Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-tgr!wmartin
From: wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin )
Newsgroups: net.net-people,net.flame,net.misc,net.religion
Subject: Re: The Tim Maroney case
Message-ID: <3011@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 24-May-84 14:30:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.3011
Posted: Thu May 24 14:30:11 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Jun-84 03:37:39 EDT
References: <1491@uw-june>, <2492@allegra.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistics Research Lab
Lines: 38
Xref: 126 1091 866 963

Regarding the following comment:

>   Perhaps there is something we can do.  The faculty members who censored
>   Tim were concerned about the reputation of UNC.  (At least they claimed
>   they were concerned.  It might have been another smoke screen.)  I sent
>   them electronic mail, expressing my opinions on the matter.  Now maybe,
>   if enough of us do this, they will realize that UNC's reputation *has*
>   been damaged, but by their own actions, not by Tim's.
>   
>   Note: I'm not talking about sending anyone hate mail!  I'm talking about
>   an intelligent letter explaining why (and how strongly) we disagree with
>   what they have done.
>   
>   	Alan S. Driscoll
>   	AT&T Bell Laboratories

I think the writer completely misunderstands what the attitude of the
administrators/faculty/authority figures in this case is and would be
in reaction to any such messages. [I admit this is supposition, but it
is based on a lifetime of observation and analysis of human behavior.]

Their reaction is/will be NOT that "UNC's reputation has been damaged
...by their own actions"; it will be that Tim is at fault for publicizing
their actions! They will NOT take an attitude of "mea culpa" but instead
feel righteously indignant that internal dirty linen has been aired in
public. It will only fan their antagonism or resentment against Tim.

I also reiterate my earlier comment that I withhold judgement of
guilt in this matter until we hear/see what happened AFTER the
traffic which we read on the net, and input from the other side. [I don't
expect to see this latter, as I am sure the authorities at UNC feel
no need or desire to justify their administrative actions to the net
at large. Perhaps if some North Carolina taxpayers sent transcripts
of all this net discussion to the committee of the NC state legislature
that controls UNC funding, something might be shaken loose? Sounds like
fun!]

Will