Xref: utzoo misc.legal:3347 soc.men:2433 soc.women:8910 soc.motss:3448 alt.flame:1407
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!think!ames!amdahl!ihnp4!ptsfa!pyramid!amdcad!decwrl!ucbvax!GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU!weemba
From: weemba@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU (Obnoxious Math Grad Student)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.men,soc.women,soc.motss,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Flamage re Mark Ethan Smith/Netiquette
Message-ID: <8801071134.AA05730@garnet.berkeley.edu>
Date: 7 Jan 88 11:34:41 GMT
References: <229*manis@instr.camosun.bcc.cdn> <6466@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student)
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: Brahms Gang Posting Central
Lines: 117

I have to admit, I have been among the staunchest and most vehement defenders
of Mark Ethan Smith in the past, but after reading his most recent posting I
have some reservations that should be expanded upon.

In article <6466@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes:
>Docket Number 83-2727:
>"The single utterance of a profanity is hardly the kind of act
>that can give rise to a suit for compensable injury in either
>federal or state court."
>
>In order to get rid of me, federal employees at a base where they
>lose millions of dollars in unaccounted for funds every year, not
>to mention overruns, waste, fraud and abuse, would simply attack
>me the same way this and other pseudos have done on the net.  But
>since I needed the job, instead of quitting, I filed a lawsuit.

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?

>The government removed the suit to federal court, insisting that
>telling me to eat fecal matter was an official federal duty.

In your case, perhaps it was.  Here, all along, I thought the issue involved
some act of real discrimination, such as sex-linked harrassment, calling you
names based on your gender.  But no, they told you to eat shit, and this is
what got you all out of sorts.  This lends a whole new perspective on the
entire case.  This is smelling fishier with each iteration.  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.

>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.

>           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.

>I don't know if the gov't. told Judge Kennedy that I was a
>homosexual or transexual (I'm not), or that I'm a Jew or a woman
>or emotionally disabled (I am),

                                 "but obviously they did and so this is all
a plot against me."

>                                but whatever it was, Judge Kennedy
>found nothing wrong with federal coworkers telling me to eat fecal
>matter.  But I've been noticing that quite a few people were upset
>about the recent posting by the pseudo.  Is everybody emotionally
>disabled like me?  Look at Colin Jenkins and Tom Mandel and
>Karl Denninger--they see nothing wrong with people telling me to
>eat fecal matter.

The illegality of calling you names isn't the issue here at all, mostly
because it's such a stupid claim that it can be summarily ignored.  The real
issue is your inability to take what you dish out.  Like our old friend
Captain Carnage, you seem to think that you can stick your tongue out at other
people and make noises, blame entire groups of people for your personal
problems, then yell at the people who shout back at you, but when someone
does the same to you, you run to mummy and daddy telling them to put a stop
to their naughty behavior.  There is such a thing as a Constitution, a Bill
of Rights, a clause involving freedom of speech.  Nowhere is anything
mentioned about freedom from profanity.  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.  You should read the law some time, it might do
you a load of good especially if you intend to spend the rest of your life in
court fighting imaginary conspirators who tell you to eat shit.

>                    Obviously this is the way to treat people who
>are different, this is the environment the disadvantaged must live
>and work in, and there is protection in our laws for property, for
>profits, and for profanity.  There is no protection for people or
>for economic, human, and civil rights.

Get it right, jerk.  There is no protection from your being offended by
what other people have to say, even if it is about you.  If they tell lies
about you that defame you and actually cause you to suffer this loss of
livelihood, then that's 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.

>For example, suppose you are an employer, and the law forced you to
>hire a woman, a minority person, a disabled person, or a person
>with a different sexual preference.  You simply tell them to eat
>fecal matter until they either quit, or they file a complaint.  

So, at last, the new law of the land goes into effect.  If employers or
fellow co-workers tell you to eat shit, persistently, they are undoubtedly
out to persecute you.  What a crybaby!  (I'd tell you to take it like a
man, but that would probably be most inappropriate and probably a little
confusing.)  You have the brains of Tim Maroney coupled with the hormone
problems of Rhonda Scribner, whatever they may be.  Am I persecuting you?
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?

ucbvax!garnet!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
 "We can pay farmers not to grow crops, but we cannot pay artists to
  stop making art. Yet something must be done."    --Jacques Barzun