10/25   To Politburo:
        The next time you decide to limit or modify a feature available to
        many CSUA users, can you please please please consult motd or a
        well-populated mailing list first, you know, just to get the popular
        opinion?  Thanks. -soda user
        \_ Politburo voted to *ask* kchang to turn off the attribution
           in KAIS MOTD, and specifically said that they weren't going
           to sorry him or anything if he refused.  Read Brett's message
           carefully: the first paragraph is from politburo, the second
           is the opinion of one random person on root, and the third is
           from Brett personally.
           \_ Nice revisionist history.  Politburo and root staff as bodies
              asked kchang to turn off attribution.  One staff member (turns
              out to be Jon) said adding a disclaimer would be sufficient.
              (BTW, in my universe, the word of one root staff member is
              worth much less the the combined opinion of the politburo and
              the root staff.  Perhaps it is different in your universe.)
              There was a threat of account shut down if kchang does not reply
              (not clear who the source of the threat is).  And then there
              was a threat from Brett that kchang may violate the not-a-hoser
              rule.  It is only in a *later* email that the hoser threat was
              removed in a "clarification".
              \_ even if I was the "*one*" root person who said this, I
                 am of the general impression that others on root felt that
                 it was a reasonable approach to take. --Jon
                 \_ Well, you and others on root may have felt that.  However,
                    I don't know that from reading the email kchang posted.
                    In that email, it seems quite clear that it was the
                    request of both the politburo and the root staff (as a
                    body) that the attribution function be turned off.  Does
                    kchang have a good enough pulse on the mood of root staff
                    to be able to infer that that position is not final,
                    to be able to infer that that request is not final,
                    despite the letter of the email?  Where is Carmac when
                    you need him?
              \_ It sounds like we agree.  Politburo voted to make a non-
                 threatening request.  Brett sent out a threatening request,
                 misleadingly presenting jon's and his own opinions (which
                 I agree are worth a lot less than a politburo decision)
                 as official.  Politburo is to blame for lots of things,
                 but I don't think this is one of them. -pp
                 \_ no name, no weight. Your post will be ignored.
                 \_ Would you plese show me where in
                    http://csua.com says that
                    the politburo "specifically said that they weren't
                    going to sorry him or anything if he refused" per your
                    original claim?
           \_ BTW, the time line isn't clear.  It is clear that Brett
              threatened kchang with hoserfication.  It is also clear that
              the hoserfication threat was later removed in a clarification.
              When did the politburo had the finding that kchang was not being
              a hoser?  Was it before Brett's threat, and therefore Brett
              had no grounds for his threat?  Was it after the threat, so
              Brett thought he could legitimately threaten?  Is misrepresenting
              the opinion of the politburo in an official communication a
              sorryable offense?
        \_ As amckee explained it, "[the CSUA] is not a democracy.  We're
           [the Politburo] democratically elected, but once in office we have
           near complete authority to implement the policies we see fit.
           Think communist russia, not democratic greece."   They are under
           no obligation to consider alternative points of view, and apparently
           they have no inclination to do so in any case.
           \- ObStarttheOutOfContextTimer
           \_ Time for another soda alias, keystone-kop@soda: amckee
              \_ Wouldn't that be kritical-keystone-kasset?
                \_ I nominate IWillBlackListYou for greatest troll
                   of all time.
                   \_ I dunno, it's got pretty stiff competition: GUN DUEL
                      anyone?
                      \_ Yeah--that one worked perfectly.  -John
                         \_ That was brilliant. Did the perpetrator (who
                            should be proud of their handiwork, I think)
                            ever come forward? -- ulysses
                            \_ It was Mark Felt.  -John
                            \_ It was I.
        \_ So besides being ticked off by the tone of the email, what is
           kchang's reason for not putting up the disclaimer and saving all
           of us eyestrain from reading an evergrowing motd?
           \_ kchang is under no obligation to provide the MOTD threading
              service.  He did it as a favor, and I assume he no longer feels
              a desire to do favors for the current regime.
              \_ We need a regime change. The current administration is as
                 compentent and likeable as the Bush administration.
                 Oh and if you ever find out who I am, please don't
                 squish me.                             -scared poster
                 \_ The current regime has not invaded any other campus
                    groups unilaterally for no reason afaik.
                    \_ I predict that if they did that, alumni support
                       would increase, not decrease.
        \_ Maybe politburo should start drafting these things as a
           committe instead of delegating people to do it.  You guys keep
           putting your collective foot in your mouth. -jrleek
        \_ Come back to the five and dime, Kevin Chang, Kevin Chang....