Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.misc:5417 comp.unix.bsd:16189 comp.sys.novell:67983
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!uwm.edu!news.alpha.net!news.mathworks.com!uhog.mit.edu!news.mtholyoke.edu!nntp.et.byu.edu!news.byu.edu!hamblin.math.byu.edu!park.uvsc.edu!usenet
From: Terry Lambert <terry@cs.weber.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd,comp.sys.novell
Subject: Re: Put the Cannons Away: Vote YES on newsgroup reformation.
Date: 16 Feb 1995 17:09:55 GMT
Organization: Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <3i00t3$2u3@park.uvsc.edu>
References: <D3o5Ew.8x2@nbn.com> <3hdu9u$rhm@park.uvsc.edu> <3hegvm$plp@agate.berkeley.edu> <hm.792410152@hcswork.hcs.de> <3hhlk1$fc9@agate.berkeley.edu> <3hjmsn$p7b@park.uvsc.edu> <kaleb.792586335@fedora.x.org> <3ho9kj$p9@park.uvsc.edu> <kaleb.792707623@exalt> <3hs0f1$crd@park.uvsc.edu> <kaleb.792846319@fedora.x.org> <3htgri$jbc@park.uvsc.edu> <kaleb.792882548@exalt>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com
kaleb@x.org (Kaleb KEITHLEY) wrote:
1) I think that you have not noted the intentional distinction
I made between "you", the group of people electioneering for
"yes" votes and the accusatory "you" (spelled "*YOU*" in the
posting).
Please reread the post in that light, and if you still
wish to discuss it, I will be happy to accomodate you in
email.
2) After my statement "Quit electioneering and start counting
votes", you stated that I did not understand the process.
I understand the process well enough to know that this
discussion properly belonged in the RFD stage (I stated
my opinion at that time). What is going on here is the
functional equivalent of political debating 50 feet from
the polls on election night. The problem is that a real
political party responded to a statement by the anarchist
party, and now the other party is put in the position of
*having* to debate.
Yes, a post-RFD debate may change the outcome of the vote.
Jesus did not start this debate, the people responding
directly to him did. I admit your right to debate in
light of an existing debate in progress. I also suggest
ending it.
I will no longer debate the desirability of one vote
outcome over another. This is not an acknowledgement
of any kind; it is a refusal to debate.
3) One new item that has come to light in this process that
was not clear to me before (and perhaps this is my own
fault) is that you effectively stated that you were
personally bullied into the choice of names by a shadow
organization you call "The Usenet Cabal". For this to
be true there must have been a significant abuse of
process, perhaps including abuse of the position of news
group moderator.
Personally, I have a hard time buying this, and others I
have talked to in person and in email also have a hard
time buying this. Not only that such a group could exist
and wield the power you claim, but that as adamantly as
you have held on to this thread, it is highly unlikely
that you would have humbly submitted to their ruling.
I would like proof of this charge. For instance, the
email refusing you the right to post a properly formulated
RFD, regardless of content. According to the established
bylaws, this is not an allowable action, since the
"existing heirarchy" requirement is satisfied not only by
the existance of comp.os.386bsd.*, but also by numerous
comp.os.* groups,including but not limited to comp.os.msdos,
comp.os.os2, and comp.os.linux.
This is a matter I will *not* let drop without proof. If
you want to fight "The Usenet Cabal", identify it and I
am your ally, don't identify it and I am your foe.
Terry Lambert
terry@cs.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.