a577@mindlink.UUCP (Curt Sampson) (11/03/90)
> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John Haugh) writes: > > In article <1990Nov2.135633.23345@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu>, hes@ccvr1.ncsu.edu (Henry > E. Schaffer) writes: > > This appears to be a threat - it may be based on asking people > > not to say things which would hurt two people, but it still is > > a threatening people who want to discuss a given topic. > > how are you being threatened? webster's says a threat is "an > expression or intention to do harm". i'm not going to harm > you, i'm going to be nice to you and ask you to exercise some > self restraint. see - i'm being NICE. i'm ASKING, not telling. Gee. That's like the mafia gangster "asking" the store owner if he'd like to buy "insurance." After all, he wasn't threatening anybody when he said that "sometimes things happen in this neighbourhood." No, you've never made any implied threats at all, I'm sure. [sarcasm] > > i'm being nice to you and asking you to shut the f*ck up > about things which don't concern you. Gee, it looks like your subject describes your posting quite well! I'm glad to see you follow netiquette so closely! Ask away, but don't expect anyone to listen to you. I certainly have no intention of listening to some totalitarian loudmouth tell me what to talk about and think about. I doubt that many other people on the net feel differently. In case you didn't know, you can't kill a discussion on the net by posting articles saying "DON'T TALK ABOUT THIS." That's only going to fan the fire. Every posting you make on this topic encourages people to talk about it even more, as well as making you look more and more foolish in at least one person's eyes. [Sorry for the minor flame, folks. This is just starting to get too ridiculous.] cjs -- Curt_Sampson@mindlink.UUCP (Vancouver, B.C., Canada) {uunet|ubc-cs}!van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!Curt_Sampson curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca BBS: +1 604 687 6736
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (11/03/90)
In article <1990Nov2.135633.23345@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu>, hes@ccvr1.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes: > This appears to be a threat - it may be based on asking people > not to say things which would hurt two people, but it still is > a threatening people who want to discuss a given topic. how are you being threatened? webster's says a threat is "an expression or intention to do harm". i'm not going to harm you, i'm going to be nice to you and ask you to exercise some self restraint. see - i'm being NICE. i'm ASKING, not telling. you, being a silly little college child, don't understand the difference between a threat and being nice. a threat would be "gee, i'm going to sue you". now, can you find anyplace where i said i was going to sue you? no. of course not, because that would be stupid and a waste of my time. can you find someplace where i politely asked you to exercise self restraint. of course you can, because i'm being nice to you and asking you to shut the f*ck up about things which don't concern you. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson
wex@pws.bull.com (Buckaroo Banzai) (11/03/90)
In article <18683@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >how are you being threatened? webster's says a threat is "an >expression or intention to do harm". i'm not going to harm >you, i'm going to be nice to you and ask you to exercise some >self restraint. see - i'm being NICE. i'm ASKING, not telling. This is so much persiflage. Your "asking" comes across like Guido the Killer Pimp "asking" me if I'd like a third nostril. Surely even you realize that silly dictionary definitions don't cover implication, which can be taken into account when proving a threat in court. The point is that you're making postings which can easily be interpreted as threatening lawsuits. Phrases such as "shut up" and (paraphrase) "if you have to become involved" can easily be seen as threatening. In particular, you have conjoined these phrases with repeated references to the lawyer you are consulting and with vague allusions to reasons you can't talk/post more. This acts to create a threatening atmosphere. In summary, you're more or less getting what you opened yourself up to. If you want this thread to simmer down, you could simply refrain from posting. (Is that a threat, John? You decide.) -- --Alan Wexelblat phone: (508)294-7485 Bull Worldwide Information Systems internet: wex@pws.bull.com Never worry about theory as long as the machinery does what it's supposed to do.
hes@ccvr1.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) (11/03/90)
In article <18683@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: > ... how are you being threatened? webster's says a threat is "an >expression or intention to do harm". ... ^^^^^^^^^ Please don't boast about your inability to understand what you are posting. Many people saw intent. >you, being a silly little college child, don't understand >the difference between a threat and being nice. ... We silly little college children really do detest being annoyed by arrogant high schoolers who run off at the mouth. >i'm being nice to you and asking you to shut the f*ck up And if there is anything worse than a yapping high school student it is a yapping high school student with a dirty mouth. >about things which don't concern you. ... I am concerned about freedom of communication, and concerned about people threatening others with the boogy man, etc. --henry schaffer
a864@mindlink.UUCP (Jono Moore) (11/03/90)
> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org writes: > Msg-ID: <18683@rpp386.cactus.org> > Person: John F. Haugh II > > you, being a silly little college child, don't understand > the difference between a threat and being nice. a threat > would be "gee, i'm going to sue you". now, can you find > anyplace where i said i was going to sue you? no. of > course not, because that would be stupid and a waste of > my time. can you find someplace where i politely asked > you to exercise self restraint. of course you can, because > i'm being nice to you and asking you to shut the f*ck up > about things which don't concern you. Hmm... I think this should be moved over to the "Censorship on the USENET" thread... Is this or is this not a forum for public discussion? -- USENET: a864@mindlink.UUCP | "I've got compassion running BITNET: usernk1z@sfu | out of my nose, pal. I'm the INTERNET: Jono_Moore@cc.sfu.ca | sultan of sentiment." DATA: (604)983-3546 MSDOS only | --Albert Rosenfield (Twin Peaks)
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (11/04/90)
In article <1990Nov3.025317.12180@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> hes@ccvr1.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes: >In article <18683@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >> ... how are you being threatened? webster's says a threat is "an >>expression or intention to do harm". ... > ^^^^^^^^^ > Please don't boast about your inability to understand >what you are posting. Many people saw intent. Please, you give me too much credit. The first person to bring up the threat of a lawsuit was Len Rose, who called me at 11:00pm one evening to tell me he was going to see me in court. We have since spoken on the phone and via e-mail and there won't be a lawsuit. I am sure most of you are heartbroken. The third person to bring up a lawsuit was Karl Kleinpaste (I think) who said he was anxiously awaiting his chance to testify against me in court so that Len could win a large settlement. What should my reaction to Karl's lynchmob statements be? Jump for joy? And of course there was Larry Foard "I hope Len wins a very large settlement" statement. And Greg Lindahl "I hope he gets compensation". And the granddaddy of all was Jim Thomas' statement on Oct >11th< that I should prepare myself to be sued. Yes, clearly I am out threatening to sue everyone in this group. Render unto me a f*cking break. So please, before you or anyone else accuse me of "threatening" to sue you, just remember, I didn't. You might see "intent" because you are intentionally stupid, or possibly because you lack the ability to read what other people wrote long before I rejoined this group a few short days ago. Yes, this is a lynchmob. You aren't interested in helping anyone, only in speculation and rumors. Seven months or so ago it was "hang Len". Only the names have changed. Who will it be in another seven months? -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson
karl_kleinpaste@cis.ohio-state.edu (11/04/90)
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org writes: The third person to bring up a lawsuit was Karl Kleinpaste (I think) who said he was anxiously awaiting his chance to testify against me in court so that Len could win a large settlement. Y'know, this is getting to be entirely too entertaining. Mr Haugh, get a grip -- I didn't mention the concept of a lawsuit at all. The sentence to which you evidently refer from article <KARL.90Oct29143931@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu> is this: | And I hope my chance to testify on Len's behalf | comes through. Now, the contextual problem is that you believe that I was referring to a desire to testify _against_you_, which is not the case. I have no intention whatever of pursuing any kind of action against you. However, the series of events which included your alleged article and its alleged involvement in Len's recent firing have riled me quite a bit. So I expressed my hope that Len would "quick-fr[y] you to a crackly crunch." No threat there of a lawsuit per se. Besides, who am I, to pursue such an action? You have certainly not harmed _me_ in any manner. I cannot threaten you on another's behalf. So my comment regarding testimony on Len's behalf had nothing to do with any such thing as a lawsuit against yourself. Rather, my comment regarding testimony has to do with the fact that I have some information which I have reason to believe will be beneficial to Len in his defense against the charges he faces. I wrote him mail (dated Oct 12 20:01:38 1990, according to my outgoing log) regarding this, offering to be a witness on his behalf when his case comes to trial. He was intending to forward that message to the relevant attorney(s). Now, if I managed to give the impression that I was "anxiously" awaiting a chance to testify against you, well, gee, I'm just _awfully_ darn sorry; one would just hate to think that a person would get the lawsuit willies from something as silly as a Usenet posting. On the other hand, directly above, and as quoted from <18687@rpp386.cactus.org>, you suggest that I am seeking such an opportunity, and that I want you to suffer loss of a large settlement, when in fact the article I wrote did not even mention the words "lawsuit," "settlement," or "libel." These are patently untrue assertions, and in fact, they give me the distinct appearance of being somewhat libelous, since they give the impression that I am a litigiously minded person, "anxious" (your word) to exercise the legal system against a fellow citizen. I would suggest that, given a new-found understanding of the situation such as I have just shown, a retraction is in line. --karl PS- I've stashed away a copy of <18687@rpp386.cactus.org> for...well...let's call it...safekeeping.
hes@ccvr1.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) (11/04/90)
In article <1990Nov3.025317.12180@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> hes@ccvr1.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes: >In article <18683@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >> ... you, being a silly little college child, don't understand >>the difference between a threat and being nice. ... > > We silly little college children really do detest being >annoyed by arrogant high schoolers who run off at the mouth. John has written to me and claimed to have completed college. I really should have said that the annoyance was such as would normally come from an arrogant high school student ... >>i'm being nice to you and asking you to shut the f*ck up > > And if there is anything worse than a yapping high school >student it is a yapping high school student with a dirty mouth. > >>about things which don't concern you. ... > > I am concerned about freedom of communication, and concerned >about people threatening others with the boogy man, etc. John also told me something along the lines that only people named Len Rose or John Haugh are allowed to be concerned about these issues. --henry schaffer
gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (11/04/90)
In article <18687@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >And of course there was Larry Foard "I hope Len wins a very >large settlement" statement. And Greg Lindahl "I hope he gets >compensation". I just love being quoted out of context. What I said was (roughly): "IF LEN WAS INDEED FIRED SOLELY BECAUSE OF A RUMOR, I hope he gets compensation." Emphasis added. This is *NOT* speculation over whether or not Len was fired for this reason. This is not speculation over whether or not Len is guilty, although I strongly feel that he has the same right that Mr. Haugh and Mr. DeWhatever have to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Even if Len turns out to be guilty, my statement will still stand. This is a simple statement that I don't think people should lose their jobs over rumors. Because I said the above sentence, even though I didn't mention Mr. Haugh's article, I received a demand that I cancel it. I guess I violated Mr. Haugh's idea of "free speech" or something. Just goes to show that electronic speech is subject to the same harrassment as other forms of speech: "Take that back or I'll have my lawyer beat you up!" -- greg
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (11/05/90)
In article <KARL.90Nov3190209@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu> karl_kleinpaste@cis.ohio-state.edu writes: >Mr Haugh, get a grip -- I didn't mention the concept of a lawsuit at >all. The sentence to which you evidently refer from article ><KARL.90Oct29143931@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu> is this: > >| And I hope my chance to testify on Len's behalf >| comes through. > >Now, the contextual problem is that you believe that I was referring >to a desire to testify _against_you_, which is not the case. so, how are you going to "testify" if there isn't a lawsuit filed by SOMEONE. here is the entire paragraph - "Thanx, Mr Haugh. Thanx a whole bunch. I hope Len quick-fries you to a crackly crunch. And I hope my chance to testify on Len's behalf comes through." so, let's see - someone is going to quick fry me. and karl is going to testify on that person's behalf. presumably, this testimony will help this person quick-fry me. now, even a high school dropout like myself can get from "X file suit against Y" and "Z testifies for X" to "Z testifies against Y". so guys, who brought up the mention of a lawsuit? clues anyone??? -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (11/05/90)
Hey, could we have a moratorium on the Rose/DeArmond/Haugh/Whoever thing? It's getting kind of old and until someone feeds more information in it's not helping anyone. How about a new topic for a while... like what do you do if some group of people are acting in such a way as to weaken the legal standing of the net by posting large quantities of copyrighted material to a newsgroup and refusing to back down? Yes, freedom of speech and all that. But how do we go about dealing with flagrantly illegal behavior before it draws the feds into things? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
terri_watson@cis.ohio-state.edu (11/05/90)
In article <18693@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
[quote from Karl's article deleted]
so, let's see - someone is going to quick fry me. and karl is going
to testify on that person's behalf. presumably, this testimony will
^^^^^^^^^^
<ooops, we all remember what it means to ASSUME now, right? :>
help this person quick-fry me. now, even a high school dropout like
myself can get from "X file suit against Y" and "Z testifies for X"
to "Z testifies against Y".
[more text deleted]
John, you've got so many things wrong it's difficult to decide where
to begin (or end).
1st sentence: Wrong: The expressed sentiment was that it was HOPED
that you would be quick fried.
2nd sentence: Wrong again: Again, Karl HOPES he gets a chance to
testify.
3rd sentence: Wrong <anyone begin to see a pattern here? :> baseless
assumption: In fact, Karl was talking about testifying before
your flame-fest started. (I know, hard to accept that the
world doesn't revolve around you. <sniff>)
4th sentence: Wrong (it's a clean sweep!): Now we've jumped from a
hope that you'll be "quick-fried" to a statement that "X file suit
against Y" (sounds like your own warped interpretation) and another
statement that "Z testifies for X" which is also a as yet undecided
issue, and finally your invalid conclusion that "Z testifies against
Y" -- believe it or not, Len just MIGHT have other legal issues
to pursue besides playing games with a, in your own words, "high
school dropout" from the net.
Sigh. If you MUST continue to argue, please have the courtesy to
construct your arguments with at least SOME basis in reality. (Although
I must admit, seeing a posting from someone apparently so self-centered
as to make such silly assumptions, was really quite amusing in its own
way.)
Terri Watson
NSF Fellow, Computer/Information Science, Ohio State University
Disclaimer: No one (other than the person who forged this posting) is
responsible for anything contained within. :> (Note: Yes, this is
assuming that there is, in fact, something contained here -- which is,
of course, debatable.)s900657@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au (Felicity Jones [Ice]) (11/05/90)
In article <.AW6NZ2@ficc.ferranti.com>, peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > Hey, could we have a moratorium on the Rose/DeArmond/Haugh/Whoever thing? > It's getting kind of old and until someone feeds more information in it's > not helping anyone. How about a new topic for a while... like what do you > Seconded. All those in favour say AYE! All those against, repeat your admonitions amongst yourselves. I have read the same messages, with quotes from previous messages ad infinitum - and the arguments are all the same, only the words have changed. We've all heard your respective pieces at least once now (actually, this discussion has probably turned the circle at least three times since it started). What was once an interesting (and funny) set of discourses has turned into a series of re-runs. <yawn> -- Felicity Jones Department of BIS The opinion/s expressed [Ice] RMIT/VUT above are my own, so s900657@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au Melbourne, Australia don't blame them!