From: dchatterjee@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: A Message from Banerjee's Sys Administrator.
Date: 5 Jan 93 19:48:09 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <1id0i7INN5ee@canopus.usc.edu>, yamaguch@canopus.usc.edu (Brian Yamaguchi) writes:
>>Samit has repented.  If you see any offensive articles after 8 Dec
>>92
>>16:39:10 PST from him, please let us know and we will take further
>>action.
> 
> A more accurate description would be that he acknowledged the unofficial
> warning.  He offered no public apology.  These are excerpts from USC's
> computing policies:
> 
>      Electronic mail
>           Sending harassing or offensive electronic mail and/or
>           sending forged electronic mail is a violation of UCS
>           computing policies and will be subject to corrective action.
> 
>      USENET News
>           Like electronic mail, posting articles to USENET News
>           requires that the user understand that his/her posting will
>           be seen by a large number of people, as many of the
>           newsgroups are available throughout the world.  Repeated
>           complaints from USENET subscribers regarding postings
>           originating at USC will result in disciplinary action.
> 
> -- 
>                                              
>  Brian Yamaguchi <><, Technical Support                phone: (213) 740-2957
>  University Computing Services                            uucp: usc!yamaguch
>  University of Southern California                internet: yamaguch@usc.edu


 I think that your message is very appropriate given the fact that the Great
 Sreehari Nimmala (who has a Ph.D in Chemistry, BTW !!!!!!) has shown how
 stupid he can be in posting portions of your message that he was not at all
 able to understand, and, also left me in confusion. I am of the opinion that
 Dr.Nimmala is intellectually a retarded case. However, I thank you personally
 to bring into light the above issue.

 In passing, I must mention that Dr.Shitty Nimrod (a la Sreehari Nimmala)
 is out there to settle there a personal score with Dr.Samit Banerjee. Please
 try ignoring him, sir.

 However I have a question: how do you define a students freedom to post ?
 Many posts maybe offensive but not abusive (like the ones I *purposely*
 post). There is a *very good* reason for this. (I am willing to explain 
 this position given sufficient interest.) However, many persons who may
 find my post offensive, can raise hell with my sys. admin. in getting my
 account deleted. In that case, if my sys. admin. concedes to the voice of
 the majority, he *is* denying me my Freedom of Expression and I think that
 it is an act of discriminatory behavior - that is *not* condoned under the 
 Bill of Rights. (Please see the posting by Paul Kadie on SCI regarding
 the recent issues regarding a Students Right to post on the USENET.) As I
 understand, issuing death-threats via USENET is illegal - because it does
 violate the *proper use* of Federal property in indicating physical
 violence. (This issue is *not* covered under the Bill of Rights). I am
 saying that I am not sure of the borderlines/ demarcations in issuing
 such a stricture. (Regarding E-mails, yes I agree to some extent. This is
 because e-mails are sent on a *personal* basis and can be mentally very
 disturbing.) 

 Therefore "given sufficient mails from persons" and thus stripping a
 student of his/ her accounting privileges is something that is very
 arbitrary, IMHO. You may not like my face, but, that does not allow you the
 right to eliminate me, or is that it ? I know that Islamic countries
 adopt such measures and eliminate persons(1990 Amnesty International report
 cited, and, Salman Rushdie case - a la democritus.) A similar tune (though 
 quite  moderate and scaled down) is, most unfortunately, in your posting.


      - regards,

      deb chatterjee
    (a good samaritan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.tamil,soc.culture.indian.telugu