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