Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!mcdchg!chinet!rhonda
From: rhonda@chinet.UUCP
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.drugs,alt.flame
Subject: Rosen + Wiener = Mading?
Message-ID: <1843@chinet.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Nov-87 11:38:39 EST
Article-I.D.: chinet.1843
Posted: Mon Nov 16 11:38:39 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Nov-87 23:46:47 EST
References: <19013@amdcad.AMD.COM> <1232@puff.wisc.edu> <7368@eddie.MIT.EDU>
Organization: Chinet, Chicago Ill.
Lines: 34
Xref: utgpu misc.legal:2886 junk:6397 alt.flame:539

In article <7368@eddie.MIT.EDU>, ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) writes:
>In article <1232@puff.wisc.edu> mading@puff.wisc.edu (Eric Mading) writes:
>>So Doug Ginsburg likes his reefer.  That doesn't suprise me, he is a
>>Jew.  I think Ronnie should tell this pot-smoking Jew to get his ass
>>out of the country and deport him to Israel, where he belongs.
>
>How could we have been so stupid, fellow netters?  This Eric Mading
>is obviously a colaboration between Rich Rosen and Matty Weiner.

Well, I guess this means these bozos have now been kicked off the net twice!
Some people never learn. :-)

The idea had crossed my mind, that Matthew Wiener had just found a new home
to act like a jerk in, but I said no, it's too farfetched.  But who knows?
The combined "strength" of Rosen and Wiener, could it generate enough
asininity to power an Eric Mading?

If the rumors are true that Eric Mading has been really kicked off the net,
I shout hooray!  Never mind the cries of people saying this is net fascism.
People's behaviors are regulated by social mores, and the rude harrassing
obnoxious behavior exhibited by these people merits some punishment.  Some
people say that closing down Mading's account is "bad" because it means
"controversial" posters can be canned at any time.  Bull.  There's a
difference between "controversial" and "obnoxious."  People who express
political or personal opinions about the world that grate against the norm
are controversial and should be protected under first amendment rules. 
People who chase people around and harrass them with stupid childish name
calling are obnoxious and shouldn't be so protected.  The law bears this out. 
Lumping the controversial toghether with the obnoxious is wasteful, it doesn't
help the cause of protecting free speech, and it clouds the issue.  There's
no reason to protect the obnoxious in order to preserve the freedoms of the
controversial.  It's not like these people are being CALLED obnoxious to
squelch their controversial opinions, is it?
								--Rhonda