Article View: comp.admin.policy
Article #149Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
From: Mark Feit
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1992 19:09
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1992 19:09
58 lines
3562 bytes
3562 bytes
Two very generalized cents' worth, and then I'll put a sock in it. Flames to /dev/null. When most colleges/universities give you an account, you get it for the sole purpose of completing assignments in a course, for research, etc. True, plenty of other stuff (reading news, etc.) goes on and the rule isn't enforced when the outside activities don't interfere with those who are using their accounts to the end for which they were issued. But you're still using the university's resources. If you keep doing something you've been asked to stop because it eats resources others need to use, then as far as I'm concerned they've got all the right in the world to pull the rug out from under you and start due process. I don't see why due process can't start _after_ the rug pulling, since the perpetrator likely to keep pulling the same stunts if the account remains in place. As for having the right to express yourself, you've got it. But as was pointed out in another thread on another newsgroup, just because you've got the right to express yourself doesn't mean that others have to provide the soap box. COMMON SENSE, people... COMMON SENSE. It worries me that everyone (especially here in the U.S.; any comments from elsewhere?) seems to want the rules and regulations of what is and what isn't allowed spelled out in excruciating detail. I knew a fella who got away with a lot of mischief with "there's no rule against it," and he was let off the hook many times because of it. How 'bout if I walk over and hold down your Control key while you're trying to type? Common sense (and courtesy) says I really shouldn't, but there's nothing on the books that says I can't. Okay. So make a rule. Then somebody else will come up with something else way off in left field they'll have to make a rule against. And another. And another. And another. Seems kinda silly, doesn't it? [Ed. Note: "Offensive" as used below is, of course, a subjective term. But people are subjective critters.] As for "offensive" material, a healthy injection of common sense and courtesy is in order: If I see something I find offensive in your .plan, I won't argue with your right to put it there. But I certainly have all the right in the world to form opinions on you based on the type of material you display in "public." I also have the right not to look there again. On the other hand, if I drop something offensive to you in your mailbox and you ask me not to do it again, I'll stop. Honest. I'll even apologize for having offended you. Rationalize, folks, don't institutionalize. You're trying to quantify something there's no measurements for and then trying to find the lowest common demominator. If some of want to be completely shielded from everything that offends you, I have a cave for rent at a very non-offensive rate. - Mark ................................. ................................. : Mark A. Feit KD4TAJ : Internet: feit@era.com : : Engineering Research Associates : USENET: ...!uunet!era!feit : ................................. .................................
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Oct1.190919.12514@ERA.COM>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!era!feitShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!era!feit From: feit@ERA.COM (Mark Feit) Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992 Message-ID: <1992Oct1.190919.12514@ERA.COM> Summary: Arrgh! Mut everything be spelled out? Sender: feit@ERA.COM (Mark Feit) Organization: Engineering Research Associates, Vienna, VA Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:09:19 GMT Lines: 58