Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: a good example
Message-ID: <4247@alice.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Aug-85 11:29:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: alice.4247
Posted: Fri Aug 30 11:29:34 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Aug-85 08:37:39 EDT
References: <1109@mhuxt.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 29

Now that my original posting has been misinterpreted by at least
two people who have posted responses, it's time to clarify.

I said:

>> Now, I'm not going to try to argue about whether this particular
>> policy is right or wrong -- I can see arguments on both sides.
>> Rather,  I am presenting this article as a warning against
>> jumping to conclusions.

and Jeff Sonntag replied:

>     Unless you're one of those unreasonable persons who think that
> unreasonable search without probable cause is unconstitutional, unethical
> and immoral.     

apparently not realizing that I meant EXACTLY what I said -- no more
and no less.  I did not post this article in order to get into a flaming
debate about what is or is not "reasonable search."  That is NOT why
I posted my previous article!!

I posted it because I thought this was a good example of how the
impression created by the lead paragraph of a news story was greatly
different from what one concludes with a few more facts.  Essentially,
the events in the story went from "completely hideous" to "obnoxious
but plausible" as I read it.

I thought it would help explain why I am often skeptical of stories
given as examples when a lot of the details are missing.