Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site uiucdcs
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcewan
From: mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: Falwell put in proper place
Message-ID: <39400014@uiucdcs>
Date: Tue, 4-Feb-86 15:28:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.39400014
Posted: Tue Feb  4 15:28:00 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Feb-86 21:32:59 EST
References: <2900005@orstcs>
Lines: 19
Nf-ID: #R:orstcs:2900005:uiucdcs:39400014:000:919
Nf-From: uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU!mcewan    Feb  4 14:28:00 1986


>    Is it OK to harass someone over the TV networks? I find harassment
>    by telephone and harassment by television about equivalent. So, if
>    Mr. Falwell (to whom I could never think of as reverend) would like
>    it if people refrained from harassing him over the phone lines, 
>    perhaps he should quit harassing people over the television.

This is one of the most asinine remarks I've ever seen on the net (no small
achievement).  Your warped definition of "harassment" would do Falwell proud.
Unless Falwell has found a way to force your television to turn on and tune
in his show, you are not "harassed" in any way by him. I'm surprised that
you're not a member of the "Moral Majority" (or whatever he's calling it this
week); you have a censor's mentality.

			Scott McEwan
			{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan

"Hideously disfigured by Indian curse? We can help! Call (511) 338-0959
 for an appointment."