Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!oliveb!sun!plaid!chuq From: chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) Newsgroups: news.admin,news.sysadmin Subject: Re: Defending Eric Mading Message-ID: <34296@sun.uucp> Date: Wed, 18-Nov-87 23:22:42 EST Article-I.D.: sun.34296 Posted: Wed Nov 18 23:22:42 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 21-Nov-87 18:33:15 EST References: <7427@eddie.MIT.EDU> <1853@chinet.UUCP> <7439@eddie.MIT.EDU> Sender: news@sun.uucp Reply-To: chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) Organization: Fictional Reality, uLtd Lines: 96 Xref: mnetor news.admin:1396 news.sysadmin:466 >One thing we are losing sight of here is that the net is not "the real >world". Saying something nasty about somebody else here is not the >same as harrassing them on the street, or threatening them by phone, >or hanging around outside their house. You do not HAVE TO read the net. >You do not HAVE TO respond when someone baits you. This is one of the most amusing pieces of bizarre logic I've ever seen. Someone DOES have the right to make nasty comments about me. But I don't have to read it, so that's okay. Someone DOES have the right to make nasty comments about me, but I don't have to defend myself, so that's okay. Huh? The net is very much a part of the real world. Last I heard, it was populated with real people with real lives and real feelings, and the laws and societal restrictions that go along with those people are just as real here. The fact that some of the more obscure legal items haven't been argued out in court yet doesn't preclude that common sense and a decency towards your fellow person don't apply. >Thusfar, Usenet has >had no "test cases" regarding slander or libel, therefore right now, all >is fair game. There are no rules. There are no guidelines. Bullhockey. I may not be a Christian, but "Do unto Others as you would have yourself be done to" seems like a wonderful concept to me. And I notice with some amusement that the folks who are the most abusive on the network tend to be the loudest screamers when the abuser becomes an abusee. And what's even funnier, someone like Ken Arndt can make some of the most racist, abusive and purely NASTY comments you can think of (to chose one old, hopefully left behind us example) and the second someone calls him on them, everyone runs out and defends the bastard. Where were these folks when he was doing the abusing? Not defending anyone then. Face it. The prevailing rule of USENET seems to be "it's okay, as long as I'm doing it to you." We get into this argument every time someone says "I've had enough" and turns the table back. Ken is just one example. I can name probably a dozen cases since I've been on the net of someone who simply got back what they'd given, and had the standard group of yelling screamers make a case that they were discriminated against. It's bull. >"Harrassment" and "personal attacks" on the net are a necessary evil if >we are to keep this an open and public forum. Baloney. It's perfectly possible to have an open and public forum that doesn't remind you of a kindergarten or a sewer. Personal attacks are the last forum of those who either don't have any facts to back their case or don't know how to do them. If you don't believe me, go and do formal debate for a couple of years. Those folks can be downright hostile and never mention the other party -- because if you do, you lose. It CAN be done. It isn't, on USENET, because it requires thought. Most folks on the net who do the screaming and yelling are too lazy to work for their case. They take the lazy way out and attack the person, not the concept. >By the way, Rhonda, *I* was talking about the Eric Madding incident. So am I. And all the others that Eric represents -- he's just the latest in a series of nasty people who got hoisted by his own petard. He has no more right to foist his anger and obnoxiousness on us than we have painting swastika's on our neighbor's barn. >Those wishing to change >it should decide who they want to have the ultimate authority to decide >what is and is not acceptable for posting here. Face it. Those who are claiming a 'right' to post have no idea what they're talking about. Unless they own, maintain, and pay for the machine that they use to attach to the net, they are there are the agreement of those who DO pay for, maintain, and own that machine. That person is ultimately liable for what that machine does, and can set whatever standards they feel is necessary to keep that machine from either being brought into a legal forum or being made to look bad on the network. There are no rights on the network, any more than you could claim that you have a 'right' to have your letter put on the front page of the local newspaper. Unless you OWN the newspaper, you can't claim any control of its material or content. It don't exist. Rights exist only in relation to carrying out the responsibilities they entail -- a fact most of the screamers conveniently forget. Oh, and while I'm at it, let me make my normal snotty comment for a situation like this. It shows up the mindset of the people involved. Inevitably, when something like this occurs, the following statement is made at one point or another in some form: He has the right to say anything he wants, and you don't have the right to say he doesn't This one always makes me laugh. If you don't see the problem with this statement, I suggest you study it carefully. You're PART of the problem, not the cure. chuq (net fascist, ret.) --- Chuq "Fixed in 4.0" Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ