NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53922

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-03 | 1.8 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53922 alt.flame:17559 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:672
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!crdgw1!rdsunx.crd.ge.com!pan!keegan
From: [e-mail] (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 3 Jan 93 05:34:14 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Required for NNTP)
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <[e-mail]>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Lines: 25
Nntp-Posting-Host: pan.crd.ge.com
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

[e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> "Pro-choice Quality Control" is another way to
-> describe the way I see what I do, Larry.

sounds to me like your "net.informants" group
revisited.

 'These quotes demonstrate only that I considered your
 (pl.)  rule-breaking public meta-discussion in
 talk.abortion worthy of mention to those who make the
 rules, enforce the rules, run the systems, discipline
 users, etc. I made no private requests for disciplinary
 action. In fact, I made no PUBLIC request for specific
 disciplinary action, either. I presented the possibility
 in the most general way possible. If bringing a clear
 rules violation to the attention of those who created the
 rules, IN THE NEWSGROUP DESIGNATED FOR THAT PURPOSE, is
 being a net.cop, then I wish more people would be
 net.cops, in that sense and that sense alone. I'd be more
 inclined to call such people "net.informants" or
 "net.reporters", however, since they aren't really trying
 to enforce anything themselves - they're just passing
 along information.'
     kevin darcy writing to susan garvin ---
     Message-ID: <[e-mail]>