From: s4610160@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Kauf Man)
Subject: Re: HenryPetras' Posting
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:42:51 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.142811.25218@uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU> MH1406@student.law.duke.edu writes:
>    Henry has put up a post that distills into about this:  a request
>for "discretion" in our postings, followed by a long description of
>the glory and power of phishnet (that was meant to be a humurous
>phrase, not sarcastic ;+} ).  Then comes a very sad story about how
>some irresponsible journalist couldn't get off the GDead/drugs kick
>in an interview, claimed phishnet as his/her source, and wrote an
>unflattering (or at least misrepresented) article.
>    So here's the question - just what sort of "discretion" is it
>that you are advising?  This isn't a flame, just trying to figure out
>what your idea/focus is and whether there is any merit in it.  Two
>things seem to have piqued you - the GDead and hallucinogenics.  I
>must say, for starters, that there has been far less talk about drugs
>on this group than on several other music posting boards.  There s
>certainly hasn't been any threads that run, "I like Phish on
>mushrooms" "I prefer acid" "Actually morning glory seeds work best."
>It's not like the net has been some sort of tutorial on combining
>Phish and psycedelics.
>    So where does that leave us?  Henry requests "discretion" so that
>the sick warpings of the British reporter won't occur again.  But I
>don't think the posting here has been so damaging that the occasional
>drug story should not be posted, and I see no reason to alter band
>comparison debates because of the irresponsibility of the media (they
>are the media, you know).
>    I sympathize with Henry's tale, and understand the impetus behind
>his comments.  I just don't think there is any justifiable or
>definable line that can be drawn to add "discretion" to one's
>postings.  I think we've been pretty responsible so far, and see no
>reason why that won't continue in the future.
>    Just my views . . .
>                    Control for smilers can't be bought
> Matt

   I too sympathize with Herny's sad story but I think we shouldn't stifle
any comments that wish to be made.  Sure a line exists but I want it as far
out as possible.  Posting about illegal acts with band members is 
definitely stupid and worse.  I think posts about drugs and the band are
fine.  Phish strikes me as pro-drug or at least anti-War On Drugs.
  On the subject of drugs, at the Orpheum show a bunch of kids (14 or 15) 
asked me for tabs.  When I realized they meant LSD and not the soda, I told 
them no.  And more kids asked me and then some of the kids who asked me 
earlier asked me again.  I wonder if it was because I was devil-sticking?
Anyway, their request annoyed me greatly and moved me to get a "Don't Ask
Me for Drugs" button.  I also spoke with some narcs at that show- I'm 85% sure
they were narcs.  The DEA is cracking down on LSD.  They have agents at Dead
shows and you can be sure at other bands' shows, too.  (see article on the 
Dead and LSD in alt.drugs or rec.music.gdead if interested)
  Also, If you inteview with someone you don't know well, demand to see 
the copy before it is published.              Scott

*Legalize 
*Spiritual 
*Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Better heresy of doctrine,             Scott.Kaufman@STPEC.umass.edu 
 than heresy of heart."                            or
        John Whittier                   s4610160@titan.ucc.umass.edu
        Mary Garvin, Stanza 22                 (413) 253-4245

 "One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
      -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Newsgroups: rec.music.phish