joseph@orstcs.UUCP (joseph) (01/29/86)
Is it OK to harass someone over the TV networks? I find harassment
by telephone and harassment by television about equivalent. So, if
Mr. Falwell (to whom I could never think of as reverend) would like
it if people refrained from harassing him over the phone lines,
perhaps he should quit harassing people over the television. If fact,
maybe he should quit harassing other people in general. His idea of
government is what I would call theocratic fascism. He would like to
suppress my freedom to practice the religion of my choice, not to
mention other basic civil rights. Can such a monster be considered
Christian? The moral majority is neither.
-Joseph Albertmcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (02/04/86)
> Is it OK to harass someone over the TV networks? I find harassment > by telephone and harassment by television about equivalent. So, if > Mr. Falwell (to whom I could never think of as reverend) would like > it if people refrained from harassing him over the phone lines, > perhaps he should quit harassing people over the television. This is one of the most asinine remarks I've ever seen on the net (no small achievement). Your warped definition of "harassment" would do Falwell proud. Unless Falwell has found a way to force your television to turn on and tune in his show, you are not "harassed" in any way by him. I'm surprised that you're not a member of the "Moral Majority" (or whatever he's calling it this week); you have a censor's mentality. Scott McEwan {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan "Hideously disfigured by Indian curse? We can help! Call (511) 338-0959 for an appointment."
mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina) (02/06/86)
> > > Is it OK to harass someone over the TV networks? I find harassment > > by telephone and harassment by television about equivalent. So, if > > Mr. Falwell (to whom I could never think of as reverend) would like > > it if people refrained from harassing him over the phone lines, > > perhaps he should quit harassing people over the television. > > This is one of the most asinine remarks I've ever seen on the net (no small > achievement). Your warped definition of "harassment" would do Falwell proud. > Unless Falwell has found a way to force your television to turn on and tune > in his show, you are not "harassed" in any way by him. I'm surprised that > you're not a member of the "Moral Majority" (or whatever he's calling it this > week); you have a censor's mentality. > > Scott McEwan I concur with Scott, entirely. First, there is little in common between television and telephones (except the prefix). Secondly, a skewed definition of harrassment is required. Finally, this skewed definition of harrassment implies television viewers have no control over their destiny. Next time try ESPN; Falwell has not made it there, yet. Mark Reina