jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (03/26/89)
I've seen within the last several hours a posting that says
that Brad will ask explicit, case-by-case permission when he
wants to use a joke in rec.humor for his GEnie transmissions.
If that's the case, and since (a) Brad has already notified the
net that postings to rhf are fair game for his transmissions,
and (b) Brad will not be deriving income from *within* the net,
but rather from *outside* the net, the only reasons to object
to his arrangement would be either (a) ad hominem, or (b)
antipathy toward money-making in general.
Therefore, please list my votes as follows:
1. YES, on "allowing" Brad to make the GEnie connection;
2. YES, on respecting Brad's natural and Constitutional right
to regurgitate other people's racist garbage if he
finds said garbage funny; and
3. YES, on Brad someday - the sooner the better - developing
enough class, self-respect, and integrity that he
will *voluntarily* refrain from such regurgitation.
Now, can we move on to other topics, such as creation of
talk.Texasindependence?
Para un Tejas Libre,
Jeff Daiell
--
Fiat Justitia, Ruat Caelum jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (04/01/89)
In article <3031@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > I am going to do all sorts of other new and even more > controversial things in the near future. Brad, at this point I am drawn to ask: are you going to do them because they are good, constructive things, or solely because they are controversial? All things -- including the tone of some of your postings -- considered, I sincerely believe this is a valid, legitimate question, and I believe it deserves a civil, substantive reply in both news.admin and news.groups. Para un Tejas Libre, Jeff Daiell -- Fiat Justitia, Ruat Caelum
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (04/04/89)
Recently I responded to a pledge by Brad to commit even
more controversial acts in the future by asking, in light
of what I saw as pugnacity/bellicosity in some of his recent
postings, whether he would do so just *because* such acts
would be controversial. I asked that he reply on the net.
I have received e-mail from Brad declining to do so, but
claiming that he is in fact a tireless toiler for
peace, harmony, and tranquility.
So, I will leave it up to y'all. Was I off-base? Or was
I correct?
Jeff Daiell
P. S. So no one thinks this is Brad-bashing: I have
defended his right to post racist humor, *and* his right
to deal with GEnie.
--
If a hungry man has water, and a thirsty man has bread,
Then if they trade, be not dismayed, they both come out ahead.
-- Don Paarlbergsuzy@tank.uchicago.edu (suzy marie mercer) (04/04/89)
In article <3663@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: > >Recently I responded to a pledge by Brad to commit even >more controversial acts in the future by asking, in light >of what I saw as pugnacity/bellicosity in some of his recent >postings, whether he would do so just *because* such acts >would be controversial. I asked that he reply on the net. > >I have received e-mail from Brad declining to do so, but >claiming that he is in fact a tireless toiler for >peace, harmony, and tranquility. > >So, I will leave it up to y'all. Was I off-base? Or was >I correct? >Jeff Daiell I support your request that Brad explain himself (yet again). After all, since he chose to announce (read flaunt) the fact in news.groups that he was going to do even more controversial things in the *near* future, then it does not seem unreasonable that he should be expected to explain himself in news.groups. After all, he could have just kept silent, but, true to past behavior, he chose this course. Suzy Marie Mercer University of Chicago suzy@tank.uchicago.ed
djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) (04/05/89)
From article <3663@ficc.uu.net>, by jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell): > > So, I will leave it up to y'all. Was I off-base? Or was > I correct? > Doesn't matter. Why not continue this, if at all, with Brad through email? > > P. S. So no one thinks this is Brad-bashing: I have > defended his right to post racist humor, *and* his right > to deal with GEnie. > No doubt, you also defended his right to stop beating his wife? :-)
ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Raymond Dunn) (04/06/89)
In article <3663@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >Recently I responded to a pledge by Brad to commit even >more controversial acts in the future by asking, in light >of what I saw as pugnacity/bellicosity in some of his recent >postings, whether he would do so just *because* such acts >would be controversial. I asked that he reply on the net. > >I have received e-mail from Brad declining to do so, but >claiming that he is in fact a tireless toiler for >peace, harmony, and tranquility. I too recently castigated Brad's actions in news.admin on the same subject, and I too received email from Brad. Once again the contents of that email, without going into detail, directly contradict his admission and stated intention of deliberately causing controversy, by saying that he was the victim of controversy and not the instigator. His included ad-hominem attacks (indeed there wasn't much else) are only interesting from the point of view that it would seem he deems them relevant to the points under discussion. We come down to a couple of basic questions I think. If someone deliberately initiates a controversy, and persistently fans that controversy to the point that tempers are lost and others go overboard in their actions, who is to blame? Don't we have a right to request some maturity, or at least expect some simple Pavlovian learning response? Brad makes a controversial statement then exclaims "not nice" when he is criticized for it. Whose fault is that? Who will pay the piper the next time he does it to us, as he promises? If I repeatedly incite "Hit me", "Hit me", who is to blame when I finally get one in the face? I wont be silent while someone, who hasn't been willing to accept any responsibility for the brouhahas he has started up to now, calmly states he has more in store for us, and that, essentially, we have no right to criticize him for it. I'm getting tired of this smoking gun! It is very difficult to keep this above the slanging match level. We are discussing the actions of a particular individual. Let me say that I have no intention of "getting at" Brad in any area in which I do not perceive he is having an affect on me, and if this is deemed "Brad bashing", then so be it. As a public net figure he must be willing to take public criticizm for his public actions and stated opinions. As net citizens everyone has the right (obligation?) to do the criticizing. Sorry, but for reasons I hope you will understand, I reserve the right to publish any email received on the subject. -- Ray Dunn. | UUCP: ..!uunet!philmtl!ray Philips Electronics Ltd. | TEL : (514) 744-8200 Ext: 2347 600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd | FAX : (514) 744-6455 St Laurent. Quebec. H4M 2S9 | TLX : 05-824090
john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) (04/06/89)
In article <3663@ficc.uu.net>, jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: > Recently I responded to a pledge by Brad to commit even more controversial > acts in the future by asking, in light of what I saw as pugnacity/bellicosity > in some of his recent postings, whether he would do so just *because* such > acts would be controversial. I asked him to reply to the net. > I have received e-mail from Brad declining to do so, Declining to reply to the net? Good. The right choice. Conserve bandwidth for talk.bizarre to use :-). > but claiming that he is in fact a tireless toiler for peace, harmony, > and tranquility. > So, I will leave it up to y'all. Was I off-base? Bingo. I thought it a bit counterproductive of him to post such a controversial suggestion just after the last firefight got down to a smoulder, but he is perfectly correct in saying that refusing to post controversial suggestions because it might start a flamefest is a bad idea. (I merely think that his timing could have been more effective for his suggestion.) Lest no one think this is mindless Brad-supporting, I happen to think his idea was rather silly. But I was interested in hearing it, and in amidst the tons of sludge in the followups have been some interesting statements. -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu Remainder Khomeini!
john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) (04/06/89)
In article <2594@tank.uchicago.edu>, suzy@tank.uchicago.edu (suzy marie mercer) writes: > After all, [Brad] could have just kept > silent, but, true to past behavior, he chose this course. > That's right. Brad could have kept silent, but he didn't. It's so much NICER when Brad keeps silent. It's so much NICER when people we don't like keep silent. It would be so CONVENIENT if all those disagreeable people would keep SILENT instead of being so obviously wrong. Fortunately, when we Normals finally send all the abNormal people to the nuclear waste dump in Nevada, we won't have to worry about whether or not they keep silent or not. Yours for a more Normal world, -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu Remainder Khomeini!