🚀 go-pugleaf

>In article <216@bridge2.UUCP> pvf@bridge2.UUCP (Paul V. Fries) writes:
>>I wrote a message to rick@seismo about the reorg.  Here was his reply:

[Rather `strongly worded' reply; see <216@bridge2.UUCP> or
<676@bcsaic.UUCP> for the text.]

In article <676@bcsaic.UUCP> ted@bcsaic.UUCP (ted jardine) writes:
>This is indeed a most repugnant attitude.

Have you seen the original message?  I have not; and I will not
condemn Rick without knowing that context.

>	1.  By what authority does Mr. Adams attempt to run this
>	    network with such a heavy hand?

Who needs `authority'?  Usenet is run---when it is run at all---by
co-operation, and each event is almost invariably begun by a single
individual.  Rick started things, and as far as I know, all those
with whom he was talking went along.  It is perhaps significant
that those people are the ones in charge of the so-called backbone
sites.  These people, not Rick alone, came up with the current
reorganisation list.

>	2.  Do the readers of the net really want to permit what
>	    is tantamount to censorship of legitimate, civil
>	    communication?

It is hardly censorship.  This argument has been made and rebutted
before.  You are free to post what you will; Rick is free to insult
you; and all of you are free either to drop of the net, or to stop
forwarding articles from some particular user or site.  Doing any
of these with abandon will not help at all.

>I would like to politely invite Mr. Rick Adams to back way off.  I think
>that he has taken his "job" far too seriously,

That is possible ...

>and is in need of a nice long rest.

but that is merely insulting.

>It is he who should 'drop off the network', not any of us.

Alas, I am afraid that he very well may.  Seismo cannot continue
to pay $50,000 every year for Usenet.  Rick clearly does not want
to cut off everything; but in the end, that *is* the ultimate
solution.  Unfortunately, as goes seismo, so do we: I doubt that
even one member of the local cluster of sites fed via seismo is
willing to take on that kind of expense.  Personally, I think Usenet
is not worth that much money.  It is only barely worth the time
and effort required to keep its outdated, buggy software going.

Rick may well have over-reacted.  If so, the proper thing to do is
ignore his outburst; he will soon calm down.  And if not---if the
original message was a thermite-fueled flame---well, in that case,
his reply might well be considered mild.

So calm down.  Have a glass of milk.  Look at the stars high above
the garden.  Even if it all collapses tomorrow, they will still be
there.  Usenet is neat, and I like it, but it is hardly worth
raising your blood pressure about anything that happens to it.
And if, after this, you are still worried, contact your friends
now---`while you have the chance'---and set up a whole new network.
Perhaps someday we will join you.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 1516)
UUCP:	seismo!umcp-cs!chris
CSNet:	chris@umcp-cs		ARPA:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu