212 lines
8.5 KiB
Plaintext
212 lines
8.5 KiB
Plaintext
Original Message Date: 03 Jun 92 03:28:06
|
||
From: Dave Rawson on 1:102/341
|
||
To: Tom Jennings on 1:1/1
|
||
Subj: 3 of 3
|
||
^AINTL 1:1/1 1:102/341
|
||
To Tom Jennings 1:1/1 5-16-92 6:55:46 pm
|
||
|
||
> And for you personally -- last but not least in this message -- I
|
||
> can only apologize for the mess, my only excuse being that I am
|
||
> editor in the position of making something out of nothing.
|
||
|
||
I understand your position. I understand your INTENT. But your
|
||
criteria for what you publish is unintentionally at odds with your
|
||
desires. You have given great impetus to a vast wrong. In my tenure
|
||
as an InterUser Moderator, a literally Global Echo - Irkutsk to
|
||
Israel - which allows the discussion of anything (!) as long as it
|
||
is without rancor, THOUSANDS of participants have posted therein. Is
|
||
it any wonder that a tiny handful of individuals with a HISTORY of
|
||
provocative violations and practised character assassination should
|
||
be thrown out? Their only recourse is to continue trying to polarize
|
||
the FidoNet community, as they did InterUser, into a miasma of
|
||
confused misinformation.
|
||
|
||
And you have unintentionally aided the very "bullies" you say you
|
||
wish to protect against. The credulous took their smears at face
|
||
value, Tom. Though some individuals did question the specious
|
||
assertions, not one - NOT ONE - individual seeing those hundreds of
|
||
posts asked for a QUOTE substantiating allegations of what I "did"
|
||
or "said".
|
||
|
||
As I said before: The de facto platform of FidoNet "truth" for many
|
||
appears to be "j'accuse!".
|
||
|
||
> I'll put an apology in the editorial, with a very brief
|
||
> explanation that Anne was far, far out on a limb.
|
||
|
||
Is that article still available? If so, by what file name?
|
||
|
||
> If you can come up with a response, it will be the FINAL WORD, as
|
||
> I told Daan.
|
||
|
||
Hear you have it. About two weeks from receipt of your offer. I
|
||
trust this remains timely. I am sorry I did not respond more
|
||
quickly, but maintenance on the echo comes before my unnecessary
|
||
defense of unsupported, unproven allegations. I am also busy writing
|
||
Justice League (you know - "Truth, Justice, the Americam Way") comic
|
||
book stories here in the States, and for an audience of 2,000,000
|
||
readers a week, Donald Duck and Scrooge McDuck stories for the dozen
|
||
or so language groups of Europe. This burden was recently compounded
|
||
by the failing health of a long time friend which resulted in death
|
||
24 hours ago.
|
||
|
||
I trust you'll recognize that I have better things to do than
|
||
continue (for more than two years) to cross swords with a small
|
||
coterie of disaffected bullies who cannot stomach the Global
|
||
cooperation that hallmarks the InterUser Echo during my tenure of
|
||
responsibility for its character.
|
||
|
||
"Between craft and credulity, the voice of reason is stifled."
|
||
|
||
Edmund Burke [Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol - 1777]
|
||
|
||
Just one tiny speck in a vast Universe
|
||
Bahia del Sur de los Angeles
|
||
*~>DR<~*
|
||
|
||
|
||
Original Message Date: 03 Jun 92 03:27:55
|
||
From: Dave Rawson on 1:102/341
|
||
To: Tom Jennings on 1:1/1
|
||
Subj: 2 of 3
|
||
^AINTL 1:1/1 1:102/341
|
||
To Tom Jennings 1:1/1 5-16-92 6:55:46 pm
|
||
> Tom Jennings To Dave Rawson 26-Apr-92 re: Have you no shame?!
|
||
> No -- there IS NO PROCESS for dealing with this. The written
|
||
> policy is "we publish everything".
|
||
|
||
Would this include incitement to riot, overthrow of the government,
|
||
racist diatribes, credit card numbers, how to crack security
|
||
systems, etc.? I believe Tom Jennings DOES draw a moral line at some
|
||
internal point, if only a vague subjective process is involved.
|
||
|
||
> What you saw was the rewrite.
|
||
|
||
If ACCUSATIONS are made against an individual, why isn't
|
||
SUBSTANTIATING evidence required? How is it that someone may simply
|
||
invent whatever damaging remarks they wish, and are not held to
|
||
BASIC civilized precepts of accountability? The burden of proof is
|
||
upon the accuser to PROVE their point. NOT on some poor schmuck to
|
||
perpetually be called onto carpet after carpet to repetitively
|
||
defend themselves against what has been dealt with ad nauseum
|
||
elsewhere to the satisfaction of local levels of FidoNet.
|
||
|
||
> ... does not mean I believe it, agree with any of it, or dont know
|
||
> crap when I see it. I see that I have an obligation to allow
|
||
> people to publish stuff, even bad stuff.
|
||
|
||
Are you saying that you have an "obligation" to print untrue,
|
||
unsupported accusations, accusations leveled not in the abstract,
|
||
but against a named individual?! And then because it does not
|
||
convince you, you are therefore relieved of ANY responsibilty for
|
||
providing the credulous with ammunition with which to create a
|
||
bandwagon by which they join together to escalate the unsupported
|
||
accusations until literally hundreds of messages have passed through
|
||
FidoNet [MODERATOR and NET-POL] with my NAME and reputation being
|
||
impuned for no reason beyond the instinct a flock of birds have to
|
||
rip apart a bloodied member of their pecking order?!
|
||
Again, I say: SHAME on you!
|
||
|
||
> As far as "research" -- flatly impossible.
|
||
|
||
So because you are unable to substantiate the veracity of
|
||
unsupported accusations you FORCE the innocent accused to defend
|
||
themselves in a manner which you yourself refuse to do? UNFAIR!
|
||
|
||
> when I took over FIdoNews, I had the task of keeping it honest,
|
||
|
||
I submit that in the future, any article you publish with specific
|
||
factual allegations against an identified individual has, by all
|
||
non-Napoleonic measurements of fairness, included in it substanting
|
||
quotes purporting to demonstrate the charges. Had you done that in
|
||
this instance, FURTHER investigation would have been rendered moot.
|
||
|
||
> I will tell the author I will send their writing to each person
|
||
> named, and when I get responses or a reasonable time passes, I
|
||
> will run the whole thing (possibly edited) as a piece, ONCE.
|
||
|
||
Tom, you're still missing the point of fundamental fairness. When
|
||
not ONE quote is provided to substantiate FACTUAL accusations, why
|
||
should an unsupported charge be defended at ALL? Why should the
|
||
innocent be burdened by proof? The individual pleading their case
|
||
has the obligation of doing so. Not the individual unfairly accused!
|
||
|
||
|
||
Original Message Date: 03 Jun 92 03:27:42
|
||
From: Dave Rawson on 1:102/341
|
||
To: Tom Jennings on 1:1/1
|
||
Subj: Try, try again
|
||
^AINTL 1:1/1 1:102/341
|
||
To Tom Jennings 1:1/1 5-28-92 3:03:43 pm
|
||
|
||
Hiya, Tom!
|
||
|
||
I NEVER heard back from you regarding my response to your request.
|
||
|
||
So I'm reposting the reply you requested. Hope it reaches you this
|
||
time. I'd appreciate a "receipt" even if you don't have time to
|
||
respond otherwise.
|
||
|
||
Thanks!
|
||
|
||
Dave Rawson InterUser Moderator Zones_1_4_6 Sabre_Mail_HST 1:102/341
|
||
|
||
|
||
Original Message Date: 16 Jun 92 08:47:59
|
||
From: Daniel Pisano on 2:248/4.10
|
||
To: Tom Jennings on 1:125/111
|
||
Subj: FNEWS918 and my netmail
|
||
^AFMPT 10
|
||
Hello Tom!
|
||
|
||
24 May 92, Tom Jennings writes to Daniel Pisano:
|
||
|
||
TJ> re: the reason your message was quoted "anonymously".
|
||
|
||
TJ> It isnt a big deal, really.
|
||
|
||
I thought so.
|
||
|
||
TJ> Obviously your message contained information and opinion on the
|
||
TJ> INTERUSER problems in FidoNews. I needed to complete the discussion
|
||
TJ> that week (instead of letting it drag out for weeks... or worse...),
|
||
TJ> you are in Zone 2, and the zonegate had been not-working for 20 days.
|
||
TJ> I couldnt wait util it was fixed (3 days ago!)...
|
||
|
||
That sounds very reasonable.
|
||
|
||
TJ> Why anonymous: because it was originalyl netmail, to me, and not a
|
||
TJ> public message. There is an expectation of privacy in netmail, which
|
||
TJ> fully support.
|
||
|
||
TJ> "ANonymous" doesnt mean "sneaking around", if that is what you think I
|
||
TJ> meant to imply. Ther eare many reasons to use anonymous, simply to
|
||
TJ> protect privacy is a main one.
|
||
|
||
I now see your point and I agree. It was O.K. although I would not
|
||
have had serious problems (I think) in getting replies on that mail.
|
||
|
||
TJ> Using your name would subject you to getting more responses from
|
||
TJ> INTERUSER people, and if that happened by my act of including your
|
||
TJ> name, etc, then it would have been my fault. I said "zone 2" simply to
|
||
TJ> show it was not from my area, ie. not someone I knew locally, etc.
|
||
|
||
TJ> I hope this explains it...
|
||
|
||
Yeah. Ok, thank you for your explanation. I hope that the matter will
|
||
be solved soon. Meanwhile, Would you like to have some articles
|
||
from me (I've been working on some) on the fidonet?
|
||
They are a kind of 'written thoughts' with titles like
|
||
'FidoDemocracy' and 'About Rights and Duties'
|
||
which should start some discussions (or get them going) on
|
||
some things in Fido that always were some kind of 'weird' or lacked of <20>
|
||
presence
|
||
in the net.
|
||
|
||
bye bye from Wiesbaden, Germany.
|
||
|
||
Daniel
|
||
|
||
--- GoldED 2.40
|
||
|