From: YANJUNA@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu
Subject: Re: Net fibs - Was Re: Deforest Kelley Dead
Organization: Yale University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 20:42:23 EST

In article <90528@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
hroth@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Harris Roth) writes:
 
>
>rasc, indeed many newsgroups, postings tend to blur the line between truth and
>fiction.  Much traffic deals with the probabilities/improbabilities of
>Star Trek situations.  Conservation of mass, transporting through shields,
>pubescent infatuations - each and every topic contributes to the richness of
>our experience.  However, in a world with Howard Sterns and Elvis sightings,
>the post that imflames, intentionally or not, should just be junked or killed.
>Failing that, sending hate mail as a response to a perceved injustice is
>simply the wrong response in this environment.  Everyone across the net seems
>to need a healthy dose of tolerance.
>
>With that said, anyone who cannot tolerate my input can flame away.
>--
 
   This is not a flame, but somewhat of a discussion.
   I don't particularly mind crazy rumors, as long as it is *labelled* as
a possbily crazy rumor.  After all, that is partially why  I read this news
group.
    In the case of this particular post, however, the post of DeForest Kelley's
death was presented not as a rumor, but as a fact: Given that the information
was false, there were following possibilities, all of which went through my
head.
  1): The original poster himself was misinformed:  This possibility was
discounted by two facts, the first being lack of any information on where he
got the news; and a later post by someone else who claimed that the original
poster posted the misinformation as a *joke*.
  2): The original post was a malicious joke.  Then the joke could have been
perpetrated not by the person whose name was on the post, but        someone
else using the computer account in an unauthorized fashion; in which case
the original poster was very careless, and he should take responsibility
for that.  (Much like the person who apologized for "crap" posting a few
days ago.)
 
  Either way, a misinformation which was intentionally created, and very hard
to disprove (since I'm sure none of us see De Kelley every day, and there is
some possilbility that the newspeople may not deem De Kelley important
enough for a full obituary:  A similar case happened recently with Fritz
Leiber, the SF writer.  None of the NY papers carried his obituary until a
week after his death.  I only found out through USENET.)
 
   Given that misinformation created with maliciousness is a bad thing
(akin to yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre, though agreed, the consequences
here is not as bad; it didn't cost us life or limb, merely wasted time.)
how do we stop such misinformation from being created?  My belief is that the
malicious person should be punished in some way.
 
   Now, I did not send the original poster a piece of hate mail, though I did
wish him bodily harm in one of my posts.  But any hate mail the original
poster got, IMO, he deserved.  Perhaps sending pieces of hate mail is not
the best way to deal with it, but dealing with etherial net anarchy here,
how should he be dealt with?  [This is not a flame, but a topic open for
discussion.]
 
   Additionally, let me request that the rumors posting not be stopped.  I
enjoy some of them tremendously.  However, let's be considerate enough to
give some reference (even a short, vague one) on where it came from so
we can at least see that:
   1) The posting at least is not a complete figment of the poster's
imagination;
   2) The poster is, at least, sincere; that the posting is not out of
maliciousness.
 
   To take the above analogy of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre, we
can forgive the person who yelled if he indeed had a real reason to see
that there was a fire.  But if he yelled it as a joke, he should be
spanked by his parents.
 
       Junsok Yang
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current,rec.arts.startrek.misc