Xref: utzoo news.admin:5572 news.groups:8873 news.misc:2882
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!apple!vsi1!wyse!mips!prls!philabs!linus!raybed2!rayssd!mirror!frog!john
From: john@frog.UUCP (John Woods)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups,news.misc
Subject: Re: Brad (naturally)
Message-ID: <1209@frog.UUCP>
Date: 5 Apr 89 20:19:00 GMT
References: <3663@ficc.uu.net>
Followup-To: news.misc
Organization: Misanthropes-R-Us
Lines: 29

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 him to reply to the net.
> I have received e-mail from Brad declining to do so,

Declining to reply to the net?  Good.  The right choice.  Conserve bandwidth
for talk.bizarre to use :-).

> but claiming that he is in fact a tireless toiler for peace, harmony,
> and tranquility.
> So, I will leave it up to y'all.  Was I off-base?

Bingo.  I thought it a bit counterproductive of him to post such a
controversial suggestion just after the last firefight got down to a smoulder,
but he is perfectly correct in saying that refusing to post controversial
suggestions because it might start a flamefest is a bad idea.  (I merely think
that his timing could have been more effective for his suggestion.)

Lest no one think this is mindless Brad-supporting, I happen to think his
idea was rather silly.  But I was interested in hearing it, and in amidst
the tons of sludge in the followups have been some interesting statements.

-- 
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu

			Remainder Khomeini!