Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!snicoud@Boeing.com From: snicoud@Boeing.com (Stephen Nicoud) Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy Subject: Re: Canceling someone else's article Summary: The law does not give anyone, implicitly or explicity, a civil right to have a Usenet account on Kevin Lowey's private and personal BBS system. Keywords: civil rights, false claims, reading lessons Message-ID: <48619@bcsaic.UUCP> Date: 3 Jun 91 18:16:36 GMT References: <1991Jun1.022548.28381@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <48553@bcsaic.UUCP> <1991Jun3.060303.8519@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Sender: nntp@bcsaic.UUCP Organization: Boeing Computer Services Research and Technology, Bellevue, WA USA Lines: 146 Originator: snicoud@atc.boeing.com In article <1991Jun3.060303.8519@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: > snicoud@Boeing.com (Stephen L Nicoud) writes: >> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >>>Flawed analogy; a city bus is a public accomodation within the scope >> ^^^^ >>Perhaps I wasn't clear in my analogy. I never claimed a "city" bus. >Doesn't matter; I just said "city" to make the point clear. ^^^^^ Whose point? Certainly not mine. Since you were commenting on my point claiming "Flawed analogy" it is not appropriate to change my words or add new ones and claim they are part of my point. No real flame here (yet), but if you want to make your own point, fine; just please don't change or add to words I use and then claim your new version of my point is flawed and then attribute that flaw to my point. Also, if it "Doesn't matter", then why is it (the use of "city") necessary "to make the point clear"? But, I would agree that it really doesn't matter and is not important to the point I am making. However, it did seem crucial to the point your were making since you followed with paragraphs about "public accomodation". >> The claim was made that "improper" behavior, as determined by the >> owner/operator, was enough for the owner/operator to take action >> ("kick those people off"). If the owner/operator decides that the >> person's race is "improper", does s/he have the right to take that >> action because of it? > >Nope. Assuming this "Nope" is in answer to my question that immediately precedes it, then it looks like we agree. > Like many considering the US law from a dewy eyed liberal >viewpoint, you have an overwhelmingly overlarge concept of what >constitute your "civil rights". Hmmm. Interesting. Notice how this attempts to attach the stigma of a "dewy eyed liberal viewpoint" to me without actually calling me such. I kinda like that. It's a clever way of getting a zinger in. I'd like to borrow that if I may. It's also amusing because associates/family/friends laughed when I told 'em that someone claimed I held a view that was "from a dewy eyed liberal viewpoint". They felt that was a term worthy of use by me in my arguments against many liberal positions. > It is not the case that whatever you >think you should have constitutes a civil right. > >Your civil rights exist by inclusion, not exclusion; if it isn't in >the law, then it isn't protected. I'm not going to comment on Kent's civil rights explanation. Not because I don't agree with it (I'm intentionally not saying whether I agree or disagree), but because I don't feel it is germaine to the point I am/was making. >Nowhere does the law give you, implicitly or explicity, a civil right >to have a Usenet account on Kevin Lowey's private and personal BBS >system. Is this what is bothering you about my post? I never claimed that "the law give[s] [me], implicitly or explicity, a civil right to have a Usenet account on Kevin Lowey's private and personal BBS system." Perhaps I can allay your fears by saying that I agree on that point. In fact, I will state it explicitly just for you: "I do not believe I, Stephen Nicoud, or anyone else has, implicitly or explicity, a civil right to have a Usenet account on Kevin Lowey's private and personal BBS system." Do you think it is reasonably now to drop this point between us in this discussion? >Kevin has reserved to himself the right to toss off whomever he >wants, without providing any explanation whatever, and you and others >have tried to drag in sex and race and religion and a lot of other >red herrings. Kevin _doesn't_ _have_ _to _tell_ _you_ why he won't >let you use his system, and there's exactly nothing you can do about >it. Red Herrings? This whole paragraph is a red herring. Please, reread my words carefully. It is your right to make your own conclusions about what you read. But I ask that you, at least once, read the words. I wrote what I meant and meant what I wrote. If you read between the lines you do so at your risk. I, however, will not accept your rewordings of what you believe my position is. I have not claimed that Kevin didn't have "the right to toss off whomever he wants, without providing any explanation whatever". Please see Kevin's remarks that I've attached to the end of this note. Perhaps they describe more succinctly to you than I did the point I was trying to make. > Your suspicions that you were being discriminated against for >race and not for the illegal chain letters you posted will avail you >nothing; he doesn't _have_ to defend his reasons. Here we go again. I have not claimed that Kevin had "to defend his reasons". Your repeated attempts to assign claims to me that I have not made is unworthy of reasoned debate. Putting words in someone elses mouth (so to speak, er read, er, uh, ... you know what I mean :-) isn't a very effective way to persuade me in a debate. Besides, it shouldn't be necessary to use my point to make your own points. Just make your points. You don't need me. If you want to use my post to expand the discussion and debate, fine. Go for it. Just please don't start attributing to my words and me your extensions. I have enough windmills of my own creation without having to slay ones created by others for me. I'm sorry that I've gone on and on about what I is probably a minor nit. I'm satisfied with just leaving it with Kevin's own words: From: lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) Subject: Re: Canceling someone else's article Date: 1 Jun 91 16:34:46 GMT Organization: University of Saskatchewan [...] Notice that I said the owner of the system has the right to set any rules he wants on that system AS LONG AS IT'S LEGAL. The situation of racial discrimination is in many places ILLEGAL, ... [...] If you want to debate it further, I beseech you to address Kevin's words. Stephen -- Stephen L Nicoud uw-beaver!bcsaic!snicoud Boeing Computer Services Research and Technology, Computer Science Bellevue, Washington USA "I ask unananimous consent to revise and extend my remarks."