djw@imsvax.UUCP (05/21/84)
<passive radiator> After all the conflicts that have arisen over Tim Maroney's diffi- culties, has it occured to anyone to take the original statements in light of the author? True, there have been some mentions of one-sidedness, but I would go farther to say that there is outright bias. Let us consider what can be said of Tim's actions from his own postings... He has conflicted with his employers, argued with his employers, and bickered with his employers. He has ignored the right of his employers to dispose of organization resources as they see fit. In addition, he has gone directly against their instructions by posting items to the net when speci- fically told not to. That is insubordination. He has enlisted the assistance of his friends in the above actions, bringing down upon them punishments on a par with his own. His own postings have documented someone whose access privileges were revoked for posting an article which should not have been posted. That is exploitation of one's friends. And finally, he has dragged the name of his employer through the mud by making unjustified statements regarding censorship -- the University didn't necessarily prevent Mr. Maroney from putting forth his opinions; they simply didn't want their computer used for the purpose. Already, his postings have generated such opinions as "I'm not getting involved with that place if it means my life". And he didn't confine his opinions to his friends, coworkers, or even local area, but instead posted it to a news agency with WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION. And that, my friends, is libel. While only the latter is actually criminal, none of the three serves to endear me to Tim Maroney. All of them together are sufficient to cause a massive, if not total, loss of respect for him. All told, it would seem that any statements made by him regarding unfair treatment are somewhat suspect, and that any punishment doled out to him is probably a direct result of his own actions and is thus perfectly fair, if not admirable. Don Whytock ...!allegra!umcp_cs!eneevax!imsvax!djw Flames to mail, please. We don't get net.flame here. (Can't imagine why...)
dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (05/22/84)
"I'm sure you will never hear UNC's side of this story, and for
good reason." -- Wm Leler
Why not? Whether Tim was right or wrong, he has presented a case
to the public in which there is an indication that UNC faculty
may have discriminated on the basis of religion. UNC does not have
to justify itself to the net; but if UNC does not come forward with
any explanation it leaves people assuming they have no defense.
If UNC does have another "side of the story", why not present it
to the net?
What we are all witnessing is a tremendous experiment in the jury
system - trial by one's peers - which is one of the cornerstones
of our society. There will be no vote (unless someone posts a
survey); but we, as a collective jury, are discussing the case and
will draw conclusions about both Tim and the UNC faculty in question.
From what I have seen so far I side with Tim. I did not see any
explanation in the long correspondence which would justify UNC's
ban on his postings. Given the context in which the net operates
and the scope of his postings, I do not believe for a moment that
anyone thought he spoke for the university.
As to the money question: it has been pointed out that Tim cost
the net a lot of money. Indeed he did. If the net chose to vote
against his posting anything, on the grounds that it was costing
all sites too much, that would be one thing. But for UNC to
claim he was costing them money when his postings were transmitted
to mcnc by local phone call is ludicrous.
I look forward to seeing Tim's contributions from wherever he is now.
I assume he would not have taken a new position (someone mentioned
Pittsburgh) without making sure he had access to the net.
Dave Sherman
Toronto
--
dave at Toronto (CSnet)
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!davetoml@druxm.UUCP (LaidigTL) (05/23/84)
I kept telling myself I wouldn't get into this... From: djw@imsvax.UUCP Don Whytock > And finally, he has dragged the name of his employer through the mud > by making unjustified statements regarding censorship -- the University didn't > necessarily prevent Mr. Maroney from putting forth his opinions; they simply > didn't want their computer used for the purpose. Already, his postings have > generated such opinions as "I'm not getting involved with that place if it > means my life". And he didn't confine his opinions to his friends, coworkers, > or even local area, but instead posted it to a news agency with WORLDWIDE > DISTRIBUTION. > > And that, my friends, is libel. Quoting someone correctly (no, I have no proof Tim quoted anyone correctly, but I certainly don't have any proof he misquoted anyone) in context (similar disclaimer) is not libel. If people decide Brooks is a jerk because Tim correctly quoted Brooks in context, that says nothing against Tim. It does say that Brooks does not fit the norms of net society. If people decide UNC is a terrible place because it is represented by Brooks (who they have decided is a jerk, as above), that also says nothing against Tim. It does say that UNC should decide what their policy is (perhaps taking into account public opinion), STATE it, and make sure their administrators are aware of it. A publicity campain to reverse the effects of their previous mistakes might also be warranted, although I wouldn't expect it, since the information we have suggests that UNC behaves more like an industry (remember Denver) than like a university. Tom Laidig AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver ...!ihnp4!druxm!toml
eric@aplvax.UUCP (05/25/84)
An "experiment in the jury system"? Perhaps it is. This makes it even more dangerous. In all trials, both sides present their views to an "unbiased" jury. At this point, friends, I think we are pretty polarized. Also, there has been no chance for cross-examination, another important point. I think, rather than an experiment in the jury system, we may be seeing another phenomena, the first electronic lynch mob. -- eric ...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!eric
ded@aplvax.UUCP (05/25/84)
It's always nice to hear both sides of a story, but in this case I'm afraid that waiting for UNC to speak up is like waiting for the end of an infinite loop. People in power usually handle pests by ignoring them -- after a while they just go away. This system has worked quite well for centuries, and it is a problem for people whose only power is electricity. What do you do when people who have wronged you are also the only people who can set it right? And what do you do when they ignore you? Well, you can (1) give up, (2) hire an expensive lawyer and take them to court (this is called "shooting your foot to spite your knee"), or (3) you can try to make so much noise that they can't ignore you anymore (such as happened with Nixon with Watergate). Tim obviously chose the third door. Let's make a deal. I don't think it will work. There will be a typical USENET uproar for awhile, then we will go on to other things. In the end, UNC will win the battle because that is the way things usually work: people in power win. Yes, there are exceptions, but that is exactly what they are: exceptions to a rule. -- Don Davis JHU/APL ...decvax!harpo!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!ded ...rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!aplvax!ded
boylan@dicomed.UUCP (05/26/84)
Expectations that someone from UNC will breath new life into this
discussion are unrealistic. Even if you assume that they could
blow away everything that came out of tim@unc's articles, they still
would only prolong the discussion and people would have a hard time
believing Brooks et al are shining angles no matter what they said.
I suggest we quite cluttering the network with articles on this issue
until the next time it happens.
And if it happens to you, I say explore your alternatives legal
wise with the appropriate grievence procedures, prehaps with the
aid of the ACLU (after all, they did come to the aid of the NAZI's
in IL.), and maybe we will finally get this problem solved and/or
clarified.
--
Chris Boylan
{mgnetp | ihnp4 | uwvax}!dicomed!boylan