Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!peterr
From: peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley)
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics
Subject: Lessons from Maroney case
Message-ID: <4411@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 26-May-84 23:28:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.4411
Posted: Sat May 26 23:28:53 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 27-May-84 03:26:42 EDT
Organization: CSRG, University of Toronto
Lines: 25

[meta-shift-!]

One aspect of the anti-Maroney articles that surprised me a lot was the
incredible toadying to authority.  "Insubordination!" they cry...  "He
broke his agreement!"  Are we not obliged to object to unfair conditions?
Actually, I am sure that many of the apparent pro-authority posters are
not this way at all.  If the authority were the Polish or Russian government,
I'd wager that they'd even consider assassination fair play.

But perhaps some really do believe that we are here to be led.  This is mostly
out of fashion these days, being given a bad name by WW II.  Sadly, it is
making a comeback via religion, through the fanatical cults and fanatical
theocracies (e.g. Iran).  Let us be aware that following a leader means that
you are acting in *their* self-interest.

----

As a practical matter of inter-personal communications, the Maroney letters
showed the dangers of relying on electronic mail too much.  It was too easy
for the UNC faculty involved, as busy as they were, to give quick answers
subject to misinterpretation (the payroll issue comes to mind).  There *are*
advantages to talking in person when you must be sure of what someone means
to say, or if you are competing for their attention with many other interests.

p. rowley, U. Toronto