Xref: utzoo news.admin:5465 news.groups:8770 news.misc:2842 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!vsi1!wyse!mips!prls!philabs!philmtl!ray From: ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Raymond Dunn) Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups,news.misc Subject: Re: Brad (naturally) Message-ID: <431@philmtl.philips.ca> Date: 5 Apr 89 18:56:12 GMT References: <3663@ficc.uu.net> Reply-To: ray@philmtl.UUCP (Raymond Dunn) Followup-To: news.admin Organization: Philips Electronics Ltd. - St. Laurent P.Q., Canada Lines: 56 In article <3663@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >Recently I responded to a pledge by Brad to commit even >more controversial acts in the future by asking, in light >of what I saw as pugnacity/bellicosity in some of his recent >postings, whether he would do so just *because* such acts >would be controversial. I asked that he reply on the net. > >I have received e-mail from Brad declining to do so, but >claiming that he is in fact a tireless toiler for >peace, harmony, and tranquility. I too recently castigated Brad's actions in news.admin on the same subject, and I too received email from Brad. Once again the contents of that email, without going into detail, directly contradict his admission and stated intention of deliberately causing controversy, by saying that he was the victim of controversy and not the instigator. His included ad-hominem attacks (indeed there wasn't much else) are only interesting from the point of view that it would seem he deems them relevant to the points under discussion. We come down to a couple of basic questions I think. If someone deliberately initiates a controversy, and persistently fans that controversy to the point that tempers are lost and others go overboard in their actions, who is to blame? Don't we have a right to request some maturity, or at least expect some simple Pavlovian learning response? Brad makes a controversial statement then exclaims "not nice" when he is criticized for it. Whose fault is that? Who will pay the piper the next time he does it to us, as he promises? If I repeatedly incite "Hit me", "Hit me", who is to blame when I finally get one in the face? I wont be silent while someone, who hasn't been willing to accept any responsibility for the brouhahas he has started up to now, calmly states he has more in store for us, and that, essentially, we have no right to criticize him for it. I'm getting tired of this smoking gun! It is very difficult to keep this above the slanging match level. We are discussing the actions of a particular individual. Let me say that I have no intention of "getting at" Brad in any area in which I do not perceive he is having an affect on me, and if this is deemed "Brad bashing", then so be it. As a public net figure he must be willing to take public criticizm for his public actions and stated opinions. As net citizens everyone has the right (obligation?) to do the criticizing. Sorry, but for reasons I hope you will understand, I reserve the right to publish any email received on the subject. -- Ray Dunn. | UUCP: ..!uunet!philmtl!ray Philips Electronics Ltd. | TEL : (514) 744-8200 Ext: 2347 600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd | FAX : (514) 744-6455 St Laurent. Quebec. H4M 2S9 | TLX : 05-824090