Xref: utzoo misc.legal:3193 soc.men:2336 soc.women:8740 soc.motss:3307 alt.flame:1258
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!cpsc6a!codas!killer!era
From: era@killer.UUCP (Mark E. Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.men,soc.women,soc.motss,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Flamage re Mark Ethan Smith/Netiquette
Message-ID: <3O31@killer.UUCP>
Date: 12 Jan 88 06:24:56 GMT
References: <229*manis@instr.camosun.bcc.cdn> <6466@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <8801071134.AA05730@garnet.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: era@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith)
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection BBS, Dallas, Tx
Lines: 94

In article <8801071134.AA05730@garnet.berkeley.edu> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes:
>
>People called you names, so you filed a lawsuit, because their name calling
>was a violation of your civil rights.  Hey, bitch@chinet, wherever you are,
>you got it all wrong.  It isn't me and the brahms gang pulling off the hoax
>of pretending to be Mark Ethan Smith, it's our mutual friend Timmy!  Who else
>would take the position that name calling is a violation of law, that people
>who call you names are part of a conspiracy against you?

You were pretty indignant when I accused you of being the pseudo who told
the pseudo about my being a pseudo.  You were only using your pseudo to
repeat what the pseudo told you about me.  Now I accuse the pseudo of being
you.  If you tell us who the pseudo is who told you that you weren't the
pseudo, we'll know the pseudo wasn't you.  Until then, if you insist on
lying by not telling the truth, we will know that you are the pseudo.
If you repeat what you say as the pseudo and you don't use your real name,
you are likely to be mistaken for him.  There is no reason for anyone to
believe it isn't either you or one of your close friends.

>In what context
>did they tell you to eat shit?  Did they tell other people to eat shit, too?
>You should have found out, maybe you could have initiated a class action suit
>against people who tell other people to eat shit.

The problem to the racists and bigots who use pseudos is when subhumans talk
back instead of staying in their place and showing proper respect, when they
don't quietly submit to it, ignore it, or swallow it, or lower their eyes
and run away.  When you and your ubermenchen harrass other people, you
say that there would have been no problem if they just hadn't responded.
If, for example, all the people you flamed at simply accepted what you said
and showed their "proper" respect, there wouldn't have been a problem.

>>You have to know federal law to understand the illegality of
>>Judge Kennedy's act.
>
>Which you clearly don't, meaning the conversation here should come to a halt
>pretty quickly, but alas, no such luck.

Stick to your mathematics, Wiener.  When you've spent as much time as I
have in court, then and only then would you be qualified to make your
fascist pronouncements.

>>           It was up to a lower judge to decide if I sustained
>>loss of livelihood from being talked to that way by coworkers.
>
>It's not necessary for any judge to go to the trouble of pondering and
>rendering a decision on so trivial and obvious a non-issue as this.  The
>idea that people telling you to eat shit because they didn't like you
>(obviously as part of the vast conspiracy against you) resulted in a loss
>of livelihood is so stupid as to defy any attempt to rationalize it.

Leave it to a blowhard fascist to tell other people when they should or
should not be offended by what someone else says to them.  Since judges
have ruled in my favor in several such cases, your opinion is worthless here.

>If your co-workers want to tell you
>to eat shit, they have every right to do so, you have no (legal) recourse to
>limit their freedom of speech.

Of course this would be the opinion of a Reaganite yuppie assimilated Jew who
gets his kicks flaming people on the network.  HIS freedom of speech, to tell
people to eat fecal matter and to describe them in derogatory terms of his own
invention, should go unquestioned, since he is a white adult male.  Anyone
else's freedom of speech is another story.

>But telling you to eat shit doesn't
>cause you a loss of livelihood.  No one is obliged to cater to other people's
>hypersensitivities.  If you find yourself unable to work because people call
>you names, then you really are emotionally disabled and probably shouldn't
>have been working in the first place.  But I notice that all the name calling
>you've been subjected to on the net hasn't disabled you from excessive posting.

This really says it all right here.  "No one is obliged to cater to other
people's hypersensitivities."  Typical white male copout.  If you don't go
along with our way of thinking, if you are offended by the way we act,
YOU are being "hypersensitive" and we have no obligation to deal with you
or your "problem."  The question is whether or not the welfare system is in
trouble because it is being abused, or because people simply aren't given
enough money to take care of their needs, which include human contact and
social activity, which for some people consists only of phone calls.

>Does anybody really care?  Your litigiousness is probably keeping quite a
>few employees on the public payroll, to support an already overburdened
>legal system in order that it can deal with superfluous lawsuits by the
>likes of people who take offense at everything.  Colin, if you're going to
>complain about waste of taxpayers' money, how about the extra workload
>imposed on the California court system to support crybaby litigation?

More of the usual complaints about anyone who takes offense at offensiveness
being called a crybaby.  That's not the way MEN do it, is it Matt?  No, you
"take it like a man" as you so elegantly put it in another of your
vicious attacks.

--Mark