Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!ptsfa!lll-tis!mcb
From: mcb@lll-tis.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Re: Lawsuit Nonsense Historical Note
Message-ID: <21778@lll-tis.arpa>
Date: Tue, 13-Oct-87 18:31:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: lll-tis.21778
Posted: Tue Oct 13 18:31:52 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 15-Oct-87 06:46:15 EDT
References: <378d6016.b8ab@apollo.uucp> <5261@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: mcb@lll-tis.arpa (Michael C. Berch)
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore CA
Lines: 71
Keywords: "wienerology"?
Summary: (From misc.legal and news.admin)

In article <8710090832.AA28475@garnet.berkeley.edu> gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu 
(Gene W. Smith) writes:
> In article <21748@lll-tis.arpa> mcb@lll-tis.arpa (Michael C. Berch) writes:
> [...]
> >This sort of case seems to come up every couple of years or so.
> >The first time I came across Matthew Wiener was some time back when he 
> >wanted to sue Rich Rosen for defamation, and I posted a couple of articles 
> >to try to get him (and others who were beginning to get hot under the 
> >collar) to cool down. 
> 
>   This is not quite correct. Matthew Wiener was taking a dig at
> Rich Rosen, which consisted of trying to find if he would have
> grounds if he wanted to sue--which he had no intention of doing.
> At least that is how I remember the incident, and I am the
> closest thing to an expert on Wienerology left on the net.

Well, the flames had gotten to High Broil by the time Mr. Wiener
posted his inquiry regarding grounds for a defamation suit.  Whether 
it can be presumed that X "wants to sue" Y when X posts a lengthy set
of excerpts from Y's articles and asks (to my mind not rhetorically)
whether they are defamatory, seems a moot point.  No one knows what
was in Mr. Wiener's mind at the time except for Mr. Wiener.

What was interesting about the article (which I reproduce in part below) is
that Mr. Wiener seems to be asserting that Mr. Rosen ought to be
banished from the Net, or otherwise silenced,  by the "powers that be".  
Given that Tim Maroney's was silenced at UNC and then apparently subsequently
attempted to silence Mr. Wiener, finding that Mr. Wiener called for
the silencing of Mr. Rosen is an interesting footnote indeed.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Michael C. Berch 
ARPA: mcb@lll-tis.arpa
UUCP: {ames,ihnp4,lll-crg,lll-lcc,mordor}!lll-tis!mcb

----- (Begin quoted material) -----
Relay-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site styx.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: styx!lll-crg!lll-lcc!ucdavis!ucbvax!brahms!weemba
>From: weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener)
Newsgroups: net.news,net.legal,net.religion,net.religion.christian
Subject: Libel?
Message-ID: <12685@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 26 Mar 86 18:57:58 GMT
Date-Received: 27 Mar 86 05:21:37 GMT
References: <2749@pyuxd.UUCP> <2773@pyuxd.UUCP> <2789@pyuxd.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener)
Followup-To: net.news
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 33
Xref: styx net.news:894 net.legal:1012 net.religion:2397 net.religion.christian:1695

I would like to ask the legal experts if the following would be grounds
for libel/slander or the like out in the real world.  (I am aware that
electronic bulletin boards are questionable as evidence.)  The statements
are completely false and require an extremely twisted misreading of my
postings.

I would like to ask the powers that be if they plan to let this garbage
continue.  Money is spent transmitting this stuff.  And if they are grounds
for libel, then this user is repeatedly using the net for illegal activity.

I am directing all followups to net.news only.

[Three quotations from Rich Rosen's articles follow...]
[...]
ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

----- (End quoted material) -----