🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1994Mar30.210304.3800@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> Marek writes:
>In article <CnEopx.40w@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>
>>As you can probably infer from my address, UofT has *not* eliminated the
>>newsgroup, at least for my machine.  I get both pub.ban and .fan .
>>
>>
>>- michael
>
>Shmoops! There was a campus wide memo regarding this and those 
>groups have been taken off our server (alchemy). Yours must 
>have slipped thru the cracks somehow. Congratulations. 
>BTW - all this flammage is moot anyway. The ban has been 
>effectively broken. 

The ban has been broken for the few of us computer-philes who actually
have access to the Net, and those few curiosity-seekers who live close
enough to the border to drive across and pick up newspapers.  Surveys
in southern Ontario have shown that an estimated 75% of people here
*haven't* heard banned details.  Remember, the point of the ban was
to enable the empanelling of an unbiased jury.  If over 3/4 of Ontario
hasn't heard or read the banned information, then, broken or not, such
folks should be easy to find, and the ban has been a success.

- michael

In article <CnM8Au.36z@psych.toronto.edu>, michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
> The ban has been broken for the few of us computer-philes who actually
> have access to the Net, and those few curiosity-seekers who live close
> enough to the border to drive across and pick up newspapers.  Surveys
> in southern Ontario have shown that an estimated 75% of people here
> *haven't* heard banned details.  Remember, the point of the ban was
> to enable the empanelling of an unbiased jury.  If over 3/4 of Ontario
> hasn't heard or read the banned information, then, broken or not, such
> folks should be easy to find, and the ban has been a success.

Well, the ban seems to have eliminated people rich enough to travel, or
well educated enough to access the net from serving on the jury.  Are we
seeing a society of information haves and have-nots being created?  Are
we satisfied with a ban that lets the "elite" learn the information, but
keeps the "common-folk" in the dark?

-- 
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100

In article <1994Apr2.004348.598@sdg.dra.com>,  <sean@sdg.dra.com> wrote:

>> to enable the empanelling of an unbiased jury.  If over 3/4 of Ontario
>> hasn't heard or read the banned information, then, broken or not, such
>> folks should be easy to find, and the ban has been a success.
>
>Well, the ban seems to have eliminated people rich enough to travel, or
>well educated enough to access the net from serving on the jury.  Are we
>seeing a society of information haves and have-nots being created?  Are
>we satisfied with a ban that lets the "elite" learn the information, but
>keeps the "common-folk" in the dark?

That's ridiculous:  You don't have to be rich to cross the border; and
being educated does not imply you use the net.  Anyone in Canada, rich
or poor, can find out banned information if they want to -- the ban is
leaking like a sieve -- what you seem not to understand is that the
reason why 3/4 haven't done so is because they don't *care* to.

I doubt that most Canadians on the net have bothered to read groups
like alt.fan.karla-homolka or sought out ftp sites containing the
banned information.  Even when stuff has been posted to soc.canada
I think a lot of people probably just pressed N -- and even if they
didn't, a majority of net users don't read a lot of newsgroups anyway.

Are we seeing a society of information have's and have nots created?
Maybe -- but that has little or nothing to do with how people get 
information about Karla's trial -- *most* people who know details didn't
get them through the net.

Justin

-- 
Justin Wells  (rjwells@uwaterloo.ca, stem@io.org, stem@sizone.pci.on.ca)

tired: alt.fan.karla-homolka
wired: seizures (legal/medical) related to alt.fan.karla-homolka

In article <CnM8Au.36z@psych.toronto.edu>, michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes...
> 
>The ban has been broken for the few of us computer-philes who actually
>have access to the Net, and those few curiosity-seekers who live close
>enough to the border to drive across and pick up newspapers.  Surveys
>in southern Ontario have shown that an estimated 75% of people here
>*haven't* heard banned details.  Remember, the point of the ban was
>to enable the empanelling of an unbiased jury.  If over 3/4 of Ontario
>hasn't heard or read the banned information, then, broken or not, such
>folks should be easy to find, and the ban has been a success.
> 
>- michael
> 
> 
Actually, a survey published in January said that over 40 per cent of the 
people living in the area from where Jurors will be drawn HAD heard details.
That was 3 months ago -- how much you want to bet the number will be much 
higher by the time they go to Juror selection?

DIAMOND, JESSIKA (j_diamo@pavo.concordia.ca) wrote:
: Actually, a survey published in January said that over 40 per cent of the 
: people living in the area from where Jurors will be drawn HAD heard details.
: That was 3 months ago -- how much you want to bet the number will be much 
: higher by the time they go to Juror selection?

Living in Southern Ontario within an hour's drive o where the crimes
themselves took place, and knowing people who live throughout this region
[including some who knew the victims or their families personally], most
of the people who I have spoken to who know banned details did NOT learn
them thru breaking of the ban---they learned them because people who know
people talk...  Because they lived in the area and knew the information
BEFORE Karla's trial [and hence the ban cam einto effect].  

So, I would argue that, for most Canadians [and Ontarions], the ban *has*
been successful...  those that have access to the net, or who have chosen
to access the banned material in other ways, yes, they have gotten info as
a result of a limited failure of the ban.  But for the rest, the ban has
worked [becaue teh Canadian media isn't breaking it, tho they ARe opposed
to it].


Just my <rapidly declining in value> $.02 worth...


DHM>
dmorgan@uoguelph.ca