From: learn@speedy.acns.nwu.edu (William J. Vajk)
Subject: Re: Re- EFFector Online 3.06- B
Organization: Dares No Organization Like Dis Organization
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 12:59:36 GMT

In article <5503@airs.com> ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor) writes:

>learn@speedy.acns.nwu.edu (William J. Vajk) writes:

>>I cannot recall anyone who has worked at anything seriously unless
>>they were paid for it. Idealistic volunteers I've known have always
>>been like a flash in a pan which burns out very quickly and then
>>they were gone. If an idealist is paid, then their idealsim only
>>aids the potential effectiveness through zealous attack.

>For an obvious example, the software which most of us use to
>communicate on comp.org.eff.talk was written by people who were not
>paid for it.

How many volunteers? Are they a small gorup each of which has been
at it from the beginning till now? And too, how much of the "publish
or perish" syndrome applies to any or all of them? In short, how much
of their"volunteer" work is somehow related to their jobs? And finally,
How many of those people who fall into the category of volunteer for
the long haul (years....not weeks or months) do you personally know?

What I said was I don't know any. Care to list the achievements and
the stats of any examples you know personaly and can vouch for
personally? 

>I assume that you yourself are not paid for your ongoing efforts to
>educate us.  Does that mean that you do not take it seriously?

Perhaps I am, and perhaps there are forms of payment not as clearly
defined as the original discussion would lead one to believe. The
possibilities are endless. You might wish to take note that I appear
for periods, and am silent for periods. Perhaps that could be a clue 
to you....

I was sorely tempted to suggest ever so remotely that the SS is paying 
me in drugs and computers to be a thorn in Godwin's side, but I thought 
better of it and decided not to leave any such impressions.

See, idealism isn't devoid of payment....only commonly accepted ideas
of what payment is. And if one is paid in other than currency, then
the work accomplished becomes tainted, in narrow minds, by the
form of payment. Had Godwin's articles been written 30 years ago, and
homosexual favors part of the payment scheme for Pengo, he would have
held up the same negative images he does today with drugs as payment.
But the political correctness of our day precludes such statements,
regardless of thoughts. In spite of Godwin's disclaimers, had drugs
not been involved, the entire story would have seemed cleaner and
a lot more "open and shut." 

The parallel, to my mind, is like someone who gets a ticket for jaywalking. 
If it is average Jane Citizen, then there is nothing much to the story. But 
if it is a prostitute who is seeking financial reward, perhaps drugs as well, 
on the other side of the street when ticketed, then the story in this 
newsgroup seems to take a very nasty turn with lessons from the eff attorney
on how this is a serious impropriety and the government is right in their
posture of prosecuting.

Some months ago I mentioned the conservative bent I saw in the articles
from the eff. Gdwin's response was "that's a hoot..." But here it is
again, in all the splendor of conservative wrap.


Bill Vajk