Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.unix.bsd:12916 comp.os.386bsd.development:1413 comp.os.386bsd.bugs:1786 comp.os.386bsd.apps:657 comp.os.386bsd.questions:6733 comp.os.386bsd.misc:1465
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.386bsd.development,comp.os.386bsd.bugs,comp.os.386bsd.apps,comp.os.386bsd.questions,comp.os.386bsd.misc
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!crcnis1.unl.edu!wupost!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!pacbell.com!amdahl!netcomsv!netcom.com!jmonroy
From: jmonroy@netcom.com (Jesus Monroy Jr)
Subject: Re: Evidence to the moderators conflict-of-interest
Message-ID: <jmonroyCGB3J9.IK2@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
References: <CGD.93Nov10041331@eden.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 02:42:44 GMT
Lines: 281
mail cgd@eden.CS.Berkeley.EDU
Re: Subject: Re: Evidence to the moderators conflict-of-interest
>> [ sorry for the wide cross-posting; followups to c.o.3.misc -- cgd ]
>>
Followups re-cross-posted -jmj
What are you afraid of Chris...?
That I might be right.. and you'll have to resign.
>> In article <jmonroyCG9v5u.K7D@netcom.com>,
>> jmonroy@netcom.com (Inflatable Jesus) writes:
>> = This be it a fact,
>> = that you did receive article(s) from me, you must act duely
>> = in a timely fashion.
>>
>> i must do *NO SUCH THING*. (although the duel thought is tempting. 8-)
>>
A duel... :-) Your making my day!
>> = Further, not responding and posting other
>> = articles is in fact a misrepresentation that you are acting
>> = responsibly and without conflict.
>>
>> BZZT, think again. how about "other articles received before yours?"
>>
Irrelevant point.
>> "oh yeah". and also think about the fact that in order to post 'yours'
>> i had to spend a good amount of time tracking the real versions down, etc.
>>
Another irrelevant point... I think your crying 'cause
someone's finally got you pegged. Although I don't
beleive it.
Please do resond to this point.. I am enjoying it.
>> = When original responding you did not
>> = say "ya or na"; you simple refused to answer.
>>
>> you never asked whether or not i was going to post yours.
>>
Gee... I guess everytime I send an article to "announce"
I have to tell you that I want it *posted*.
This seems to be a contradiction in the definition to
your job as moderator.
>> i responded
>> as soon as i decided exactly what to do (and that *was* then).
>>
You have to past participles that contradict your statement,
namely, "I *responded* as soon as I *decided*".
Please clarify your statement so that I may correctly
interpet your meaning; I am a bit confused.
>> = Ignoring
>> = articles after acknowledgement is a shunting of your
>> = duties with a visible conflict-of-interest.
>>
>> no, it shows that i only have a limited amount of time to pursue
>> these things;
>>
So I gues what your saying is that you can acknowledge
an article, but never have time to post *things*.
>> as noted, it took a fair amount of time to hunt down
>> the most recent versions of the articles, add the headers, etc.
>>
So you admitting that your are modifying articles that
get sent to you and only post what you feel is appropriate
to you?
I guess I should state plainly:
your run-on sentence is an attempt to avoid the point:
"Ignoring articles after acknowledgement is a
shunting of your duties with a visible
conflict-of-interest.""
Would you care to answer the point or ignore the point?
>> = >> i decided that since the intent of your posting was to get the
>> = >> FAQ on the newsgroup, i was going to:
>> = >> (1) get the FAQ from the news archives
>> = >> (2) repost it indicating:
>> = >> (a) that it was a repost
>> = >> (b) that you requested the repost, becaue there was
>> = >> no version available on the newsgroups, and
>> = >> because a version wasn't seen 'in the wings'
>> = >> (c) the complete headers of the original articles
>> = >>
>> = You neither implied nor mentioned this in any previous
>> = messages to me.
>>
>> that's because that's what i decided after i finished reading
>> 'your' postings this afternoon.
>>
Hardley even true.
e-mail is time-posted .... articles that go thru announce
are time-posted.
A simply investigation of the facts will prove you a liar.
You can not decide on something in the afternoon(3pm) and send
a message about it in the morning(3am).
>> = >> the reasons for this:
>> = >> (1) it give proper attribution for the original postings,
>> = >> something which you failed to do
>> = >>
>> = Untrue. All articles were sent "as posted" to the "announce".
>> = I neither modified nor did I claim responsiblity for the
>> = articles.
>>
>> you didn't include the original 'From:' line; i consider
>> that to be part of the attribution.
>>
This is a pretty feable point on your part. I don't know
why you answered it, except to make yourself look silly.
If I read your point correctly:
sending a letter via UPS gives attributes to UPS.
Thats a joke.
>> as to whether or not you
>> modified them, i don't know, and it would have taken longer to
>> check than to get new versions.
>>
Why do you write these horrible sentences?
Is it an attempt to confuse the issue?
If so, it won't work.
If this is not an attempt to confuse, the maybe
you might consider shorter sentences - with a single subject.
>> = The articles are "self attributed" by the authors.
>> = I did not remove nor did I modify the original contents
>> = of the articles.
>>
The mirage of run-on sentences from you only exceeds my own
poor writing style. So I am forced to answer in "what
i belevie is you sentence".
>> i didn't read the copies that you sent me.
>>
That was apparent.
>> however, as i'm
>> sure people would agree, your recent behaviour has shown
>> that i cannot put much faith in anything that you do;
>>
My point that follows is not a distraction from your
name-calling.
>> you've
>> a vested interest in trying to 'unseat' me, though i don't
>> know what interest it is.
>>
A conflict-of-interest is the interst. I beleive that
you read the newsgroups. My statements have been quite
clear. If you'd like me to repeat the statements, I surely
can.
>> = >> note the header on this message (and those of the rest of the mail
>> = >> i've sent you). if you repost it, in whole or part without
>> = >> prior explicit permission from me, i will take it up with your
>> = >> sysadmins there at netcom. Note that this reply DOES NOT constitute
>> = >> any sort of approval for reposting.
>> = >>
>> = I'm afraid it does my friend. Laws concerning the
>> = recording of a two-way conversatin are already in place.
>>
>> *chuckle* well, that's the last piece of mail of *yours* that i ever
>> reply to.
>>
I doubt it.
>> = Since you did decide to answer and you did decide to repost the
>> = FAQ for 386bsd yourself, you must now act in a timely fashion.
>> =
>> = Not acting in a timely fashion will plainly show your
>> = conflict-of-interst here. Ignoring my mail will also show a
>> = plain conflict-of-interst. It also shows that you are not
>> = acting responsibly as moderator of "announce".
>> =
>> = Further, I should expect that you will make a statement about this
>> = so you might consider putting a schedule to your action.
>> = Not doing so will show a conflict-of-interst on your part.
>>
>> "hahahahahaha"
>>
Well, I'm glad I have you a chuckle.z
>>
>> jesus:
>>
>> some things which i advise you to consider:
>> (1) repeated behaviour in this fashion constitutes harrassment
>> in my book. i'm damned tempted to see if
>> postmaster@netcom.com agrees with me.
>>
Not true. I have not in any manner harrased you.
However, you might feel like your being harrassed, this
may be part of a parnoid fantasy.
I have ask for an RFD, Request For Discuss, hardly harrasment.
I have sent you artilces, to which it is your job to accept
or deny. This job which you are in charge of has not been
mistreated by me.
My reminders to you are only that of your job. This does not
constitue harassment.z
>> (2) it's quite obvious to me that you've no support in this
>> matter; if you did, i'd *consider* resigning. as it is,
>> you're just wasting my time.
>>
From your own statements, you have said, "I will never resign".
The next point you make only proves my point.
For me to expect you to resign at this point would be silly
even for me. This is the reason for the RFD. If a concensous
builds you won't have to resign, you will simply be replace.
>> (3) you'll have a *very* hard time forcibly replacing me as
>> moderator; it more or less just isn't done.
>>
Pretty confident and cocky are we.
>> I'd strongly
>> suggest that you *DO NOT* approve postings to .announce
>> yourself at any time in the future; that *will* get
>> your account shut off after a warning or two, if your
>> sysad is at all responsible. consider this a warning.
>>
HAHAHAHAHA ... boy! I've really got you don't I.
Your statement says "that I should not approve postings to
announce" ... else... "my account will be shut off"
This is quite funny... but I gather that it might not
be what you intended to say. Please clarify your statement.
Are you saying that I should not consider posting to "announce"?
Are you saying that you will not post my artilces even if
they are relevant and to the point?
Are you saying that because you don't like me that you won't
post my articles?
Are you threating to have my account removed because I
could possibly prove that you have a conflict-of-interest?
>> (4) i will *NOT* use capital letters unless i damn well feel
>> like it. (other readers: in private mail he made a
>> sarcastic comment that indicated that he thought
>> i should do so. 8-)
>>
>>
I have never stated that you *should* use capital letters,
only that you might consider them...
>> buzz off, and grow up.
>>
Don't you have some stronger words for me?
This has been a complete waste of my time.
If you'd like to defend yourself in the charge
that you are acting with a conflict-of-interest,
I will surely respond in a like manner.
If you want to rant about your irresponsiblity,
I won't help you.
___________________________________________________________________________
Jesus Monroy Jr jmonroy@netcom.com
Zebra Research
/386BSD/device-drivers /fd /qic /clock /documentation
___________________________________________________________________________