NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/gnu/misc/discuss/2903

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-03 | 7.1 KB

Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:2903 comp.org.eff.talk:5669 comp.unix.bsd:5107 comp.os.mach:1169 news.groups:17570
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,news.groups
Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!cs.weber.edu!terry
From: [e-mail] (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: Exercising Caution When Making Attributions (was Re: ... Boycott)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: alt.flame
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Weber State University  (Ogden, UT)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 05:52:39 GMT
Lines: 145

Vajk:
    Have you now, carelessly, atributed the entire boycott recommendation
    to be my idea?

Terry:
    Bill is quite correct.  Due to his inability to correctly attribute
    quotes within his followup posting, he appeared to be the individual
    under fire.

Vajk:
    Come on, Terry. The article came up with three previous inclusions,
    and two attributions as I received and reposted. You simply selected
    some handy victim for your example.  Could have been anyone associated
    with the thread, eh? Still your error, and not excusable by this path.
    Excusable by apology, yes.

If you'll remember (instead of willfully misremembering), you were not the
target of my original article (although it is now clear that you should have
been, as I might as well have been defending the intellectual rights of a
baboon); the targets (misselected, with deepest appologies to the victims)
were the posters of continued traffic denigrating Sean's idea.  I still
defend Sean's right to express an idea without implied intent to act without
a discussion, and his right to not get hate mail as a result of that
expression.  You, however, appear to be waiving that right.

The article in question (your article) is

    Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

In it, you state:

    >>It should be posted to ALL newsgroups as it affects all of us.

    >It should NOT be posted to all newsgroups.

    I am once again dismayed at the responses made by supposedly
    intelligent individuals to affairs which do indeed affect all
    of us. Perhaps some people simply don't se the connections.

    And someone else's trigger is tripped by the suggestion that ALL
    newsgroups have a posting explaining what is happening.

Thus implying that you indeed support the concept, and indeed berate the
intelligence of those who oppose it.  You indeed correctly attribute the
quotes to Bryan and Sean, but in doing so seemed to support the idea to
the extent of appearing to propose to implement it.  If this was not your
intent, then perhaps, as you so rudely suggested to Bryan, "Did you want to
try again, with brain engaged?"

Sean's initial posting:
    I suspect that the best way to approach this would be a general
    posting to the entire netnews community informing them, in a
    succinct manner, what is the situation, what are the issues and
    alternatives, and what is the recommended course of action
    (switching long distance carriers).

Vajk's response to Bryan's criticism of this idea, excerpted:
    Your response to effectively defend one of the worse villans in the
    western hemisphere seems misplaced to me.
    [ ...]
    This is amusing. Some newsgroups are sacred and must remain untouched
    at any cost? Is Richard still on the net these days? I suspect he'd
    think the fact you included his sci.aquaria in the list a wonderful
    thing.
    [ ...]
    You know, if I had the time I once had, this statement alone
    would be enough to make me crosspost to each and every available
    newsgroup. I am, in general, a polite person (though some goodly
    number of folks who know me only from usenet would probably
    disagree.)
    [ ...please count me among them ... ]
    If someone really wants to post to each of the newsgroups, you've
    offered absolutely no disuasive arguments yet. Did you want to try
    again, with brain engaged? Or is all you have to offer each and every
    of the same old tired lines of the litany.
    [ ... ]

I can repost the entire text, if you need it.  Suffice it to say that you
were sufficiently incoherent in your reply as to confuse not only myself,
but also Matthew J Brown, David Sternlight, and Ken Arromdee (in articles
<[e-mail]>, <ltjn#[e-mail]>, and
<[e-mail]>, respectively) as to the point of
view you held and/or defended.

Terry:
    I am somewhat chagrined at the tone of his public posting here,
    given his rather less caustic email to myself, but it fits with what
    he has stated as an intent to "stir up the shit", as it were.

Vajk:
    Terry, you attribute statements you THINK I made to me, concepts
    with which I disagree completely, and you think I should be nice
    and polite and kind and wimpy in saying "oh, gee whiz, I think you
    might have made a mistake, would you please go back and check your
    attributions because I don't think I ever in my whole entire life
    ever stated, thought, or conveyed such an idea....indeed, I haven't
    even lusted......" ???

First of all, I believe the question of misattribution has been solved by
direct quotes of the article in question, above, and by the fact that the
vast majority of people involved in the discussion seem to have taken it
precisely the way I took it.

Second, your admission to posting such obvious "flame-bait" in an effort to
"stir up the shit" is a direct quote from your email to me, which I will be
happy to post in it's entirety if granted permission.

Terry:
    Since this is a followup of his demand for retraction, which
    appears to be a followup of my article, this will hopefully
    receive the same level of distribution, as I must assume he has
    not editted his references yet again, this time perhaps including
    the "Newsgroups:" line.

Vajk:
    Someone played nasty games with you and now you're paranoid????

    Takes a smallish mind to do that stuff.

    On the other hand, I assume this statement to be an indication that
    you are unable to read or modify (perhaps you don't understand how to
    operate standard Usenet software???? Perhaps yop aren't using
    standard Usenet software ????) articles in toto and thus it would
    also explain other misunderstandings by extension.

Obviously this veiled reference to your editing of the "Newsgroups:" line
and your inability to clearly attribute origin of thought has escaped you.
I will explain: It was a veiled reference to your editing of the
"Newsgroups:" line and your inability to clearly attribute origin of thought.

I realize that this is repetitive, but I thought it was such an important
point that had to say it twice.


                    Terry Lambert
                    [e-mail]
                    [e-mail]
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       [e-mail]
 "I have an 8 user poetic license" - me
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------