moriarty@uw-june.UUCP (05/23/84)
I have read over the complete 5-part series....
twice, in fact...
and it has certainly given me much to think about. But before I began
shaping what I wanted to say, it struck me that a statement of my views
might seem unjustifiable, as I was not involved in the case, and have not
had a chance to look at any other evidence than the collection of letters
forming the articles. How would I respond to the question, "What justifies
your view on the matter? You weren't there!" Well, I decided to play
devil's advocate; consider the possibility that what we had seen had been
mis-represented or lead in a false direction. I did so for three questions,
and I believe I answered each satisfactorily.
1) How do we know that Tim didn't edit these articles to suit his side of
the argument (after all, we weren't there... we're getting all this second
or third-hand)?
Well, first of all, no one has made such a claim so far (the
involved faculty at UNC has been notably quiet); a hullaballoo would be
expected from the other side if misrepresentation had been used. Secondly,
Tim sent out copies of most letters to other people when posting, so much is
vouched for there. Third, and most tenuous (to the legal beagles, at least),
is that after reading many of Tim's articles, and these letters, he seems a
reasonable, rational, CIVILIZED writer, and thus person (this doesn't always
follow, but it's difficult for one to fake the other); this is not the kind
of person who tries to get back at someone through "fake letters" Tim's
decision to use the letters as the basis of the articles was an excellent
idea; it presents the matter as clearly as possible, enforces his
reasonability (I would have been frothing at the mouth after a week of this
double-talk, yet Tim keeps a immensely mature calm over much of it), and
tends to emphasize his accuser's hypocrisy.
2) Could there have been actual system cost due to USENET use?
I think Tim, through his discussions through Tim Seaver, showed this to be
false... no more to be said.
3) Were Tim's articles offensive enough to justify him being
blackballed from the network?
I can think of only one or two **!!EXTREME!!** examples where this might be
justified... a person sending thousands of copies of hate mail to someone
over the net, or something really irresponsible like this. Myself, I
believe a simple hate-mail letter is rather ridiculous in the first place,
but not something to be thrown off for -- one of the things we put up with
in a society allowing freedom of speech and thought (in any communication
form). And from what other net-people say, I rather doubt Tim ever sent any
hate-mail. If it is a question of "irresponsible" views, then there is no
question... no one has the right to decide unquestionably that these views are
not valid. The thing which has burned me the most was the restriction of
views IN A COLLEGE! While it would be no more legal for this to occur at a
industrial site or private organization, it might seem more likely; but,
naive as it may sound, a University's main goals should be the pursuit of
knowledge and truth, in principle as well as in practice. When something
like this happens, when ideas are restricted and censored, it is a denial of
these very ideals. When it happens to someone of Tim's caliber (I read a
lot of his articles, and he has a distinctively logical approach... I wish I
had half his skill there) it frightens me quite a bit. A personal
observation: anyone considering the comment "Anonymous posters will roast in
Hell" offensive is a nitwit. I'd like to use that for my own signature file!
Unfortunately, there's nothing I can do about it... I doubt that anything I
could say would have any effect in the matter, other than if I am ever in a
position of responsibility and find myself involved in a decision like this,
I will remember this case and act accordingly. I hope those already in
charge of usenet site policy will do the same.
I hope to see Tim back on the net at some future date. Not for any
political or religious matters, mind you; I just miss his pleasant wit and
interesting articles. Anyone enjoying the whole wombat crisis discussion in
net.misc will agree here, I think. Hope he returns soon.
"We must all hang together, or we will certainly hang seperately."
Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
UUCP: {ihnp4,cornell,decvax,tektronix}!uw-beaver!uw-june!moriarty
ARPANET: moriarty@washingtonalan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (05/23/84)
[Warning: Don't read this line.] Perhaps there is something we can do. The faculty members who censored Tim were concerned about the reputation of UNC. (At least they claimed they were concerned. It might have been another smoke screen.) I sent them electronic mail, expressing my opinions on the matter. Now maybe, if enough of us do this, they will realize that UNC's reputation *has* been damaged, but by their own actions, not by Tim's. Note: I'm not talking about sending anyone hate mail! I'm talking about an intelligent letter explaining why (and how strongly) we disagree with what they have done. -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (05/24/84)
Regarding the following comment: > Perhaps there is something we can do. The faculty members who censored > Tim were concerned about the reputation of UNC. (At least they claimed > they were concerned. It might have been another smoke screen.) I sent > them electronic mail, expressing my opinions on the matter. Now maybe, > if enough of us do this, they will realize that UNC's reputation *has* > been damaged, but by their own actions, not by Tim's. > > Note: I'm not talking about sending anyone hate mail! I'm talking about > an intelligent letter explaining why (and how strongly) we disagree with > what they have done. > > Alan S. Driscoll > AT&T Bell Laboratories I think the writer completely misunderstands what the attitude of the administrators/faculty/authority figures in this case is and would be in reaction to any such messages. [I admit this is supposition, but it is based on a lifetime of observation and analysis of human behavior.] Their reaction is/will be NOT that "UNC's reputation has been damaged ...by their own actions"; it will be that Tim is at fault for publicizing their actions! They will NOT take an attitude of "mea culpa" but instead feel righteously indignant that internal dirty linen has been aired in public. It will only fan their antagonism or resentment against Tim. I also reiterate my earlier comment that I withhold judgement of guilt in this matter until we hear/see what happened AFTER the traffic which we read on the net, and input from the other side. [I don't expect to see this latter, as I am sure the authorities at UNC feel no need or desire to justify their administrative actions to the net at large. Perhaps if some North Carolina taxpayers sent transcripts of all this net discussion to the committee of the NC state legislature that controls UNC funding, something might be shaken loose? Sounds like fun!] Will