ID: <1371@laidbak.UUCP> Date: 11 Mar 88 22:36:01 GMT References: <2133@polya.STANFORD.EDU> Reply-To: bear@ugh.UUCP (Bear Skelton UUPC-remote) Organization: Bear Necessities Lines: 127 Keywords: Nuf'Said! Summary: I Told you so.... The following is a message that was between me and another guy. I'd thought it would clear the air! ----- [Begin] Date: Mon, 1 Feb 88 17:32:07 PST From: laidbak!ihnp4!ucbvax!janus.berkeley.edu!davidg (David Gaertner) To: laidbak!guardian Subject: Re: where's the moderator?!? >Date: Sun, 24 Jan 88 22:29:14 CST >From: Harry Skelton(E) I remember that name from somewhere... >To: cbosgd!janus!davidg >Subject: Re: where's the moderator?!? >Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc >In-Reply-To: <22715@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> >Organization: LAI Chicago > >Basiclly Dave, I fell off the face of the earth. I was released from LAI >and now looking for better futures. I did post a moderation of the group but >most sites ignored my posting and ended up with lots of confusion. I got >tired of mailing everyone and his mother that I was trying to control the >group but NO...such a**holes of the Unix realm felt that I was being a bit >too controling, to the point that I would verify software and check for trojans >and do things like debug the code to see if it was hacked. For a group that >prides itself to be protective of the software it creates, and scorns anyone >that has a version of software less that .00000001 from the latest version, I >see a lot of spoiled children at computer terminals. (And stupid children who like to see their name in lights.) This is extremely true. Have you taken it up with the net admin people? Since you've been "at rest", there's been a couple of real old versions of programs posted that drew garbage complaint postings, a ton of "Please repost xxx" and "I downloaded the program, but it won't run. What is wrong with it?" postings, etc... That's what a moderator is there for... >This is not to flame you but I hoped to protect everyone from law suites and >problems with software before hand. I talked to AT&T, LAI and other Co.'s that >had problems with a moderator of 'PC' software that was to be transmitted over >AT&T computers and such, and the word from the mount was to be verry careful. >Both AT&T and LAI got me in meetings that lasted hours and explained to me that >USENET and Unix in general was not a PC BBS playground for hackers and they had >lawers explain problems with the way I would handle it. No flame was even detected by me. I understand the position you are in. I hate lawyers... (my parents are lawyers, but still...) >Basiclly I got fed up with the lot and said 'shutdown'. Let's see them handle >the UofX's and other PC hackers downloading software in mass quantities. Your strategy is working - there are many people that agree that you need to come back. Now try to take advantage of that. >In short this is what I will still offer if everyone would shut up and give me >a sporting chance: > >TOTALLY verified software! No trojans and if the software causes major >problems then I can pass the signed sheet to the co. that is suffering and >they can sue the living daylights out of the guy. What signed sheet? And why does AT&T have a problem with this? Shouldn't all PD software come with a "no warranty is expressed or implied"-type message? >Updates to the software. I will spend my $$$ to get updates that can be >posted and of course, verified. > >MS-DOS upgrades - I was working on a new version of Dos that would be like >a BSD system and would be MKS compatable. Due to my misfortune with LAI >I have to wait till I get settled before I continue it. BDos 2.0 (4.0 ms >equiv.). (1.0 is beta and my current version, still have problem with >progs that were running under 1.0 but I may scratch my code and say that >you must be 3.1 compat to run under my dos.) Sounds great! Can I help you out with writing or testing this one? I've not gotten used to the ksh in MKS. I want my csh! >Lots of other stuff. > >Again, keep in mind that I was being nice about the whole thing but MaBell >and LAI had massive attacks of the 'Software Arrest' and really put some >BIG presure on me to not moderatate the PC binaries. Fuck 'em. >I hope that no other moderator has as much problems as I have with being >a moderator. Not from the point of the net flaming you but having your >boss and thensome take a stab at you. I hope so, too. >The message above is my own and does not reflect LAI or AT&T options in >anyway. I thank LAI for their support in this matter and thumb my nose >at AT&T. Good Luck, and keep me posted on how things are going with moderation and your BSD. David Gaertner ---- [end ] Now mind you, I was working for LAI, which was and still is a great company to work for. I feel LAI took a stand as they should have but I received A LOT of flack from employees of LAI (not management) and from AT&T in general. Now that I have a full blown UUPC (my version w/mailer, news, uucp, uuto, etc...) I can begin where I left off. The votes are up to you.... P.S. The address from which this is posted is about to change in about two days so e-mail may not work! @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@ @@ @@@@ :@@@@@ :@@@@@ :@@@@@@:::@@@ :@@@@@@@ :@@ :@@@@ :@@@@@ :@@@@@ :@@@@@@ :@@@ :@@@@@@@ :@@ :@@@@ :@@@@@ :@@@@@ :@@@@@@ ::: :@@@@@@@ :@@ :@@@@ Harry "Bear" Skelton :@@@@@ :@@@@@ :@@@@@@ @@@@@@ :@@@@@@@@@@@@ :@@@@ Dalton, Georgia, USA :@@@@@ :@@@@@ :@@@@@@:@@@@@@ :@@@@@@@:::@@ :@@@@ 30720 :@@@@@@@@@@@@@ :@@@@@@:::@@: :@@@@@@@ :@@ :@@@@ ...!ugh!bear ::@@@@@@@@@@@@ :@@@@@@ :@@ :@@@@@@@ :@@ :::: (no Toto...I'm not on ::@@@@@@@@:@@ :@@@@@@@@@ :@@@@@@@ :@@ @@@@ the maps yet.......) ::::::::: :: :::::::: :::::: :: ::::