Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mailrus!umix!umich!mibte!ccd700!jim
From: jim@ccd700.UUCP (J. Sitek)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Now it Can Be Told
Message-ID: <149@ccd700.UUCP>
Date: 28 Mar 88 20:52:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Ford CCD, Dearborn Michigan
Lines: 74
Keywords: WARNING: Fairly long posting


I would like to take this opportunity to say "thanks" to those people
who participated, albeit unknowingly, in an experiment.  This 
experiment was designed to demonstrate how the people who complain
the loudest about some perceived infringement of their "rights" to
participate on Usenet, are the same people who have the least amount
of respect for the network structure, and the people who administer
it.  I say "perceived infringement" to point out that such people
often lash out without taking the time to determine how such action
will (or will not) affect them.  The lack of respect for both the 
system, and the administrators is usually demonstrated in two ways.
First, is the propensity for degenerating a rational discussion into
a "pissing contest".  In this case, facts and logical reasoning fall
off the table completely, replaced with every logical fallacy in the
book.  Second, this happens in any newsgroup, even those with very
explicitly stated ground rules, ie. news.admin.

In this case, I announced that I was dropping the talk and soc groups,
because they were consuming inordinate amounts of disk space, and the
content in these groups made it impossible to justify the time needed 
to administer them.  This was actually just a little less than honest.
In fact, these groups disappeared from my disk long ago.  Greg Laskin
took the time to investigate the potential implications of my actions.
He determined (correctly) that being a leaf node, dropping these groups
would have absolutely no effect on the network in general.  In fact, the
only consequence of these actions was to *reduce* volume in these 
groups by eliminating postings from this site.  Mr. Laskin further
stated that perhaps this action was representative of some sort of 
warning, which should not be ignored.  Bravo.

Other net.brethren, most notably C. J. Silverio, Matthew Weiner, and
Bob Webber chose a more fallacious approach.  By ignoring the facts as
they were presented, and resorting to attacking me personally, as well
as my place of employment, these remarkable gentlemen successfully 
demonstrated the following:

	They lack the faculties to determine the implications of my 
	actions, which for them were non-existent.  This actually goes
	a little deeper as the implications were determined for them.
	One can only conclude that the issues were of little importance
	to them.  

	They either fail to understand the purpose of news.admin, or
	choose to ignore it.  Since a description of each newsgroup is
	furnished as part of the news software, one must conclude that
	they chose to violate the ground rules of this group.

	By viciously attacking someone whom they have never met, simply
	because this person dares to hold opinions which differ from 
	theirs, they prove that concepts such as freedom of speech, and
	personal liberty have no meaning to them.

What does all of this mean?  For me, this proves that these individuals
have absolutely no respect for this network, the people who maintain it,
or the principles on which it was founded.  They view it as a diversion,
an escape from the humdrum reality of everyday life.  I imagine that 
they really don't view the other people on this network as being real,
but, mere apparitions created by imagined "net gurus" somewhere, put
here to provide them with a relief valve.  Well guys, we *are* real
people.  We have real feelings, ideas, and responsibilities.  We may
not always look, act or think the way you would want us to, but, I was
under the impression that this was what this network, and this country
was all about.  By showing us how you *choose* to portray yourselves, 
you provide a somber reminder that intolerance, ethical egoism, and pure
hatred are alive and well in America. 

Thanks very much for the dose of reality.

To those who supported me via Email, thank you, really.

Jim Sitek	

PS. Don't bother following up.  You have provided more than enough
    data already.