Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!know!wex
From: wex@pws.bull.com (Buckaroo Banzai)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: more stupidity
Message-ID: <18133@know.pws.bull.com>
Date: 2 Nov 90 22:15:06 GMT
References: <1990Oct29.175540.23987@uncecs.edu> <1990Nov2.135633.23345@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> <18683@rpp386.cactus.org>
Organization: Bull Worldwide Information Systems Inc.
Lines: 27

In article <18683@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>how are you being threatened?  webster's says a threat is "an
>expression or intention to do harm".  i'm not going to harm
>you, i'm going to be nice to you and ask you to exercise some
>self restraint.  see - i'm being NICE.  i'm ASKING, not telling.

This is so much persiflage.  Your "asking" comes across like Guido the Killer
Pimp "asking" me if I'd like a third nostril.  Surely even you realize that
silly dictionary definitions don't cover implication, which can be taken into
account when proving a threat in court.

The point is that you're making postings which can easily be interpreted as
threatening lawsuits.  Phrases such as "shut up" and (paraphrase) "if you
have to become involved" can easily be seen as threatening.

In particular, you have conjoined these phrases with repeated references to
the lawyer you are consulting and with vague allusions to reasons you can't
talk/post more.  This acts to create a threatening atmosphere.

In summary, you're more or less getting what you opened yourself up to.  If
you want this thread to simmer down, you could simply refrain from posting.
(Is that a threat, John?  You decide.)

-- 
--Alan Wexelblat			phone: (508)294-7485
Bull Worldwide Information Systems	internet: wex@pws.bull.com
Never worry about theory as long as the machinery does what it's supposed to do.