Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.unix.bsd:12898 comp.os.386bsd.development:1400 comp.os.386bsd.bugs:1767 comp.os.386bsd.apps:640 comp.os.386bsd.questions:6681 comp.os.386bsd.misc:1438
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!agate!agate.berkeley.edu!cgd
From: cgd@eden.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Chris G. Demetriou)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.386bsd.development,comp.os.386bsd.bugs,comp.os.386bsd.apps,comp.os.386bsd.questions,comp.os.386bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Evidence to the moderators conflict-of-interest
Followup-To: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Date: 10 Nov 93 04:13:31
Organization: Kernel Hackers 'r' Us
Lines: 127
Message-ID: <CGD.93Nov10041331@eden.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
References: <jmonroyCG9v5u.K7D@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eden.cs.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jmonroy@netcom.com's message of Wed, 10 Nov 1993 10:44:17 GMT
[ sorry for the wide cross-posting; followups to c.o.3.misc -- cgd ]
In article <jmonroyCG9v5u.K7D@netcom.com>,
jmonroy@netcom.com (Inflatable Jesus) writes:
= This be it a fact,
= that you did receive article(s) from me, you must act duely
= in a timely fashion.
i must do *NO SUCH THING*. (although the duel thought is tempting. 8-)
= Further, not responding and posting other
= articles is in fact a misrepresentation that you are acting
= responsibly and without conflict.
BZZT, think again. how about "other articles received before yours?"
"oh yeah". and also think about the fact that in order to post 'yours'
i had to spend a good amount of time tracking the real versions down, etc.
= When original responding you did not
= say "ya or na"; you simple refused to answer.
you never asked whether or not i was going to post yours. i responded
as soon as i decided exactly what to do (and that *was* then).
= Ignoring
= articles after acknowledgement is a shunting of your
= duties with a visible conflict-of-interest.
no, it shows that i only have a limited amount of time to pursue
these things; as noted, it took a fair amount of time to hunt down
the most recent versions of the articles, add the headers, etc.
= >> i decided that since the intent of your posting was to get the
= >> FAQ on the newsgroup, i was going to:
= >> (1) get the FAQ from the news archives
= >> (2) repost it indicating:
= >> (a) that it was a repost
= >> (b) that you requested the repost, becaue there was
= >> no version available on the newsgroups, and
= >> because a version wasn't seen 'in the wings'
= >> (c) the complete headers of the original articles
= >>
= You neither implied nor mentioned this in any previous
= messages to me.
that's because that's what i decided after i finished reading
'your' postings this afternoon.
= >> the reasons for this:
= >> (1) it give proper attribution for the original postings,
= >> something which you failed to do
= >>
= Untrue. All articles were sent "as posted" to the "announce".
= I neither modified nor did I claim responsiblity for the
= articles.
you didn't include the original 'From:' line; i consider
that to be part of the attribution. as to whether or not you
modified them, i don't know, and it would have taken longer to
check than to get new versions.
= The articles are "self attributed" by the authors.
= I did not remove nor did I modify the original contents
= of the articles.
i didn't read the copies that you sent me. however, as i'm
sure people would agree, your recent behaviour has shown
that i cannot put much faith in anything that you do; you've
a vested interest in trying to 'unseat' me, though i don't
know what interest it is.
= >> note the header on this message (and those of the rest of the mail
= >> i've sent you). if you repost it, in whole or part without
= >> prior explicit permission from me, i will take it up with your
= >> sysadmins there at netcom. Note that this reply DOES NOT constitute
= >> any sort of approval for reposting.
= >>
= I'm afraid it does my friend. Laws concerning the
= recording of a two-way conversatin are already in place.
*chuckle* well, that's the last piece of mail of *yours* that i ever
reply to.
= Since you did decide to answer and you did decide to repost the
= FAQ for 386bsd yourself, you must now act in a timely fashion.
=
= Not acting in a timely fashion will plainly show your
= conflict-of-interst here. Ignoring my mail will also show a
= plain conflict-of-interst. It also shows that you are not
= acting responsibly as moderator of "announce".
=
= Further, I should expect that you will make a statement about this
= so you might consider putting a schedule to your action.
= Not doing so will show a conflict-of-interst on your part.
"hahahahahaha"
jesus:
some things which i advise you to consider:
(1) repeated behaviour in this fashion constitutes harrassment
in my book. i'm damned tempted to see if
postmaster@netcom.com agrees with me.
(2) it's quite obvious to me that you've no support in this
matter; if you did, i'd *consider* resigning. as it is,
you're just wasting my time.
(3) you'll have a *very* hard time forcibly replacing me as
moderator; it more or less just isn't done. I'd strongly
suggest that you *DO NOT* approve postings to .announce
yourself at any time in the future; that *will* get
your account shut off after a warning or two, if your
sysad is at all responsible. consider this a warning.
(4) i will *NOT* use capital letters unless i damn well feel
like it. (other readers: in private mail he made a
sarcastic comment that indicated that he thought
i should do so. 8-)
buzz off, and grow up.
cgd
--
chris g. demetriou cgd@cs.berkeley.edu
smarter than your average clam.