Keane Arase, Systems Programmer
University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Acedemic and Public Computing, Technical Project Support
kean@tank.uchicago.edu
syskean@uchimvs1.uchicago.edu
** Please file the standard disclaimers here **
From jwas@pbhyf.PacBell.COM Thu Dec 8 12:16:32 1988
Flags: 000000000000
From: jwas@pbhyf.PacBell.COM (J. Wasik)
Subject: Re: Rec.humor.funny is dead, film at 11
Keywords: dead, cut-off, pressure tactics
Date: 8 Dec 88 18:16:32 GMT
Organization: Pac*Bell (ISO, SBS UNIX District)
Somewhere there is a fellow laughing at all of us...
--
Joe Wasik - PacBell, 2600 Camino Ramon, 4e750, San Ramon, CA 94583 415-823-2422
jwas@pbhyf.PacBell.COM or {att,bellcore,sun,ames,pyramid}!pacbell!jwas
From bill@ssbn.WLK.COM Thu Dec 8 12:35:55 1988
Flags: 000000000000
From: bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy)
Subject: Re: Nuke Waterloo?
Summary: Let's not do any harm
Date: 8 Dec 88 18:35:55 GMT
Followup-To: news.admin
Organization: W.L. Kennedy Jr. and Associates, Pipe Creek, TX
In article <18002@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <2188@unmvax.unm.edu>, mike@turing (Michael I. Bushnell) writes:
>
>
> Any ideas on what to do about U. Waterloo's bad net
>citizenship? It seems to me a site which wants to be a
>self-appointed censorship board may be better off the net,
>despite the trouble that would cause to innocent bystanders.
First let me say that I am as offended and outraged as any of us over this
sorry state of affairs. I volunteered ssbn some time back and offered to
pay the LD to hook up looking again because I feared the situation would
deteriorate as it has done.
Brad very graciously and thoughtfully replied and essentially told me
to "cool it", I might do more harm than good. I wish I had saved the
note but he asked me not to. I shall attempt a very poor paraphrase
of what he said. I'm sure it won't be as accurate but you'll get the
drift and I think that's what's important here.
First my own thoughts, then essentially what Brad said. I think that the
folks at watmath caved in to a misinformed public opinion made up by an
ignorant news media. I honestly believe that if you could wring the truth
out of them that they are really on Brad's side. Obviously we can't
wring the truth out of them because it would leak to the media and further
inflame what they are trying to extinguish. It appears to us like they
have just completed the character assasination started by JEDR and others.
I'm sure that this appearance grieves and angers them as much as it does
us. They are an educational institution and when nonsense like this
appears to dilute or pollute their primary function they have to stick by
their priorities. Their priorities even if that means doing something that
isn't what you or I (or they) might think is "right". An unpleasant but very
real situation and decision. We're all faced with them from time to time.
Sorry for that, I promised to share Brad's feelings. First off I think
that he should get a round of applause from us for being so level headed
about this. He pointed out that the netters know more about the situation
and the culture of usenet than anyone involved. The situation is so
ridiculous that it provokes us to outrage and cry vengeance. This behavior
on our part, how ever justified, is perceived by the outside world to be
precisely what JEDR claims, i.e. we (inadvertantly) confirm his story and
vouch for his credibility. The operative word there is "perceived".
Regardless of how well intentioned, morally correct, or justifiably
indignant we might be, that's how it's perceived outside our own community.
In short, we're hurting him by trying to help. I must very reluctantly
agree with Brad and concede that while it's wrong, it's that way :-( :-(
As dearly as I'd love to fry the people who started this I will not further
their cause by doing so. BTW, the :-('s are mine, they conclude what Brad
said last week. Gene Spafford pleaded with us for moderation and asked us
all to shut up and let this blow over, he is correct too. With great
reluctance I will do that (in a few sentences :-) and find something to do
with my outrage... an obscure part of the Hippocratic commitment is
"Prima non nocere", First do no harm. I propose that we treat JEDR and
the prepetrators of this atrocity like the pariahs that they are, but not
try to exact vengeance on others who got swept up in it. *NOW* I'll shut up.
Apologies to Gene Smith, his just happened to be the article that suggested
precisely what Brad doesn't want.
--
Bill Kennedy usenet {killer,att,cs.utexas.edu,sun!daver}!ssbn!bill
internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM
From bill@ssbn.WLK.COM Thu Dec 8 13:49:55 1988
Flags: 000000000000
From: bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy)
Subject: Rec.humor.funny fiasco
Keywords: cool it
Date: 8 Dec 88 19:49:55 GMT
Organization: W.L. Kennedy Jr. & Associates, Pipe Creek, TX
Earlier today I posted a plea for moderation in this ridiculous
(and outrageous) matter. That was essentially asking us to all
shut up. So here, on the heels of asking everyone to shut up,
yet another article. I want to reach the people who are still
reading about this, the admins and readers. What I am going to
describe is completely speculation on my part, I have nothing
to confirm what I'm describing.
The earlier post asked that we not inadvertantly injure Brad and
or his situation by raving or threatening retaliation. I will
propose a more sinister but entirely possible scenario which may
even be true.
Fact: JEDR and Brad have been conspicuously silent lately.
Fact: Someone posted a few days ago suggesting that if a
situation got too far out of hand that legal remedies
could be pursued.
Speculation: Maybe legal remedies are being pursued and that's
why neither party has anything to say. Further, if that
is the case we might be doing a severe disservice to what
ever side we favor by caterwauling about one or the other.
Wouldn't you feel like an utter fool if the article you
posted turned out to be the legal evidence that caused
the remedy to not go in the direction you supported?
I do not want to sound like you're being read your rights but if the
speculation happens to be accurate then we might be hoist by our own
petard making threatening or damaging remarks. I'm not proposing that
we shut down the discussion, but I am asking that we be very careful
to not provide any fuel for the fire that exists or for another that
we don't even know about. I don't think the speculation is too far
fetched or I wouldn't have asked for your time to read it.
--
Bill Kennedy usenet {killer,att,cs.utexas.edu,sun!daver}!ssbn!bill
internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM
From smf@saffron.lcs.mit.edu Thu Dec 8 21:58:14 1988
Flags: 000000000000
From: smf@saffron.lcs.mit.edu (Stuart Freedman)
Subject: ashes to ashes...
Keywords: sexual, chuckle
Date: 9 Dec 88 03:58:14 GMT
After several years of marriage, Debbie's husband, Mike, died
suddenly. According to his wishes, Debbie had his body cremated and
placed the remains in a small urn.
Several weeks later, Debbie came home wearing a full-length mink
coat and an eight-carat diamond ring. She went into the living room,
removed the urn from the mantel and carefully tapped Mike's ashes into
a small dish on the coffee table.
"Mike, my beloved Mike," she began, "I wish to talk to you. Mike,
do you remember, for several years you promised me a mink coat? Well,
here it is, Mike. do you like it?
"And, Mike," she continued, "do you remember, for several years
you promised me a diamond ring? Yes? You remember? Here it is, Mike.
Do you like it?
"Well," Debbie exclaimed, puffing Mike's ashes into the air,
"there's that blow job I was promising you."
