On Sat, 9 Sep 2000 12:43:44 +0800, Chris B. McKinney <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Reef Fish
>> Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2000 7:34 AM
>
>> Nick is the one who should have taken a hard look at what crime
>> he has committed, what resulted since, exile himself (the only
>> honorable thing left for him to do), so that WE can voluntarily
>> return to Scuba-L where we belonged, and should belong, as a SCUBA
>> discussion List
>
>Bob,
>
>I'm not sure I undertand your issue.  If it is that Scuba-L is
>widely known and publicised, and therefore that's where the best
>and most active Scuba posters belong, well and good.

That's pretty close. ALL the early LISTSERV Lists adopted the
convention of TOPIC-L for a particular TOPIC.  Thus, Scuba-L
was founded as Scuba-L in the late 1980s.  It thrived as a
PUBLIC, OPEN, and UNMODERATED list on Scuba (in general) until
Nick took matters into his own hand, violating Scuba-L charter
and Guidelines, and Listserv Guidelines.


>However, if it's just that you're bothered at being on Scuba-SE,
>why not set up a new list at one of the numerous sites that does
>this for free, such as http://www.egroups.com.

No, that's not my point at all.   On the contrary, that's what Nick
should have done if he wanted a private group (which is no longer
the LISTSERV List Scuba-L) to suit his whim.  He could have named it
the above, or alt.nick.emperor or anything else he likes.  He'll
have at least one subscriber, himself.


>This is a
>painless process.  I administer several lists myself (mostly
>"closed" lists for work-related purposes),

That's exactly the point.  Anyone can start any discussion GROUP,
whether it is "closed" or "moderated" for whatever purpose that
suited them.  But they have no right to change the CHARTER and
GUIDELINES of a long-standing Open, Unmoderated LISTSERV List
into one to suit his private whim.

THAT is the point.

>and I can tell you
>that my administration time is closer to 4 seconds a month than
>to 4 hours a month.

Not quite that little.  But you don't need to tell ME.  Tell it
to Chuck Hopf who argued that Nick had to spend an inordinate amount
of time to manage Scuba-L (citing "over 30 hours a week") and
therefore he should be allowed to do as he pleases.  Go back into
the Scuba-L archives and follow those discussions and you'll have
a better understanding of what the issues were, and are.

For one thing, I've been in Scuba-L much longer than Nick had been,
and know much more about the history, charter, and guidelines that
governed Scuba-L since its inception.

>They keep archives (not as searchable as the
>current hosts, however), and allow members to post documents
>(such as faqs) retreivable by all members.  They also allow for
>multiple administrators.
>
>Chris

You're speaking much more generally of all kinds of private,
semi-private, discussion and newsgroups under USENET Guidelines,
all with very different rules and constraints.  But those are
NOT Listserv LISTS, as Scuba-L was, and is supposed to be, except
for one dictatorial administrator Mr. Nick Simicich.

I hope my reply helped clarified the points that are implicit and
explicit throughout the controversy, but were perhaps not sufficiently
well articulated or understood.

It's a matter of PRINCIPLE, as I always maintained.

-- Bob.