Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.misc:5415 comp.unix.bsd:16187 comp.sys.novell:67976 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!newshost.marcam.com!news.mathworks.com!news2.near.net!public.x.org!kaleb From: kaleb@x.org (Kaleb KEITHLEY) 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 95 19:50:20 GMT Organization: X Consortium Inc. Lines: 68 Message-ID: <kaleb.792964220@exalt> 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> <3i00t3$2u3@park.uvsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: exalt.x.org X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #5 Terry Lambert <terry@cs.weber.edu> writes: >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. Sorry, got better things to do with my time. >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). That's not what I said at all. I said you don't understand the process if you think that I'm counting the votes. >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. Good for you. I personnally have a hard time believing that you and Peter Da Silva can't accept what I have said as a statement of fact. Funny how you would presume to know better than I what the Usenet group-advice-gurus said to me. > 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. Sorry, I don't keep old mail around for three months in anticipation of needing to prove something to the Terry Lamberts of the world. > 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. Guess you're going to have to settle for foe. I think that's too bad really, but you seem to have made up your mind. -- Kaleb KEITHLEY