Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-sally.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!decvax!harpo!seismo!ut-sally!jsq
From: jsq@ut-sally.UUCP (John Quarterman)
Newsgroups: net.jokes.d
Subject: Re: Freedom of speech
Message-ID: <125@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-May-84 13:11:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.125
Posted: Mon May 14 13:11:57 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 16-May-84 03:04:07 EDT
References: <733@avsdT.UUCP>, <325@kpno.UUCP> <19501@wivax.UUCP>, <120@ut-sally.UUCP> <19504@wivax.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 18

The people complaining about BLKTRAN probably didn't *intend* to drive
any sites off of USENET either, but their complaints, or, rather, the
emotionalism of them, were what provoked the decision by the site.
Public opinion outside a site does have an effect.

The "gay blade" criticisms have not reached anything like that intensity,
no, but the first few complaints were inappropriate in their extreme
emotionalism (not to mention their self-contradictions).

Surely you don't mean to say that joke posters should display responsibility,
and site administrators should display responsibility, but joke critics
have no need of responsibility?  If you're going to argue that joke posters
should have a care in what and how they post, you should also argue that
joke critics should do the same, and not hype something innocuous into
being something it wasn't.
-- 
John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712 USA
jsq@ut-sally.ARPA, jsq@ut-sally.UUCP, {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsq