Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!linus!philabs!gcm!dc
From: dc@gcm (Dave Caswell)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin
Subject: Re: Defending Eric Mading
Message-ID: <382@white.gcm>
Date: Sat, 21-Nov-87 14:01:11 EST
Article-I.D.: white.382
Posted: Sat Nov 21 14:01:11 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 24-Nov-87 04:39:53 EST
References: <7427@eddie.MIT.EDU> <1853@chinet.UUCP> <7439@eddie.MIT.EDU> <34296@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: dc@white.UUCP (Dave Caswell)
Organization: Greenwich Capital Markets, Greenwich, CT
Lines: 115

This article is very long.  I promise it's my first and last on this subject.

In article <34296@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>>One thing we are losing sight of here is that the net is not "the real 
>>world".  Saying something nasty about somebody else here is not the
>>same as harrassing them on the street, or threatening them by phone,
>>or hanging around outside their house.  You do not HAVE TO read the net.
>>You do not HAVE TO respond when someone baits you.
>
>This is one of the most amusing pieces of bizarre logic I've ever seen. 

Don't you read your own articles? :-)  This is the most frequent cause of
personal attacks, sometimes you just can't resist. :-)
This is a philosophy to imitate, both he and I, have created an enemy 
before the first paragraph.  I'm kidding. Don't imitate this.  

>Someone DOES have the right to make nasty comments about me. But I don't 
>have to read it, so that's okay. 
>
>Someone DOES have the right to make nasty comments about me, but I don't
>have to defend myself, so that's okay. 

Someone does have the right to make nasty comments about me, but I have
the right not to believe them, and to get angry or not angry as I wish.


>>is fair game.  There are no rules. There are no guidelines.
>
>Bullhockey. I may not be a Christian, but "Do unto Others as you would have
>yourself be done to" seems like a wonderful concept to me. And I notice with
>some amusement that the folks who are the most abusive on the network tend
>to be the loudest screamers when the abuser becomes an abusee. And what's
>even funnier, someone like Ken Arndt can make some of the most racist,
>abusive and purely NASTY comments you can think of (to chose one old,
>hopefully left behind us example) and the second someone calls him on them,
>everyone runs out and defends the bastard. Where were these folks when he
>was doing the abusing? Not defending anyone then. 

I'm also bothered by the fact that people only seem to defend obnoxiousness
and childishness.  If someone posts a program to net that doesn't work
and hasn't been tested, and someone says "please test your programs in
the future"; there will always be a group of people who say "how dare
you insist on quality".  In the same way people will say; "how dare you
expect people's brains to be connected to their fingers, we have freedom
of speech".  It is a reflection on people's intelligence that the first
amendment has become merely a cliche.  All that said I really 
disagree with what you say above.

That biblical quote means we will be rewarded or not for our actions
after death.  It is not license to treat people like they have treated
you.

I really believe what people who respond to childish postings are more
responsible than the original poster for the fact what we continue to 
see such trash.  There will always be people who will post "just
to create a reaction".  The reason no one was defending them is that
adults have learned to ignore it.  They know that defending (reacting)
is what the poster wanted, and that will caused an increase in the
offending articles.  It's not hard to notice when children are acting
strange just to get some attention from adults, why is it so hard to
notice when adults (acting like children) are acting strange just to
get some attention from adults?
Some people just like to create a rash of postings.  What a 
sense of power, I can type one paragraph, thirty seconds max, no
thought required, and provoke a reaction all over the country (maybe world).
The ways to do it are obvious (I'll mention them anyway)
	- go to the comp.lang.c and ask "about goto's"
	- go to comp.sys.amiga and ask "what's your favorite kind of computer"
	- go go rec.ham-radio and ask "for plans to build a 11-meter amp"
	- go to alt.drugs and say "all drugs are OK and should be legalized"
	- go to alt.drugs and say "shoot cops"

>Face it. The prevailing rule of USENET seems to be "it's okay, as long as
>I'm doing it to you."

Quoted out of context.
<>So am I. And all the others that Eric represents -- he's just the latest in
<>a series of nasty people who got hoisted by his own petard. He has no more
<>right to foist his anger and obnoxiousness on us than we have painting
<>swastika's on our neighbor's barn. 

The prevailing rule seems to be "sticks and stones may hurt me but words
may merely amuse." No one ever said you could deface people's property,
they said you could hit the "n" key, have a "KILL" file etc.


>Oh, and while I'm at it, let me make my normal snotty comment for a

"Normal" is the sense of "usual".  My dictionary says "established level or
pattern that is asscociated with well being, although based on group 
tendencies rather than on an arbritrary level.  By that standard 
there is no such thing as a "normal snotty comment."

>situation like this. It shows up the mindset of the people involved.
>Inevitably, when something like this occurs, the following statement is made
>at one point or another in some form:
>
>	He has the right to say anything he wants, and you don't have
>	the right to say he doesn't
>
>This one always makes me laugh. If you don't see the problem with this
>statement, I suggest you study it carefully. You're PART of the problem, not
>the cure.

I'm sure you would rephrase it as 
	He can't say anything he wants, and I have the right to say he can't
or maybe even
	He can only say what I want him to say

If you don't see the problem with this statement, I suggest you study it 
carefully.  You're part of the problem, not the solution.

Of course the statement people really make is
	He has the right to say anything he wants, and you're not
	correct(right) in saying he doesn't have that right