🚀 go-pugleaf

This is my response to an email message I received. (name removed to protect
the guilty). I think it goes to show how childish at least one of the r.m.s
types is, and how far he will go to torpedo a legitimate voting result just
because he doesn't like it. 
----------8<--------------cut here------------------>8-------------
> In the process of reviewing my current report on fraud, waste and abuses in the
> DOD funding systems, I have decided to include a section on DOD involvement
> woith the internet.  I have been collecting all the recent posts from r.m.s.
> and I intend to use them as evidence that DOD funding of the system is not in
> its own best interest.

Oh, good grief. You're going to try to trash the whole internet because you
don't like the way one issue was handled. How adult of you..."I'll take my
ball and go home!"

> Clearly, the you people who controle usenet newsgroups
> are out of control, and are acting as unsympathetic egomaniacs.

We set up fair and equitable rules, and expect folks to adhere to them.
There's nothing egomaniacal about that.

> The current
> structure of MILNET is based on VMS systems.  Most of us at military sites do
> not have access to UNIX machines for support of mailreaders.  Now, r.m.s. is
> a hobby avocation for me, however, there are a lot of people at VMS .mil sites
> who are connected to science and technology newsgroups, and use them in
> their jobs.  These people receive, as I do, theri usenet mail feeds from
> other sites.  They are, therefore, at the mercy of your power lust.

Doubtful. In particular, they are not at the mercy of Usenet itself, but those
who run gateways from Usenet to whatever mail system they receive stuff from.
If the gateway maintainer doesn't do his job and track the system being
gatewayed from, whose fault is that?

Further, there is Usenet software available for VMS machines. They can then
participate directly, as equals, in Usenet itself, and not be at the mercy of
gateway maintainers.

> My point
> will be very direct.  You people are in the wrong, here.  Your reluctance to
> allow a revote, now that everybody concerned in r.m.s. has been 'really'
> notified, is reprehensible.  I can think of a lot of better places for DOD
> to send its RDT&E dollars.  

1) Usenet is not Internet. It is carried over portions of the MILNET, and
portions of the NSFNET, and many other networks as well. If MILNET chooses not
to carry it, that will have little effect on its propagation. If the DoD
chooses to stop funding Internet development because of your childish tantrum,
it will have little effect on Usenet, and will only hurt the DoD.

2) I sincerely doubt that your inclusion of this minor issue (in the larger
scheme of things) would change the DoD's funding policies significantly.

I will, however, post this message to news.admin.policy, news.groups, and
rec.synth, jsut to show how low some folks will stoop to overturn a
legitimately arrived at result.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
     We survived Jimmy Carter; we'll (probably) survive Bill Clinton.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
     We survived Jimmy Carter; we'll (probably) survive Bill Clinton.