text abuse

"Bill Kiene" wrote in message
et...
http://www.courttv.com/news/2006/011..._suit_ctv.html

--
Bill Kiene

Interesting case, Bill. What's your position on this?

Wolfgang

Wolfgang typed:
"Bill Kiene" wrote in message
et...
http://www.courttv.com/news/2006/011..._suit_ctv.html

--
Bill Kiene

Interesting case, Bill. What's your position on this?

I'll bet he doesn't reply "FY, Wolfgang." Not with $25,000 at stake.
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

"Wolfgang" wrote in


Interesting case, Bill. What's your position on this?



I've, of course, no clue about Bill's view .... but mine


is that anyone that would say things on the Internet he wouldn't have the
balls to say face to face deserves punishment. Now I mean that more in a
social sense than a legal one, as free speach is something we need to
defend.

But, the various forms of Internet cummunication are taking an increasingly
important role in all our human to human encounters and I think it will
become necessary to provide limits on what can be said without the offended
person having legal means to stop it and/or be compensated for it. If
someone wrote material that was untrue, and harmful to me in my local
newspaper .... I'd sue and expect to win .... what's the difference, if the
media changes?

Now, clearly the Net has a "tradition" of tolerating true assholes and
deviates but I believe that as the media matures so will the behavior
required to use it, free from financial retaliation. At least I hope so,
since much of what now happens is at the lowest level of human interaction
and the media has much potential to improve man's interaction with man, not
lower it to Jr High posturing gone mad behind a "screen name."

"Larry L" wrote in message
...

"Wolfgang" wrote in


Interesting case, Bill. What's your position on this?



I've, of course, no clue about Bill's view .... but mine


is that anyone that would say things on the Internet he wouldn't have the
balls to say face to face deserves punishment. Now I mean that more in a
social sense than a legal one, as free speach is something we need to
defend.

So, what you're saying is that free speech can only be defended by beating
someone up.....or being beaten up.....in a face to face confrontation? But
then, it isn't really punishment, is it? I guess I probably wouldn't tell
you to your face that the logic you display above is twisted. Personally, I
think that isn't necessarily a matter of balls. At any rate, it looks as if
you'll have to sue me.

But, the various forms of Internet cummunication are taking an
increasingly important role in all our human to human encounters and I
think it will become necessary to provide limits on what can be said
without the offended person having legal means to stop it and/or be
compensated for it.

No legal expert myself, but I believe there are already such limitations in
place. The trouble is that the courts in this country are still run (by and
large) by adults......adults who DO know the law.

If someone wrote material that was untrue, and harmful to me in my local
newspaper .... I'd sue and expect to win ....

Well, you might indeed expect to win but I'd bet a shiny new nickel that
"untrue and harmful" are not in and of themselves sufficient to guarantee
it.

what's the difference, if the media changes?

There is none that I'm aware of (bearing in mind, once again, that I'm no
expert). I believe that the plaintiff would be subject to the same burdens
of proof (whatever they might be) and other legal constraints as in any
other case.

Now, clearly the Net has a "tradition" of tolerating true assholes and
deviates but I believe that as the media matures so will the behavior
required to use it, free from financial retaliation.

I certainly hope not. As highly vaunted as free speech is, I think it's
time we give it a try. We are now, for the first time in the history of the
species, in a position experiment with something very much like it. It
would be a shame to let such an opportunity pass untried.

At least I hope so, since much of what now happens is at the lowest level
of human interaction and the media has much potential to improve man's
interaction with man, not lower it to Jr High posturing gone mad behind a
"screen name."

Interaction is still like the tango......no one can do it alone. As for the
medium, its potential lies precisely in its freedom from interference.
Consider the development of the internet.......the most complex construct in
human history.....and it was done with exactly NOBODY in charge. That's a
lot more important than you think.

Wolfgang

"Wolfgang" wrote


So, what you're saying is that free speech can only be defended by beating
someone up.....or being beaten up.....in a face to face confrontation?
But then, it isn't really punishment, is it? I guess I probably wouldn't
tell you to your face that the logic you display above is twisted.
Personally, I think that isn't necessarily a matter of balls. At any
rate, it looks as if you'll have to sue me.



When I reread my post I felt it came close enough to saying what I feel,
with the possible exception of two words .."social" and "punishment"
Maybe replacing the first with " Karma" and ... I'm floundering trying to
replace the second ... "just deserves" maybe.

I believe that those few that need to be abusive on the Internet ( reliably,
continually abusive, not just the rare bad day ) would very likely find
their own lives improving if they stopped. And not just their Internet
lives, since our various parts don't exist independent of each other.
People that have that much hate bottled up get/got it from somewhere and
really need to address the real source not just lash out where they feel
it's safe, imho.

Oh, and, I make no claims to real legal knowledge....

Slightly new topic:

I just got back from my daily bike ride. The country roads around here
limit me to two possible hour long loops on roads remotely safe for a bike,
and both go past dozens of properties with dogs. Each loop goes past only
ONE property with dogs that are consistently, reliably, a pain in the ass
chasing me.

I've checked and double checked with various law enforcement departments,
and this county has a law that says I can kill one of those dogs, if it's on
the road attacking me ( although when I asked the sheriff I was told that a
pistol was a bad idea because it was still illegal to shoot from or on the
road, so I'd have to bludgeon them to death, I guess.) Or, I can
personally issue a citizens arrest to the owner, for each occurrence ( one
dog is an occurrence, two chasing me is two, two dogs two days is 4 etc )
having a fine of $140. Or, I can call animal control with the address and
they will issue the citation, on my word, with the same fines.

Now, that seems like a very stringent set of laws to me, maybe too stringent
and severe. Certainly it would be sad if the one day in years that a dog
normally well controlled by it's owner gets loose and chases a bike, it was
therefore killed or it's actually responsible owner fined. Yet, I have no
sympathy for the consistent problems , and although right now pepper spray
is my weapon, I'm prepared to go further.

But, let's all think about the fact that the 99.9% of the people that have
the human decency and sense of social contract to control their animals and
NOT the ones that made the law necessary.

The few nearly always cause the LEGAL restrictions ( as opposed to social
contract/ moral restrictions) of personal behavior that we are all forced to
live under. In a similar vein, when legislation is passed controlling what
can be said here, it's NOT going to be because of those in the majority,
that have adult levels of self discipline while ONline.

The greatest defense of free speech may very well be to use it responsibly.

"Larry L" wrote in news:9JRBf.295551
:

Or, I can call animal control with the address and
they will issue the citation, on my word, with the same fines

And why in the world wouldn't you do this, instead of even considering
shooting the dogs (unless, of course, your safety is in question). Of
course, since you KNOW the dogs are trouble, continuing to ride by them
without attempting to rectify the situation is just asking for trouble.

the RIGHT thing to do first would be to contact the owner and politely let
them know that you're having some trouble with their dogs. If they're
polite, and can figure out a way to end your concern, great. If they're
less than polite, or just give you lip service but don't really do
anything, just tell them that you intend to follow up with animal control,
and then follow up.

When you last contacted animal control (which you surely must have done
already, since you're already considering killing a dog, and that wouldn't
be reasonable unless you've attempted less dramatic remedies), what did
they suggest you do?


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

"Scott Seidman"



When you last contacted animal control (which you surely must have done
already, since you're already considering killing a dog, and that wouldn't
be reasonable unless you've attempted less dramatic remedies), what did
they suggest you do?




Animal control is the source of my list of 'what I could dos" ...... I
wasn't EVER really considering shooting the dogs, although I DID ask about
it in an effort to get clear on how far I can legally go.... mainly I used
"killing them" to illustrate how far the laws are forced to go because some
people insist on being irresponsible. I would call Animal Control before
permanently harming the dogs, unless in real danger at that very second.

BTW, the owner DOES know .... he's been there and seen his dogs in action.
Note: people that feel comfortable behaving very badly aren't too likely to
change just because it's pointed out.... Assholes believe they have the
god given right to be assholes, don't they?

Dogs have been my life, and thus, dog owners ... it's the real 'born free'
set that always have the problem dogs, or the irrationally paranoid .... the
former in this case. If the dogs were only a problem when the owner
wasn't home, I would visit the owner, but I have seen him come round the
corner to see what the commotion was about and do nothing to control or even
try to control the dogs.

I'm pretty sure I have them trained to avoid me now, with pepper spray, but
I didn't go that far, sticking to yelling and such, until AFTER I had my
pants torn by teeth. And I will ride the public roads, period .... if that
means these dogs end up at the pound ... so be it, .... but I'm making an
honest effort to do what the owner clearly refuses to do ... train his
unruly mutts.

HOWEVER,

The main 'point' of my story was not dogs, it was the fact that it's
irresponsible people, not responsible ones, that eventually get us all
burdened with restrictive laws.


And I still think it's an important point G



oh, back to dogs .... I more or less solved one problem dog situation a
couple months ago .... the dog chased me, I slammed on the brakes, hopped
off and chased him back home. The owner was in his garage and came out
all hot with a "what are you doin to my dog" which I instantly interrupted
with, "That looks like a VERY nice home you have there, I'd love to OWN it.
Trust me, if that dog chases me again and bites me, I WILL." I see the
same dog, now, at a different property, properly contained behind a fence.
G still obnoxious, but controlled ....

"Larry L" wrote in message
...

"Wolfgang" wrote


So, what you're saying is that free speech can only be defended by
beating
someone up.....or being beaten up.....in a face to face confrontation?
But then, it isn't really punishment, is it? I guess I probably wouldn't
tell you to your face that the logic you display above is twisted.
Personally, I think that isn't necessarily a matter of balls. At any
rate, it looks as if you'll have to sue me.



When I reread my post I felt it came close enough to saying what I feel,

Yeah, I think so too.

with the possible exception of two words .."social" and "punishment"
Maybe replacing the first with " Karma" and ... I'm floundering trying to
replace the second ... "just deserves" maybe.

Karma.....ah yes, now there's nice rational and easily quantifiable measure
by which to determine how to deal with people......and yes, you are indeed
floundering. Cheap clones of ratiocination will do that to you. As for who
deserves what, that's all well and good as long as we have you around to
make these determinations for us......but the internet is a big place. What
do we do when you decide your services are more urgently needed elsewhere?

I believe that those few that need to be abusive on the Internet (
reliably,
continually abusive, not just the rare bad day ) would very likely find
their own lives improving if they stopped.

This runs counter to current theory in psychology as well as common sense.
Ceasing whatever fills a need is usually not a good thing. Now, if you had
suggested that people who tend to abusiveness when there is no need, I'd
have agreed. But, you didn't, did you?

And not just their Internet
lives, since our various parts don't exist independent of each other.

Well, many of us exist quite nicely, thank you very much, with at least a
modicum of geographic independence betwixt our heads and our asses. I can
see no good reason that this sort of partial separation can't be extended to
various of our activities as well.

People that have that much hate bottled up get/got it from somewhere and
really need to address the real source not just lash out where they feel
it's safe, imho.

First, I've seen no hint of humility in any of your opinions. That's not
even cute.

Beyond that, you're right about this much, at least. And they all find
their way here sooner or later. Dina Temple-Raston wrote (of theChristian
Identity Movement) that it; "...inflated the self-importance of otherwise
unremarkable young men, often with disastrous results. I gave them a way to
find someone thay hated more than themselves.."*

Lose the adjective "young" and you've got a perfect description of Usenet.

Oh, and, I make no claims to real legal knowledge....

No? But you DO advocate free speech for those who agree with you and
physical violence for those who don't.

Slightly new topic:

I just got back from my daily bike ride. The country roads around here
limit me to two possible hour long loops on roads remotely safe for a
bike,
and both go past dozens of properties with dogs. Each loop goes past only
ONE property with dogs that are consistently, reliably, a pain in the ass
chasing me.

I've checked and double checked with various law enforcement departments,
and this county has a law that says I can kill one of those dogs, if it's
on
the road attacking me ( although when I asked the sheriff I was told that
a
pistol was a bad idea because it was still illegal to shoot from or on the
road, so I'd have to bludgeon them to death, I guess.) Or, I can
personally issue a citizens arrest to the owner, for each occurrence ( one
dog is an occurrence, two chasing me is two, two dogs two days is 4 etc )
having a fine of $140. Or, I can call animal control with the address and
they will issue the citation, on my word, with the same fines.

Now, that seems like a very stringent set of laws to me, maybe too
stringent
and severe. Certainly it would be sad if the one day in years that a dog
normally well controlled by it's owner gets loose and chases a bike, it
was
therefore killed or it's actually responsible owner fined. Yet, I have no
sympathy for the consistent problems , and although right now pepper spray
is my weapon, I'm prepared to go further.

But, let's all think about the fact that the 99.9% of the people that have
the human decency and sense of social contract to control their animals
and
NOT the ones that made the law necessary.

The few nearly always cause the LEGAL restrictions ( as opposed to social
contract/ moral restrictions) of personal behavior that we are all forced
to
live under. In a similar vein, when legislation is passed controlling
what
can be said here, it's NOT going to be because of those in the majority,
that have adult levels of self discipline while ONline.

The greatest defense of free speech may very well be to use it
responsibly.

Lovely sermon. Horse****.....but very pretty horse****.

Wolfgang

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

...Dina Temple-Raston wrote (of theChristian Identity Movement) that it;
"...inflated the self-importance of otherwise unremarkable young men,
often with disastrous results. I gave them a way to find someone thay
hated more than themselves.."*

Oops!

*from: "A Death In Texas: A Story of Race, Murder, and a Small Town's
Struggle for Redemption", Dina Temple-Raston, Henry Holt & Co., 2002, p.
169.

Wolfgang

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:04:06 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:

Each loop goes past only
ONE property with dogs that are consistently, reliably, a pain in the ass
chasing me.

My dad solved the problem when I was a 10 year old delivering news
papers. Tippy, the Small's mutt, used to attack me every day. He'd
grab my pants leg and wouldn't let go. I tried a baseball bat, water
pistol. Nothing worked. I managed over the weeks to kick him a
couple of times, but that seemed to make him madder. When my mom
asked me what happened to my pants, I told her it was the Small's dog.

Dad went down to the cellar, got a burlap bag, and took off a couple
of lug nuts on the left front wheel of his car, put the burlap onto
the lugs and replaced the nuts. He drove about 10 miles an hour past
the Small's house, and good old reliable Tippy came running out, sunk
his teeth into the burlap. After about four revolutions, Tippy freed
himself and went home yelping. Old Tip never chased me or cars again.
I bet he had nightmares.