cok@psuvm.bitnet.UUCP (11/03/87)
You'll note I limited followups to this article to misc.legal and alt.flame.
I have come to agree with most of the people on alt.drugs that pro-legalization
is a topic for misc.legal, not alt.drugs.
This is something which some people find completely incomprehensible. John
Meaders and similar assholes will come into alt.drugs with their bullshit
instead of keeping it in misc.legal or talk.microcephalics where it belongs.
Eric Mading, for example, posted anti-gay articles in soc.motss.
Obviously, alt.drugs was created for the purpose of discussing drugs and
the social implications thereof, and not for the purpose of insulting, abusing,
harassing, and making incredibly stupid generalizations about drug users.
This is my last "legalization discussion" posting to this newsgroup, at least
my last response to Meaders or Mading. I think the best way to get people
like Meaders or Mading off the newsgroup is to "chill them out." Don't flame
or respond to their articles except in misc.legal or alt.flame, where such
things belong.
And I intend to flame Meaders on alt.flame very soon.
Look for it there.
BITNET: cok%psuvma.bitnet@psuvax1.psu.edu
or cok%psuvma.bitnet@psuvax1.uucp
johnm@auscso.UUCP (11/03/87)
Oh boy... Are you really going to flame me? I can't wait to here what
kind of nonsense you have to say. I am against drug use, you aren't.
We each have the right to our own opinions. I wasn't aware this was going
to be a pro-user only column. Whats the matter? Do Eric and I scare you
because we are against your views? Last I heard I had the freedom to voice
my opinions. I don't begrudge your views, but I don't like your attempt
to censor me. And you wonder why I am against your type.
--
John B. Meaders, Jr. 1114 Camino La Costa #3083, Austin, TX 78752
ATT: Voice: +1 (512) 451-5038 Data: +1 (512) 371-0550
UUCP: ...!ut-ngp!auscso!jclyde!john
\johnmmojo@reed.UUCP (11/04/87)
In article <24042COK@PSUVMA> COK@PSUVMA.BITNET (R. W. Clark, K. S. C.) writes: >You'll note I limited followups to this article to misc.legal and alt.flame. >I have come to agree with most of the people on alt.drugs that pro-legalization >is a topic for misc.legal, not alt.drugs. I agree. This discussion isn't likely to go anywhere; very few opinions are likely to change, and I haven't seen any new information floating around for some time. Let's stop arguing legalization on alt.drugs. If there's enough demand, maybe someone could start an alt.legalization or some such. >BITNET: cok%psuvma.bitnet@psuvax1.psu.edu > or cok%psuvma.bitnet@psuvax1.uucp > "I did not come here to be insulted." "That's what you think." - *Duck Soup* -- /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \A tautology is a thing \ Nathan Tenny / The opinions expressed/ /which is tautological. / ...tektronix!reed!mojo \ may not even be mine. \ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ FLAMES ANSWERED WITH NAPALM /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
cok@psuvm.bitnet.UUCP (11/04/87)
>Oh boy... Are you really going to flame me? I can't wait to here what >kind of nonsense you have to say. I am against drug use, you aren't. >We each have the right to our own opinions. I wasn't aware this was going >to be a pro-user only column. Whats the matter? Do Eric and I scare you >because we are against your views? Last I heard I had the freedom to voice >my opinions. I don't begrudge your views, but I don't like your attempt >to censor me. And you wonder why I am against your type. >-- >John B. Meaders, Jr. 1114 Camino La Costa #3083, Austin, TX 78752 >ATT: Voice: +1 (512) 451-5038 Data: +1 (512) 371-0550 >UUCP: ...!ut-ngp!auscso!jclyde!john > \johnm Well, I think I'll start by roasting this article, its hypocrisy, and the twisted logic inherent in it. I could flame other postings, but as it happens, most of them have been roasted over the coals already. I love the way you state that you do not begrudge me my opinions, then in the next sentence say you are against my "type," whatever that means. You then go on to say that I deny your rights to express your opinions. I defy you to produce anything in my posting where I say such a thing. At least get your lies consistent. I find it amusing how quickly you anti-civil rights types will piss and moan about "censorship" when anyone dares to raise a voice against your opinions babbled forth as manifest fact. You have the ability to post to alt.drugs with legality issues and whether or not drugs ought to be legalized, even though the group is supposedly for discussion of drugs themselves. I grant that. However, by the same token, I have the ability to post queries about my lost cat in comp.unix.wizards. That does not make this an inalienable right any more than drug laws remove an inalienable right. Censorship is not an issue when a person posts articles unrelated to a newsgroup in that newsgroup. The issue is whether the USENET community-at-large considers this a polite thing to do. I personally DO respect your right to post unrelated articles to newsgroups, and would consider it censorship actually to cancel forcibly your articles. However, suggesting to everyone that your articles be ignored in the hopes that you will go away eventually is NOT censorship at all; it's just a form of behavior. If, on the other hand, I came to your house, declared myself to have the right to decide what you should be allowed to post, and threatened to blow your head off or imprison you if you continued posting, this WOULD be a violation of your rights. However, you advocate that drug cops should be allowed to do this exact sort of thing. Read my article on mescaline, and its followups, then look at the "logic" demonstrated in your own postings. If you are honest, you will admit that there are serious flaws present. If not, you still have the right to continue posting such psychobabble. And I have the right to criticize you for it. By the way, you state that you didn't know that alt.drugs was to be a pro-user only newsgroup. However, your posting did not GO to alt.drugs, because I specified that in my "Followup-to" line. You'll have to repost if you really want it there, but I suggest you think seriously about that before doing it. On another subject: I think that drug cops ARE not to be respected insofar as they violate human rights of persons guilty only of possessing drugs, but I can respect any person willing to risk his or her life in the war against organized crime. Lest one think that this is a position contrary to my pro-legalization stance, I will add that the very very few people I do know who deal drugs either grow their own products, or purchase from those who do. BITNET: cok%psuvma.bitnet@psuvax1.psu.edu or cok%psuvma.bitnet@psuvax1.uucp
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (11/04/87)
In article <626@auscso.UUCP> johnm@auscso.UUCP (John B. Meaders, Jr.) writes: >Whats the matter? Do Eric and I scare you because we are against your >views? No. Eric bothers me because he voices opinion without the benefit of reason. You bother me because you misread what others have said. Neither of you scare me; you are incapable of harming me, or anyone else, by way of your postings, and are without any power to affect me in my real life. What reason could I possibly have to feel fear? >I don't begrudge your views, but I don't like your attempt >to censor me. And you wonder why I am against your type. You certainly have the freedom to continue to post here. What one person says does not affect that - or do you think that he could really shut you up, all by himself? His was not an attempt to censor you, but an attempt to get you to censor yourself. You are free to refuse, if you like. BTW - what "type" is that? Concerned, if a tad overzealous, net.citizen? Reasonable person? -- ---------------- Michael J. Farren "... if the church put in half the time on covetousness unisoft!gethen!farren that it does on lust, this would be a better world ..." gethen!farren@lll-winken.arpa Garrison Keillor, "Lake Wobegon Days"