geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) (04/22/87)
In article <9405@decwrl.DEC.COM> arndt@indian.dec.com writes:
I'm not actually going to do any quoting, because frankly I don't have the
faintest idea which postings are and are not Ken's. Nor do I care; Gene
Spafford's analysis of the value of that newsgroup is right on target.
Since several people have made accusations of illegal behavior on the
part of the system administrator who pulled Foothead's account, though,
I think it's also worth pointing out that forgery is definitely a crime.
So is slander. And, given how busy our friendly legislators tend to be,
I wouldn't be surprised if there was a separate specific statute dealing
with forgers who masquerade as another person with the deliberate intention
of slandering that person.
Personally, I'd like to see enough evidence collected to have a prosecution.
The net used to be a friendly (if name-calling) place. This kind of slimy
behavior is not my idea of an advancement. And nobody who fits my definition
of the word "ethical" would have ever pulled a stunt like that and then
tried to blame somebody else. It stops being a joke when you fail to take
responsibility.
--
Geoff Kuenning geoff@ITcorp.com {hplabs,ihnp4}!trwrb!desint!geoffdnelson@thumper.UUCP (04/23/87)
In article <> geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes: >Personally, I'd like to see enough evidence collected to have a prosecution. >The net used to be a friendly (if name-calling) place. This kind of slimy >behavior is not my idea of an advancement. And nobody who fits my definition >of the word "ethical" would have ever pulled a stunt like that and then >tried to blame somebody else. It stops being a joke when you fail to take >responsibility. Well, for what it's worth, I think the whole thing is rather amusing considering the faked articles were a pretty good parody of Ken. I wonder if he actually disagrees with any of the bogus articles ;-). keep schlepping, --cosmique muffin (dorothy) ...!allegra!moss!thumper!dnelson
cjdb@sphinx.UUCP (04/24/87)
In article <655@desint.UUCP> geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes: >[...] >Nor do I care; Gene >Spafford's analysis of the value of that newsgroup is right on target. > Both sets of remarks (Gene Spafford's and the above) are an insult to the majority of subscribers to talk.religion.misc. That a few people are responsible for much (worthless) volume does not mean that others (who have to wade through the trash to follow a subject line of interest to them) have not something of value to communicate. Clearly, neither of you has waded through the trash for any length of time, nor perhaps do you care to. Hence the hasty and superficial opinions. -- UUCP: !ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!cjdb Bitnet: lib.cb@chip.UChicago or PMRCJDB@UCHIMVS1.Bitnet Mailnet: lib.cb@UChicago Internet: lib.cb%UChicago.Bitnet@wiscvm.wisc.-edu