NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/politics/misc/65766

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-30 | 6.0 KB

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65766 alt.sex:40545
Path: sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!hri.com!ukma!news
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 30 Dec 92 22:16:07 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Kentucky
Lines: 104
Nntp-Posting-Host: ukcc.uky.edu

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Terry Manley) writes:

>
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Xavier Gallagher) writes:
>
>>>ps. I am sorry to break my promise so soon but I can't allow this jerk
>>>to get away with telling me I don't know what I am talking about.
>
>>I wish I could have said what you said.   I should have known by the
>>time I looked at your sig you weren't from here.  I think we all like
>>the USEnet because of it's complete openess-it's like a "freedom wall"
>>where everyone can go, BUT that doesn't mean we have to agree and I will
>>let you know that if that fucking Clayton ever comes here to KY and
>>starts that bullshit-he better be bringing body guards.   He can say
>>stuff like I'm crazy- I think he's the crazy one, and if he say's it to
>>my face he's just damn suicidal.                Paul  (...xavier only
>>mad dogs and englishmen go out in the midday sun..smile)
>>PAUL JAMES   ([e-mail])
>
>Well Paul aren't you special.
>
>I may not agree with what Clayton may write but unlike you
>when someone says something I do not like I do not threaten
>them with physical violence.
>
First of all, I did not threaten violence.  I said "if" he came around
where I am and started anything I'd certainly think nothing of defending
myself or ridding his physical presence from my vicinity.  It's very easy
for him to shout protected behind the distance of his terminal "child
molesters!"
Let me ask you something.  Say you're sitting in a public place and some
guy walks in and starts informing others around the place you're a molester.
He "announces" it to everyone and makes a scene around you.  You were simply
minding your business.  You finally are concerned about losing your enjoyment
of the premises and politely asks him to stop.  He doesn't and continues to
make a scence about YOUR presence and that YOU'RE dangerous-a molester.
You ask the management to do something.  They ask him to leave and he won't.
They call the police which as him to leave and he won't.  So, what happens
next...?  Do the police say, "Well, he doesn't want to go."  Or do they
say, "As a citizen you pay us guys to protect you against this kind of
thing."  And they consequently PHYSICALLY render as much force necessary
to remove and deal with him.  Now granted there's a difference in the
legality of doing it yourself, but if the police aren't around, it seems
a reasonable proposition to do it yourself.  In fact in the situation of
a public place there may be bouncers who'd do it that weren't the police
on your behalf.
The fact is violence is not always "bad" but always unfortunate.  A struggle
between a robber and a victim is violent and both are being violent.  The
difference one is in response to violence upon them.  People like that guy
can use words like weapons.  It's no different than if I held a gun to your
head and demanded all your possesions, than to start talk so inflamatory
around you that I scared others around you into believing you were a monster
and you were going to hurt them first so they react?  You then perhaps lose
your home, your job, your life perhaps.  Many gays have been the victims of
such violent people, who with their mouths were able to do just as much as
with a gun.

>Perhaps you are unclear on the following concepts:
>
>1. Freedom of Speech
>
Refer to the above, or "fire" in a crowded space, inciting a riot, etc.

>2. The illegality of assault and battery.
>
Contrast that with the legality of using force to defend one's self or
possesions or to employ the agencies that be to use force or threats of
force to those who do not respect your rights to enjoy the same freedoms
you allow them.

>I'm glad you're keeping the tradition of the South alive.
>Beat on anyone you don't like.  Kill them if you think
>you can get away with it.
>
>Welcome to the enlightened 1990's.
>
>Are you sure you don't put on white robes with peaked hats and go out
>for a little fun?  Dave (...paul only idiots like you from KY would
>want to try and beat-up clayton cramer...smile)
>DAVE MANLEY ([e-mail])
>
So far as the guys in the pointed hats, sounds like you'd wear it better than
I would.  Or did I imagine that I detected a bit of "those southern people"
in your use of "keeping the southern tradition alive."  Do you have something
against people who were born in the south?  As far as wanting to beat up
someone, including the person you mentioned, unless pushed, I wouldn't waste
my time.   However, I do think it's important to let people like him know
that while it's legal and he's safe behind the distance while he shouts
obscenties like he has, that in reality-in my community-he won't get away
with it if he's physically here doing it.
It's also, perhaps, only "idiots" like you Dave who underestimate the danger
of guys like him.   Frankly, I think he's a "clear and present danger."
Unchecked, people like him will do something.
                    ***IN ADDITION***
I received several notes from people in soc.motss, that asked that I edit
my newsgroup cross posting to this post and have.  Not because ofwhat I said
but that they don't want soc.motss to be any forum for such biggots against
or for.  And to keep soc.motss a place where people don't have to waste
their time even putting up with comments like his.
So if you reply to this, please note and edit out the soc.motss cross post.

PAUL JAMES   ([e-mail])