otto@whuxle.UUCP (George V.E. Otto) (05/27/84)
I have been watching the discussion about Tim Maroney, the University of North Carolina, Dr. Brooks, etc., evolve here in the various discussion groups of Usenet. Some of the discussion has concerned the fact that we have only seen one side of the issue, that there has been no clarifying comment from someone "in the know" on behalf of UNC. It seems to me that this lack of official response has actually intensified the discussion and increased our fascination, much in the same why that we are fascinated with the action in *Waiting for Godot* even though we are seeing but "one side" of the events unfolding there. By leaving one side unexpressed the audience is free to hypothesize about the actions and motivations that led up to or contributed to the known events. I think that one of the things that Beckett showed us with *WfG* (and others with similar plays, such as *Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead*) is that human beings have a surprisingly powerful, almost uncontrollable interest in such matters. For some net contributors to say "we don't know what the UNC position is, so we shouldn't discuss the matter" misses the point. I think it is *precisely because* we don't know the UNC position that we are magnetically drawn into the discussion. If we knew the facts on both sides the issue would have been quickly disposed of. Only those people who saw problems in the specifics of the situation would have continued the discussion, and only as long as they could ring the changes on the given facts. Now, however, since so much is left ambiguous, many people are involved because among the many competing hypotheses of what happened are some that contain elements that *they* would get exercised over. Since there are many more hypothetical violations than could possibly be supported by a single set of facts (the real events) many more people see a reason for continuing the discussion than would be the case were the facts from all sides known. Whatever the causes, I think that this situation has now been raised to mythic proportions. The "Maroney/UNC incident" will live on in the minds of Usenetters for many, many years, and become a defining incident in the Usenet culture. Questions such as "do you remember what you were doing when you heard that Tim Maroney was kicked off the net?" may start to be heard. Old-timers (those with more than 5 years on the net) will tell newcomer whipper-snappers about "the incident" with the hushed tones suitable for stories of vital but threatening importance.
otto@whuxle.UUCP (George V.E. Otto) (05/27/84)
I have been watching the discussion about Tim Maroney, the University of North Carolina, Dr. Brooks, etc., evolve here in the various discussion groups of Usenet. Some of the discussion has concerned the fact that we have only seen one side of the issue, that there has been no clarifying comment from someone "in the know" on behalf of UNC. It seems to me that this lack of official response has actually intensified the discussion and increased our fascination, much in the same why that we are fascinated with the action in *Waiting for Godot* even though we are seeing but "one side" of the events unfolding there. By leaving one side unexpressed the audience is free to hypothesize about the actions and motivations that led up to or contributed to the known events. I think that one of the things that Beckett showed us with *WfG* (and others with similar plays, such as *Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead*) is that human beings have a surprisingly powerful, almost uncontrollable interest in such matters. For some net contributors to say "we don't know what the UNC position is, so we shouldn't discuss the matter" misses the point. I think it is *precisely because* we don't know the UNC position that we are magnetically drawn into the discussion. If we knew the facts on both sides the issue would have been quickly disposed of. Only those people who saw problems in the specifics of the situation would have continued the discussion, and only as long as they could ring the changes on the given facts. Now, however, since so much is left ambiguous, many people are involved because among the many competing hypotheses of what happened are some that contain elements that *they* would get exercised over. Since there are many more hypothetical violations than could possibly be supported by a single set of facts (the real events) many more people see a reason for continuing the discussion than would be the case were the facts from all sides known. Whatever the causes, I think that this situation has now been raised to mythic proportions. The "Maroney/UNC incident" will live on in the minds of Usenetters for many, many years, and become a defining incident in the Usenet culture. Questions such as "do you remember what you were doing when you heard that Tim Maroney was kicked off the net?" may start to be heard. Old-timers (those with more than 5 years on the net) will tell newcomer whipper-snappers about "the incident" with the hushed tones suitable for stories of vital but threatening importance. George Otto AT&T Bell Labs, Whippany ------------------------