TK0JUT2@netsys.NETSYS.COM (10/12/90)
I've exchanged a few private notes with John Haugh and he indicates that his original post that rankled many of us was not intended to be mean spirited, and that he in fact wishes the subject of his post good luck and feels compassion for his situation. Many of us have a tendancy to personalize issues which results in comments reflecting passion, anger, or simply bad taste. Many of us share identical concerns, but addressing these concerns is diverted when we begin attacking each other in ways that become ad hominem rather than productive. Sometimes a person and an issue are bound together and one cannot be discussed without the other. Perhaps we can take a few obvious lessons from all this and move on to engage in the real issues of protecting the rights of *all* computer users from unnecessary government control.
jdevoto@Apple.COM (Jeanne A. E. DeVoto) (10/12/90)
In article <200@netsys.NETSYS.COM> God only knows who (is there any way to get the gateway to post the name of the original writer?) writes: >I've exchanged a few private notes with John Haugh and he indicates that his >original post that rankled many of us was not intended to be mean spirited, >and that he in fact wishes the subject of his post good luck and feels >compassion for his situation. Regardless of the extent of John Haugh's compassion for Len Rose, he has publicly accused Mr. Rose of a serious crime and has provided no proof. The accusation itself can, and probably will, be used to damage Mr. Rose legally, regardless of its truth or falsehood: what impression do you think a claim by prosecutors that "defendant is widely known in the hacker community as a purveyor of stolen equipment", along with a copy of Mr. Haugh's original message, will leave on a judge or jury? (If anyone considers this kind of distortion unthinkable in a court of law, I suggest a close study of the Craig Neidorf case.) Either prompt substantiation of this claim, or a public apology in the same forum as the accusation, is the least that Mr. Rose (and other readers of these groups) can and should expect from Mr. Haugh. None of this, unfortunately, will completely ameliorate the damage that may already have been done. -- ========= jeanne a. e. devoto ======================================== jdevoto@apple.com | You may not distribute this article under a jdevoto@well.sf.ca.us | compilation copyright without my permission. ______________________________________________________________________ Apple Computer and I are not authorized | CI$: 72411,165 to speak for each other. |
karish@mindcrf.UUCP (Chuck Karish) (10/13/90)
In article <200@netsys.NETSYS.COM> niu.bitnet!TK0JUT2@netsys.NETSYS.COM writes: >I've exchanged a few private notes with John Haugh and he indicates that his >original post that rankled many of us was not intended to be mean spirited, And if you believe that one... >and that he in fact wishes the subject of his post good luck and feels >compassion for his situation. Yes, that's why he's forwarding rumors about Len's past actions to the Secret Service. Out of compassion. -- Chuck Karish karish@mindcraft.com Mindcraft, Inc. (415) 323-9000
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (10/13/90)
In article <9010121911.AA08310@mindcrf.mindcraft.com> karish@mindcrf.UUCP (Chuck Karish) writes: > Yes, that's why he's forwarding rumors about Len's past actions > to the Secret Service. Out of compassion. after speaking to several attorneys i have been advised to give any evidence which i might have to the secret service. as i said in my previous letter this doesn't mean the evidence is true or false, but as these attorneys keep pointing out, withholding it is a crime in and of itself. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson