Conference 7.286::dcu

    
.0>    Before new elections and the Annual Meeting can be rescheduled, fair
.0>    and impartial election and campaign rules binding all candidates as
.0>    well as all persons campaigning on their behalf must be developed.
    
    Who has decided that we need new rules? Mr. Melchione? Is Mr. Melchione
    a voting member of our credit union?
    
    Was it the "disinterested" (HAH!) directors who decided we need new
    rules? Did they first try enforcing the existing rules before cooking
    up new rules?
    
    Will these new rules be submitted to the NCUA for approval? Will the NCUA
    rule on them before a full year elapses? And given the NCUA's by-and-large
    disapproval of the "Member's Bill of Rights", is there a snowball's chance
    in hell that these new campaign and election rules will be accepted by
    the NCUA in any useful form?
    
    I submit that THERE IS NO NEED FOR NEW RULES, and that THERE IS NO NEED
    TO FURTHER DELAY THE ELECTION PROCESS. There are already well
    established rules for the election, including the bylaw that prohibits
    employees of our credit union from campaigning for candidates on the
    property of our credit union or during the hours of their employment in
    our credit union. THE ONLY REQUIRED ADDITION TO THIS ELECTION IS FOR
    MR. MELCHIONE TO ADVISE HIS CLIENTS TO ABIDE BY THE EXISTING RULES.
    
.0>    I should also advise you that the Credit Union will take any
.0>    appropriate action including, but not limited to, legal action to
.0>    mitigate and reverse any damage arising ON OR AFTER April 20, 1994,
.0>    related to the defamation or disaparagement of the Credit Union.
    
    Perhaps the members of our credit union should advise Mr. Melchione
    that members will take any appropriate action including, but not limited
    to, legal actions against anyone who attempts to limit in any way the
    legal right of the members of DCU to elect their directors or anyone
    who attempts to further delay that election.
    

    
    Funny that Mr. Melchione would claim that the unanimous decision
    arrived at by the Supervisory Committee was (updated to) April 12.
    That's two days *before* Mr. Ketz's reply of the 14th requesting
    patience while the investigation was in process.
    
    Oops!
    
    

    .0:
    
>    I should also advise you that the Credit Union will take any
>    appropriate action including, but not limited to, legal action to
>    mitigate and reverse any damage arising ON OR AFTER April 20, 1994,
>    related to the defamation or disaparagement of the Credit Union.
    
    I suppose that this means that one should put completely out of one's
    mind any recollections of, er, "irregularities" in various third-world
    countries with governments whose legitimacy is often harder to locate
    than their propensity for self-perpetuation.
    
    Dick

RE: Note 819.0 by SMAUG::GARROD


>    I should also advise you that the Credit Union will take any
>    appropriate action including, but not limited to, legal action to
>    mitigate and reverse any damage arising ON OR AFTER April 20, 1994,
>    related to the defamation or disaparagement of the CRedit Union.
    
>    I am enclosing a copy of a "Notice to Member" which will be sent
>    shortly to each Credit Union Member.
    
>    I look forward to meeting with you shortly and trust that we can all
>    work together to ensure a fair and impartial election process.

Simple way to handle this.

Meet with the person and make sure you bring YOUR lawyer along.  Let
your lawyer do all the communications.  This will minimize that, 'You
will do it the way Chuck (Eh, I mean DCU) wants', attitude.


	- mark

You raise an interesting point, Mark. It would sound to me as though legal
representation on all sides present would be advisable.
-Jack

    just try and get the lawyers together. :-)  They run their businesses
    with the phone and the FAX.  I believe that's why the delays in the new
    election and the annual meeting are necessary.
    
    Mark

    Some delays are actually built into the process, of course.  Things
    like elections and meetings of the members have built-in delays to allow 
    time for notifications to go out and such.
    
    Steve

 re .0:
    
>    You should be advised that the recommendation of the Supervisory
>    Committee and the decision of the Disinterested Directors cannot be
>    interpreted as a finding in favor of one candidate or group of
>    candidates over another. I am asking for your cooperation in allowing a
>    "cooling off" period while new rules are developed.
 
    Ron Glover's "cooling off period" proposal two years ago was a proposal
    to essentially stop all campaigning.  Let's calm down and let the
    status quo return, no need to be upset enough to want to change things...
    
       
>    I should also advise you that the Credit Union will take any
>    appropriate action including, but not limited to, legal action to
>    mitigate and reverse any damage arising ON OR AFTER April 20, 1994,
>    related to the defamation or disaparagement of the CRedit Union.
 
    If this isn't a statement in favor of the "things are fine the way
    they are" crowd and against the "there are problems at the DCU"
    crowd, then what is?  This is nothing less than a threat of legal
    action against those who claim there are problems with the DCU.
    Two years ago I put a "homestead exemption" on my house, in case
    the old group sued us.  Now the threat has been made explicit.
    
    
>                             Notice To Members
>        
>        As  a  result    of    numerous   complaints  regarding  improper
>        campaigning, the 1994 DCU  Board  of  Directors Election has been
>        invalidated and the Annual Meeting  postponed.    
    
    More weasel words.  Since when are "complaints" grounds for taking
    *any* such action?  If they think there are *valid* complaints, let 
    them tell us that, and tell us which types of activity they consider
    serious enough to invalidate an election.
    
    I wonder, are the new rules going to be announced for comment by
    interested parties?  Or are they going to be announced only after
    they are agreed to?  What's wrong with open communication?
    
    
    		Yours in frustration,
    		Larry Seiler

    Huh?  Where was the unequal access to media?  Everyone on the BoD, and
    all of the BoD candidates, have access to electronic mail.  
    
    I'm a bit confused about who you are talking about when you say
    "these folks who messed up the elections".  I'm not aware of Phil
    violating a single DCU policy regarding the election.  The issue of
    whether he violated the Orange Book is, of course, up to Senior
    Management to decide, and they have done so, but as we are so often
    told, the DCU and Digital are independent organizations.
    
    		Enjoy,
    		Larry

    
    
    Re.10
    
    	And you never will understand because noone will ever explain it.
    The battle is over, chaulk it up to experience and go on. They will not
    present any facts to back up their actions, both on the DCU and DEC
    side of the issue.
    
    ed

    
    Re: .12
    
    Whoa!  Wait a minute.  I suggest you get your facts straight before
    writing.
    
    During the election there was only one person on the DCU BoD who is not
    a Digital employee and he was not running for re-election.  EVERY ONE
    of the candidates had access to Digital's ENET since during the
    election they were ALL employees.  Where did you get the idea that some
    of them were not?
    
    Steve
    

    re. 12
    
    I know at least one of the non-3G candidates has access and the ability
    to use notes and e-mail. Your statement is incorrect.
    
    ed

re Note 819.9 by NASEAM::READIO:

> Instead of deleting the campaign letter soliciting my support, I deleted a 
> *VERY IMPORTANT* mail message that actually had to do with *WORK*
  
        Obviously the engineering team for that electronic mail
        product should be fired. :-{

        Bob

    
> Instead of deleting the campaign letter soliciting my support, I deleted a 
> *VERY IMPORTANT* mail message that actually had to do with *WORK*
    
    The mail utility I use has a command SET FILE/NODELETE that works
    very well unless I have purged my mail folder. Don't all of them
    have that?
    
    				Alfred

> Instead of deleting the campaign letter soliciting my support, I deleted a 
> *VERY IMPORTANT* mail message that actually had to do with *WORK*
    
     Sounds like a problem with the person on the keyboard rather than a
     problem with the campaign letter.

                                     Greg

    Hey, folks, lighten up.  The guy's mad about getting mail he didn't
    want after asking to not get it, and that's reasonable.  I don't 
    think we need to comment on any other aspect of that incident.
    
    Regarding his claim that some BoD members don't have access to as
    many mail addresses as we engineers due to network security, I think
    that's just plan wrong.  I have never heard of *any* limitations on
    sending mail between one mailing address and another within the
    company.  And although all-in-one users may find it confusing to
    send mail to node:: addresses, well so do I find it confusing to
    send to all-in-one addresses.  But it tells how to do it both ways
    right in the company phone book.  I tried it and it worked!  Is
    that unequal access to media?
    
    Regarding access to this notes file, Ron Glover specifically allowed 
    campaigning here -- that wasn't a policy violation.  Nor was use of
    this conference barred to people of opposing viewpoints -- you can 
    find a *lot* of notes begging for the "other side" to post notes here, 
    and many offers of assistance in doing so.  Sometimes, they even did.
    However, if they mostly chose not to, that is not "unequal access",
    and more than it is unequal access that they used the phone more
    than I gather the 3Gs did.
    
    		Enjoy,
    		Larry

Well I be damned!  Here I sit, trying to catch up on this VAXnotes conference
(which I undoubtedly have been out of too long) and I come across 819.9.  Wow!

I am almost speechless.  There are many things I would like to say about what
what was written in that note but, quite frankly, my note would probably be 
set hidden and someone would contact my manager over it (I might even get 
fired!)

But, I am not suprised.  I once corresponded via VMS mail with the author of
that note about the heavy-handed moderation practices he enforced upon me in 
a VAXnotes conference he moderates, but the correspondence ended shortly after
he began the use of name-calling and other such rhetoric.

>When I missed an important con call because I'd thought I'd deleted a 
>campaign solicitation but had deleted the announcement and the agenda, my 
>only recourse was to go to Ron Glover and ask that he intervene and stop 
>that unwanted E-mail.

That is hogwash, pure and simple.  Make the mistake of deleting a wrong 
message and, in anger, go to Ron Glover about unwanted email being received. 
Sounds spiteful if you ask me.  It certainly wasn't the only recourse.

To think that these 3 folks may have been terminated, due even in part, by 
complaints such as this make me angry enough to spit!

-Andy

    .9 ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
    
    YOU deleted the wrong message, and it somehow winds up being Phil
    Gransewicz's (that's how you spell it) fault, and you complain to
    Glover??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
    
    This ranks right up their with those ridiculous laws that state that if
    you go out and get blotto, and drive out and hit someone in the
    process, the person who made the fatal mistake of serving you the
    liquor is responsible...  i.e., I am not at fault for my own
    stupidities, it has to be someone else's, and I'm gonna find that
    person, and make him/her pay...
    
    WOW!

    
    Glad someone else said that!  :^)
    

.21
Calm down now... .9 is just practicing the American way. In
extreme (and sometimes not so extreme) cases it means gainful
employment to lawyers and other socitial paracites. A whole
industry has grown up around it so pls dont rock the boat...OK?
Rocking the boat is not the American way. :^)

    Re:  .23...  don't make me giggle!  :^)  I had forgotten all about the
    Great American Benevolent Society for the Benefit of Lawyers, Insurance
    Companies and other Societal Parasites...  tsk, silly me...
    
    Was trying to remember how many lawyers/capita this august nation
    possesses versus Japan, where it's something like one lawyer to some
    bazillion people...  REALLY skewed numbers come to mind...
    
    Thanks for a good laugh, in any event, much needed!  :^)

Very good! Im glad you understand the concept. Do something
illegal, stupid, etc. and coverup by hammering somebody else for
it. Matter of fact these days you dont even need a reason.
As the saying goes...'Just Do It!'

All together now....

America, America hords of lawyers have raped thee
And filled the courts with torts and hoods
from sea to shining sea...

    I get annoying junk mail all the time, but I would *never* consider
    blaming someone who sent me a piece of junk mail for *me* deleting one
    of my own messages in my inbox. You deleted the message, no one else
    did. Be responsible for your own actions. I can't believe someone
    woujld actually cry to someone like Ron because they receive junk mail.
    Simply unbelievable.
    
    -Glenn-

     I am amazed that someone would admit in "public" that they blamed 
their own screwup on somebody else.

     The junk mail and the deletion are two separate issues.  They messed-up
by sending the junk mail, but YOU are responsible for fat-fingering the
delete key.

                                     Greg

re: .26, Skip

Speaking of bothersome flies, you seem to have a bug up . . . 

Oh, never mind . . . 

-Jack

	I think it's time to consider setting the no autopurge option in
	mail so that all deleted mails stay in your WASTEBASKET folder.
	Then you could do a manual purge weekly. This would have avoided
	the problem.

	I get trounced with junk mail too. Just work smarter, that's all.

						mike

re Note 819.30 by AXEL::FOLEY:

> 	I think it's time to consider setting the no autopurge option in
> 	mail so that all deleted mails stay in your WASTEBASKET folder.
> 	Then you could do a manual purge weekly. This would have avoided
> 	the problem.
  
        This probably wouldn't have avoided the problem in this case. 
        If you didn't know that you had received a particular meeting
        announcement, you probably wouldn't think to check the
        WASTEBASKET folder (or whatever) to look for it.

        I suggest that anyone who is bothered by junkmail, or even
        mail harassment, check into the abbott::office_filter
        conference.  It's a simple matter to delete or file into a
        separate folder mail from particular sources.

        Bob

I think people understand.  They just disagree.

Collis

    RE: .32  by NASEAM::READIO 
    
>The straw that broke the camel's back was when I inadvertently deleted the 
>wrong VAXMAIL (not all in 1 sissy-mail) line item in a full screen mail 
>directory.
    
    Unless you also "inadvertently" exited from VAXmail after deleting the
    message, you could have done a DIR WASTEBASKET, selected the message
    pending deletion, and saved it.
    
    I know I've had the same thing happen to me, but I've never yet blamed
    it on someone else.
    

    
    Re: .32
    
    > You guys just don't get the picture do you.
    
    I think it's *you* who isn't getting the picture.
    
    For the reasons you give in .32, it would be perfectly sensible for
    you to complain i.e. your mail is full and because of unwanted mail
    you can't get work messages, etc.
    
    What *we* are saying is that the reason that *you* stated in this
    file for having filed the complaint makes no sense.  File a complaint
    because your requests to be deleted from a distribution list are not
    being honored, not because you are PO'd for having deleted the wrong
    message.
    
    Steve
    

�    What *we* are saying is that the reason that *you* stated in this
�    file for having filed the complaint makes no sense.  File a complaint
�    because your requests to be deleted from a distribution list are not
�    being honored, not because you are PO'd for having deleted the wrong
�    message.
    
    From what I've read that's what he did.  The deleted meeting message
    was simply the final impetus to contact Mr. Glover.

>in that string of messages on the day in question.  The rest were trash, 
>many from DCU candidates and forwardings of the same messages from DCU 
>activists in the building (two of whom have, thankfully, been tfso'd as 

    Were you receiving these mail messages directly from the source,
    or were they forwarded to you by someone esle?

    To whom did to send the requests to stop the mailings? 

    I have spoken to Phil in the past regarding mailings and
    distribution lists and I have found that Phil was quick to respond
    to distributiuon list changes, IF HE WAS THE OWNER OF THE LIST. If
    you receive mail forwarded to you by someone else, then your issue
    is with that person not the original source.

    Charly

    RE: .37  by NASEAM::READIO 
    
    >Wastebasket is/was not an option.   Disk space is still not adequate.
    
    Wastebasket is not, I believe, an option, but a standard default of
    VAXmail.  Every time you delete a mail message it goes into the
    WASTEBASKET folder until you exit.  When you exit, everything in the
    WASTEBASKET folder is deleted, unless you've set it up to act
    differently.  Therefore, the WASTEBASKET has no impact on diskspace.
    

If I were a moderator I think I'd observe that there's a whole lot of
personal attack in the recent notes in this string.

Bob

    Well I do observe a whole lot of stuff not relevant to the DCU. There
    are conferences on the various mail utilities I believe. Let's take
    that chatter there or to, dare I say it, mail.

    If someone believes that there is a specific attack note that needs
    taken care of by all means send me mail. I'm not reachable at my desk
    this week and time is short for me to analyze notes as I'd like.

    		Alfred

    
    I was recently inundated with "From All Walks of Life" mail that caused
    me to delete a very important work-related memo.
    
    Who can I get fired?
    

    This topic is now re-opened. Please, no more mail utility discussion
    or talk about "who can I get fired because they 'made' me delete some
    mail." Those ratholes have been followed to death. Thanks.
    
    			Alfred

>>Phil never sent it to him.  Phil even checked a mailing list and never
>>had NASEAM::READIO on it.


Did the complaint from NASEAM::READIO initiate or otherwise influence the 
action that got the 3Gs fired?  

re Note 819.45 by STAR::BUDA:

> Phil never sent it to him.  

        Perhaps corporate policy should forbid the creation of
        information and not just its transmission by certain means.

        If Phil had never committed his thoughts on this matter to an
        online electronic medium, he never would have gotten into
        this trouble.

        Bob

    re .46:  Officially, I expect that the answer is no, that the complaint
    of Phil's mailings causing an important mail message to be deleted
    had nothing to do with the firings.
    
    However, it's quite possible that one reason the penalty against the 
    3Gs was so harsh was precisely because Glover et. al. were tired of 
    having to deal with complaints about Phil' and the others' activities.
    This incident did apparently result in a complaint about Phil to
    Ron Glover, who (I feel sure) was tired of hearing such complaints.
    So there could be an indirect relationship.
    
    I can state from my own experience that to be accused of something --
    regardless of the validity or even rationality of the charge -- can
    cause a subsequent accusation to result in a far more severe penalty.
    I was accused by someone of improper use of mail for doing nothing
    other than sending him a personal reply to a note I disagreed with.
    I felt that he had his facts wrong and I thought he'd rather hear it
    privately than in public.  But although the personnel rep I had at
    that time told me that he felt the charge was groundless, he still
    remembered it, and treated me as a second time offender ("troublemaker"
    was I think the term he used) when a later complaint was made against
    me.  That one was also eventually quashed, and the problem with this
    personnel rep was successfully resolved (I even got an apology!).
    But this shows the kind of thing that can and DOES happen.  Remember,
    the people who enforce the rules also define what they mean and 
    establish the penalties.  And in many cases they may care more about 
    how much of their time a problem takes than in things like fairness.
    Can or should it be different?  It beats me.  But that's how it is.
    
    	Larry
    
    PS -- Actually, I had some sympathy for the complainant in the case
    of the deleted mail message.  It's not at all appropriate to keep 
    someone on a mailing list who doesn't want to be on it.  But it never
    occurred to me that the complainant couldn't (or in any case didn't) 
    determine WHO actually sent him the message that caused the problem!
    It turns the whole complaint into a false charge.  Embarassing.  LS

RE: .37  by NASEAM::READIO 
    
    >Wastebasket is/was not an option.   Disk space is still not adequate.

I have noticed all the accusations about Phil sending mail causing
NASEAM::READIO to delete an important message have been deleted for some
reason...  Makes me wonder...

On the lighter side...  I did some asking around and found out that the
mail from Phil was forwarded to NASEAM::READIO, not from Phil but from a
Digital employee, other than Phil G.!

Phil never sent it to him.  Phil even checked a mailing list and never
had READIO on it.

I hope this helps set the record straight.

	- mark


NOTE: The above text has been modified after communications with NASEAM::READIO.

From:	US2RMC::"[email protected]"  5-JUL-1994 17:49:29.51
To:	star::buda
CC:	
Subj:	RE: Readio allegations


        Mark,

        I have received several mail messages mentioning something that
        occurred two years ago around the DCU Interest List.  Let me
        provide some light on Mr. Readio's accusations concerning mail
        messages he claims he received from me. 
        
        I do recall the mail Mr. Readio sent me several years ago.  
        He sent me exactly ONE mail message (a real flamer) telling
        me to take him off the DCU Interest distribution list.  The mail
        was pretty offensive which is why I remember it quite well.
        It was the ONLY mail of that sort that I received during the
        entire period.

        The funny(?) part of it was when I checked my distribution list,
        I could find absolutely no trace of Mr. Readio.  When I went back
        to check the mail he sent me, I found out why.  The mail Mr. Readio
        was receiving was FORWARDED to him by people he knew.  I replied
        back to him that he was not on the DCU Interest list and that he
        needed to contact the people that were forwarding the mail to him
        since I had no control over their personal distribution lists.  I
        never heard from him again.

        Why on earth would I want to keep sending mail to somebody that 
        doesn't want it?  There is nothing to gain and everything to lose.
        Continuing to send mail could have been considered harassment!
        Everybody who sent me mail to be removed from the list (VERY few,
        probably less than 5) was promptly removed and sent an
        acknowledgement that they had been removed.  It seems very strange
        that Mr. Readio would wait two years before coming forth with these
        accusations.  Had I did what he claimed, he could have done two years
        ago what he is doing now, namely publicizing it in the DCU
        conference.  I could have very easily posted all of our correspondence
        to back up what I am saying.  Now, of course, it can't be done.
        Has he posted ANYTHING to back up his allegations?

        Regards,
        Phil

        P.S.
        This message may be posted or forwarded in its entirety and may not
        be altered in any way.

    If this is as I understand it to be, it's DARN funny...  complete with
    deleted previously-posted notes.  A classic.
    

    
    Truly a classic.  :^(

    
    
    Even all-in-one mail has to have some kind of return address... Of
    course you only read the originater and ASS-U-ME'd that *he* sent
    that mail...  Remember it's not the *TO:* portion we're all interested
    in... its the *FROM:*... Unfortunately the "powers that be" SEEMED to 
    have had it in for Phil and your unbased accusation could have been what 
    put things over the top...   Perhaps you have that mail message still (but
    probably not) and wouldn't mind posting it in here...  Complete with
    all mail headers so that the rest of us can see if your accusation that
    the mail came *directly* from Phil is true...
    
    It's also unfortunate that you are so uneducated that you feel that the
    so called "COMMITTEE TO ELECT THE RADICALS" were going to be what you
    term as "DCU REFORM RADICALS"...   Now isn't what you put in your note
    considered somewhat of SLANDER? and punishable by the network police
    and others?  If you're going to accuse someone of something you should
    have sufficient evidence of making that accusation stick.
    
    Now perhaps you maybe you'll tell us why all those notes from you are
    mysteriously deleted (as I'm sure 819.52 will be deleted too)...  Could
    it be perhaps that you feel you were not 100% justified in your
    accusations of Phil?
    
    From my perspective Phil's messages have always been in the right tone
    and he's always attempted to present the facts as he knows them to the
    best of his ability.  It's unfortunate that some don't feel that way
    and have more "corporate power".  If Phil was the VP of whatever, you
    can be sure what he has presented in the past few years would have
    already been dealt with and the DCU wouldn't be in the chaotic state
    it is in now.  Unfortuneatly, Phil was a "common" person trying to make
    things better for *his (and ours)* Credit Union and got caught in the 
    Corporate web...   But then again, if he didn't stir the pot, we probably 
    wouldn't have a credit union that we'd want to do business with...
    
    Just my 2 cents and opinion,
    
    John
    
    

    
    
    Oh and before you complain, the "uneducated" means uneducated in what
    is going on at the DCU for the last few years...   It has nothing to
    do with other education which I must assume you are... I don't need 
    any problems with the network police...
    
    
    John
    

    I think we're jumping to conclusions about why Phil, Chris and Dave
    were let go.  Personally, I have no idea what really went on.  I do
    know something about Phil.  Basically, I know him to be open and a
    force for openness with respect to DCU communications.  I have never
    known him to "hide" when it comes to expressing himself on
    controversial issues.  I've never known him to harass, but he is
    certainly tenacious.  And, as near as I can tell, Phil has always acted
    in what he regards as being in the best interest of DCU shareholders.
    
    I think it is fair to speculate why Phil and the others may have been
    let go by Digital.  But, for any that would seek to impugn Phil's
    character, I stand in his defense based on my personal dealings with
    him.  As for what may have motivated some of the actions taken, my
    current feeling is that Phil, like others, is a pioneer.  He is easily
    recognized by the arrows in his back ...
    
    Steve

    
    
    .55 I agree that conclusions are being drawn. There is ALWAYS more. 
    	Because I cannot concieve that anyone's complaint that they deleted
    	mail because of someone elses mail, could be taken very seriously.
    
    .53 I believe that .52 mixing the TO: up with the FROM:, might explain
    	why the DELETE hit the wrong message.
    	
    

    
    
    
    .58 You were careless. You have only yourself to blame for deleting
    your mail.
    
    You can only blame the person/people that directly sent you unwanted
    mail for blowing your quota. Only them, like you, are responsible for
    what they type unless someone had a gun to your head. But that still
    does not make them responsible for you deleting your mail.
    
    

    
    
    re: .58 and the "secret accounts"...
    
    Corporate NET police are *supposed* to have a list of every node in 
    the company and *who* the owner is.  If you receive mail from a secret
    account on the node and what it stopped, then they are supposed to be
    able to determine ownership and ensure the action ceases.  As a system
    manager you are *supposed* to know/record users of your system(s) and
    accounting/auditing *should* be turned on to warn you of unauthorized
    usage; therefore, it stands to reason in my mind that as long as you
    complained about the sending source then things should take some sort
    of normal path... I still content that actions were taken because the
    *originator* was Phil... It could have gone through 100's of forwards
    before it got to you...
    
    I have no clue as to how a1 mail is delivered, but I can only assume 
    that it must keep track of the sender somehow, since that is corporate
    guidelines as to mail forwarding
    
>>>If Phil hadn't incited the "committee", the chain mail wouldn't have 
>>>started.
    
    Believe me when I say I don't think Phil had to "incite" the committee.
    I think over 1100 people at the special meeting speaks volumes as to
    how ticked off people were that the DCU was in the shape it was...
    And also at least Phil's "committee" (it wasn't really his, but I'm
    using your words) identified themselves... the "committee for a qualified
    board" didn't and that strikes the difference between the two "camps".
    One is for openness the other for closedness (IMO, of course)... We
    can't always be mushrooms you know ;-)   I think the committee you
    refer to was more a group of concerned DCU members who felt things 
    weren't/aren't going right and wanted to do something about it... they
    were painted as radicals, witch-hunters, and many other names by
    another group/committee (of unknown size/origin) to whom they could
    not respond... SO they felt sending mail to lists created from this
    notesfile and direct requests to receive mailings they would reach
    a wide audience to present the facts as they saw them...  Unfortunately
    you (and others) felt this was an invasion of your beliefs and 
    complained loudly... such is life...  
    
    As for the disk quotas you have, you could have also received 100
    important messages and the 101'st important one bomb on disk quotas 
    regardless of the fact that you got stuff from these sources or not.
    This problem is easy to fix, either ask for more quota, obviously you
    must have justification - having to delete mailings in order to get
    more - or find things that you truly no longer need and delete them.
    
    
    Re: "Outside" authorities requesting deletion...
    
    Well unless that's "someone from the DCU" *AND* you have some unknown
    to the rest of us affiliation/job security from the DCU, then that
    outside person has no right to be reading the notes file information...
    Even the DCU cannot have the "authority" you seem to imply.  Now it
    may be you have private counsel that suggested you remove the trail..
    But that just speaks wonders for our legal system :-(...  Being one who
    has mainly watched the activities of the past few years I can see why
    counsel would be retained by anyone "more involved" than I....  which
    is why everything is as chaotic as it is...
    
    
    well back to my real job.
    
    
    John
    

Skip,

I've never known anyone (besides my 12 year old daughter) to go to such great
lengths to blame someone else for their mistake as you have.

As to your claim that being over quota made it impossible to reply to any of
the unwanted mail messages, to ask that they be stopped, I can only assume that
you are unfamiliar with the REPLY command in general and the /NOEDIT and
/NOEXTRACT switches in particular.

Bob

    
    
    .62 Exactly.
    
    .63 That's because mangement is USED to blaming others.
    
    

>The individual identified himself and I listened to his warnings.  I have 
>never heard from him since and had no idea of his existence prior to my 
>warning.  I am not at liberty to discuss the subject matter any more except 
>to say he is NOT affiliated with Digital OR the DCU and he is NOT someone 
>retained by my family or myself to represent my family or myself (but he 
>sure as hell knew what was going on)

I get the impression that this individual just contacted you out of the blue.
This makes me wonder how the individual came to know about your postings in
the conference. Do you happen to know? Other than (some of) DCU management,
non-Digital employees are not to have access to this conference.

    
    > My management agreed with me.  My system manager agreed with me.
    
    Still doesn't seem logical to do so, given your account of the events.
    
    > the ONLY people who DON'T agree that the ROOT OF THE PROBLEM WAS THE 
    > PROLIFERATION OF A CHAIN LETTER are the folks who were responsible for the 
    
    Calling it a chain-letter doesn't make it on (it wasn't in my
    opinion - I appreciated the information).
    
    > Mistakes often occur when routines are broken.  This was an unique 
    > situation wherein a prophet and his followers disrupted an otherwise 
    > organized operation.
    
    Here's the crux of the matter...  you have used this tone to speak of
    Phil several times.  Obviously you are upset with him not just because
    he was the source of unwanted mail, but because you disagree with his 
    views on the credit union.  I think that because of the way you denigrate 
    his DCU activities and not just his mail activities ("DCU RADICAL").
    
    Whatever.  But here you insult me.  I'm not a prophet-following stooly.  I
    have a mind of my own, and I and many other people agreed with Phil's
    activities because we agreed with his views.  
    
    How would you feel if I took work-related mail from you and sent it to 100 
    important people with some gibberish attached to it.  Would you like being 
    associated with my frivolous mailing?  Or held accountable for starting
    it?  In your world, you would be.  Assign blame where it is due, not 
    where it is convenient.
    
    - Sean

    
.68> Unauthorized forwarding of electronic documents is against Digital P&Ps.

.68> Those who authorize the forwarding of their writings must accept 
.68> responsibility for the proliferation (good or bad) of said writings.
    
    So you damn Phil for the actions of a probably overexuberant and
    possibly anonymous fan? Do you also damn the makers of baseball bats
    when some miscreant uses one as a personal weapon?
    
    You're right. I don't get it. But I'm not sure that's a bad thing...
    

    
    
    .69 :) :) :)
    

> Those who authorize the forwarding of their writings must accept 
> responsibility for the proliferation (good or bad) of said writings.

	This is bull sh*t (whether written into the P&P or not.  btw, is it?)

>And the baseball bat manufacturer is the one the lawyer is going after for
>the deepest pockets when the family of the little boy that got hit in the
>head with it decides to sue.  That's a guarantee.
    
    And in my opinion, a perfect example of what's wrong in the USA (and
    possibly Digital, for that matter) these days.
    
    Rich

re: .68

>Unauthorized forwarding of electronic documents is against Digital P&Ps.

Please quote the appropriate P&P including the one that defines the term
"electronic documents".

Bob

Here's the relavant section of 6.54:

"RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONTENT OF MESSAGES SENT OR POSTED ON NETWORK

Messages mailed or posted over the Digital network are the
responsibility of the original author.  Posting these materials in a
notesfile/conference without the explicit permission of the author is
prohibited and is a violation of this policy.

When forwarding messages or posting them to conferences, removal or
falsification of the original message header (which indicates the
author) is prohibited.

| This policy covers all messages addressed to individuals and
| organizations.  It is not intended to restrict the distribution of
| general announcements, course listings, etc., or messages originally
| posted on external bulletin boards such as Usenet news groups."

Note that permission is not required when forwarding mail.  In fact,
the person responsible is *not* the original author but that person
who forwarded the mail to you.

RE: Note 819.68 by NASEAM::READIO

>-< You just don't get it, do you? >-

>Unauthorized forwarding of electronic documents is against Digital P&Ps.

>Those who authorize the forwarding of their writings must accept 
>responsibility for the proliferation (good or bad) of said writings.

Skip,

I am not aware of this being written anywhere in the P&P's.  I am
interested in where you find this...

	- mark

    What's lacking here is a basic understanding of responsibility.  
    Here are some simple cases with very simple and obvious answers:
    
    1)  If I send mail whose content violates Digital policy (e.g. because
    it attributes illegal, imoral or fattening motives to someone) then
    I AM responsible for that message, no matter who forwards it.  Anyone
    who receives it is free to lodge a complaint against me for the 
    content of that message.
    
    2)  If I send a mail message to someone who wants to see it, I am NOT
    responsible if that person forwards it -- unless I ASKED that person
    to forward it (in which case we share responsibility).  Under Digital 
    policy, as indeed under the rules of common sense, we are each 
    responsible for our OWN actions, not somebody else's.  
    
    3)  If a Digital official or notes file moderator deletes a note of
    mine or tells me to delete it, I am NOT responsible for its deletion.
    
    4)  If anyone else advices me to delete a note and I delete it, I AM
    responsible for its deletion, since I only deleted it due to my OWN
    decision that that was the best thing for me to do.  
    
    5)  And finally, if I lodge a false complaint against someone due
    to my making a mistake about who actually sent me a mail message,
    I AM responsible.  That's a mistake I actually made once, and 
    apologized for.  Fortunately it was no big deal, since I neither
    flamed nor got anyone else involved.  But I feel that taking
    responsibility for one's own actions shows a person's true quality.
    Trying to treat others fairly and honestly shows quality as well.
    
    
    Any questions?
    
    	Larry

re: .76

Yep.  I'm familiar with 6.54 and can't see how it could be interpreted it in
the manner he is proclaiming, so I'm waiting for him to post the relevent
section of the P&P that contains the information Skip is quoting.

Bob

    
    
     re .58
      
      Here's my two cents:
    
      The info provided would seem to indicate the the messages
    mysteriously moved from NEWMAIL to your MAIL folder.
    
       You acknowledged receipt of the mail by not deleting them 
    while they were still NEWMAIL.
       
       If it was more than one, as you implied, then that would
    indicate you saw them all, (at least the first page) and
    make a decision to keep them. Why would you decide to
    move them to mail i.e. to keep them, and then cry "foul" when it caused
    you problems?
    
       in .56
    
    >> outside of DIGITAL expressly instructed me to do so to distance
    >> myself from the "other camp".  
    
       So, we can assume that this was either a representative from
    the "committe for a qualified board", or perhaps a current board
    member from the Ross/milbury/haskins campaign.
    
    

This is the stupidest stuff I've read in many years.

A) Blaming Phil for the mail is like blaming Jesus Christ for
    the Inquisition.  

B) The only reason to delete previously written notes (like unringing
    a bell?) is to protect Digital in case some impartial party (a
    Judge or Jury) were to hear this case, since it's obvious Phil
    played no part, and should be reinstated.  Or compensated.

Take the responsibility that's yours to shoulder, and please, stop
demonizing Phil.  All the stuff about radicals and "holding the DCU board
hostage" is just inflamatory.

Thank you.
\john

Re: .75, Skip

>It's against policy to publish or otherwise distribute mail messages or 
>other similar statements w/o the author's permission.

"Publishing", as in posting to a notes conference, is certainly explicitly
forbidden by the policy. I do not believe the policy is as clear with
respect to "distributing mail messages" by the use of the forward
capability. Let's face it - how does one define or enforce such a policy
and still allow free communications without an explicit requirement that
any forwarded mail must include a permit to forward? I do not believe
such a requirement exists anywhere within PP&P. And if it does, I know
for a fact that it's neither widely enforced nor observed.

-Jack

What does all this have to do with the DCU? Can we please move on to something
else?

    
    Re .63 (updated):
    
>> Is Billy Clinton responsible for the actions of his campaign staff?
    
    Yes.

>> Is Billy Bulger responsible for the actions of his campaign staff?

    Yes.
    
>> Is Ray Flynn responsible for the actions of his campaign staff?

    Yes.
    
    Are you implying that Phil had an official campaign staff, hired and paid
    for by by him or his supporters and instructed by him or his supporters
    to harass [accent on second syllable] you by sending multiple unwanted
    email messages?  Are you implying that he had any organized campaign
    staff at all. If so, you are truly misinformed as to the level of
    organization, cooperation and planning at the time.
    
    
>> IS RICHARD NIXON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF HIS CAMPAIGN STAFF?
    
    Yes -- but try holding him accountable :-)
    

><<< Note 819.63 by NASEAM::READIO "A Smith & Wesson beats four aces, Tow trucks beat Chapman Locks" >>>

>Is Billy Clinton responsible for the actions of his campaign staff?
>
>Is Billy Bulger responsible for the actions of his campaign staff?
>
>Is Ray Flynn responsible for the actions of his campaign staff?
>
>IS RICHARD NIXON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF HIS CAMPAIGN STAFF?

I have yet to see any campaign staff for any of the people running for
DCU BOD.  

This is like saying because the newspaper publishes a falsehood that Clinton
says, the paper should be held responsable...  Not sure where you are coming
from.  Digital has published P&P's the explictily explain how it works.
The P&P's do not agree with what you have said.

	- mark

	There is a long standing policy in Digital Notes Conferences
	that negative comments that concerning a person or entity outside
	of Digital are prohibited.

	Quite a number of Mr. Readio's recent entries violate this policy.

	I would like the moderators to consider this a request that the
	entries that contain negative remarks about Phil (not a Digital
	employee) be deleted.

	Mr. Readio seems to rely on network rules a great deal, I'm sure
	that he won't mind whrn those same rules are used against him.

Jim

    I'd prefer that they were left here, and I really doubt that Phil
    minds.  Indeed, like the "witch hunters" memo several years ago,
    they get across some information that few would believe if Phil said 
    it himself.  However, barring intervention by Personnel (excuse me,
    Human Resources), this is entirely at the discretion of the moderator.
    And somehow I don't expect HR to be concerned about this issue...
    
    		Larry

    
    I'm with Larry.  Those notes speak volumes.  Leave them if only to show
    the sort of "politically motivated" activity that dictates corporate 
    decisions.  They'll probably get deleted by the author himself (again),
    like the last ones, once an objective re-read takes place.
    
    - Sean

    Good lord, keep 'em.  Such unintentional humor is rare.
    

   <<< Note 819.90 by NRSTA2::KALIKOW "No Federal Tacks on the Info Hwy!" >>>

>    Good lord, keep 'em.  Such unintentional humor is rare.
 
	I withdraw my request. The mail that I recieved and the few comments
	here have convinced me that Mr. Readio's entries serve a great, 
	educational, purpose.

	While I beleive the deletion of Mr. Readio's entries would be valuable
	lesson to him, leaving them stand is of far more wide ranging value
	to others.

	Let them stand as a reminder as to the character of those that oppose
	the 3 Gs.

Jim   

 > 	Let them stand as a reminder as to the character of those that oppose
 > 	the 3 Gs.
    
    I think that's an unnecessarily broad brush comment. I'm no fan of
    "the 3 Gs", and would certainly not vote for them as a bloc (I'm
    very much distrustful of blocs); whether I'd vote for any of them
    individually remains to be seen (by me). 
    
    That said, I'd object rather strenuously to being placed in the same
    "bucket" as Mr. Readio based on his behavior in this forum.
    
    There are individuals that "oppose the 3 Gs". Some may share
    characteristics with Mr. Readio, but many do not. Curb that brush.

                 <<< Note 819.92 by HYDRA::BECK "Paul Beck" >>>
>                          -< Curb that brush, please >-

	Well, it's MY brush. ;-)

>    That said, I'd object rather strenuously to being placed in the same
>    "bucket" as Mr. Readio based on his behavior in this forum.
 
	My comments may be unfair to some. But such is the way of things.

	
Jim

	Damn, seems I was on vacation and missed all the fun. 

							mike

re Note 819.95 by AXEL::FOLEY:

> 	Damn, seems I was on vacation and missed all the fun. 
  
        Which is on of the reasons why a quiet period is a bad idea. 
        The situation isn't really analogous to Roberts Rules at a
        meeting in which debate is sometime out of order.

        Bob

    
    wah..!