Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site hou5e.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5e!mat
From: mat@hou5e.UUCP (M Terribile)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Farters Rights and unclean hobbits
Message-ID: <677@hou5e.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 26-Jul-83 17:08:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: hou5e.677
Posted: Tue Jul 26 17:08:23 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Jul-83 04:28:54 EDT
References: <5598@unc.UUCP>
Organization: American Bell ED&D, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 120

The saga continues.  Our hero Frodo and the evil unc!tim are engaged
in a struggle for truthm, justice, and clean or dirty air

unc!tim	    Here is a letter from my little friend Frodo.  Dear, sweet Frodo
	has threatened to piss in my dinner, as you may recall. ...

			 . . .

unc!tim	    Now, search your memory here, small guy.  Who attacked whom?  Now,
	can the cute widdle hobbit really expect that if he takes gratuitous
	pot shots at someone, that someone will become his good friend and
	treat him real nice?  Or, to put it in human terms: I'll treat you
	well until you take a pot shot at me, after which I'll feel free to
	enjoy myself.  Oh yes, and I hardly consider "hou5f!jrt" to be a "real
	name".  Or did they forgot to give your mother the Thorazine that day?

Pos shots indeed!

Frodo      In your attack you argue that you are against restricting the
	"liberties" of anyone, in spite of the fact that there is a general
	consensus.  Gee, there is a general consensus that murder is not
	appreciated.  You must feel that there should be no laws restricting
        anyone's "liberty" or "right" to murder, even though most people feel
	that murder is bad.

unc!tim	    I do not think that murder laws should be considered to be just
	simply because of the fact that societal consensus supports them.
	**I think they should be considered to be just because murder is
	depriving someone else of his or her liberty wantonly and without
	sufficient cause, in an objectively observable fashion.  Similarly
	for rape, slavery, etc.  Societal consensus is notoriously repressive
	and cruel.  It is not a fit basis on which to restrict liberty.**

Ok.  But who is to judge that an objective and observable act robs people
of their liberty?  Societal consensus, with some procedure thrown in, is
about all we have ... and ultimately is what our government is based on.
If the gevernment can or proscribe the emmission of toxic manufacturing
products or byproducts into the environment, then why can it not regulate
the emmision of KNOWN CARCINOGENS and ALLERGY-TRIGGERING SUBSTANCES into
the environment by individuals.

	That approach is nothing but social behavior control, with people
	imprisoning others for what can be considered at most an unwillingness
	to conform.  There must be a need for a law.

Is prohibiting public smoking the same as imprisonment?  If you can't do
better than that, perhaps we should stop taking you seriously.

unc!tim	    I consider this statement to be extremely insulting to my
	intelligence, probably deliberately so on your part.  Have you
	read any of the seemingly hundreds of articles I've posted recently
	on this subject?

Yes, and if I am to believe that you mean what they seem to say you are
either an imbecile or a sadist.  An imbecile if you don't recognize the
rather high probability of danger to my health from nearby smokers, or
a sadist if you want to keep me exposed to it knowing the dangers.

	    IF SO, THEN WHY DO I HAVE TO KEEP REPEATING THINGS, GOD DAMN IT?

I thought that you didn't believe in either God or hell?  As to why
you have to keep repeating things:  you don't.  I suspect most of us,
having rejected your arguments as foolish and insulting, have decided
that you are indeed an imbecile.  I for one would like to see you shut
up (this IS net.flame, so I can say what I want).

unc!tim	   I favor environmental legislation.  Dumping your poisons on
	someone without their consent should be considered a crime because it
	deprives the person of liberty by shortening their life, reducing
	their mobility, etc.  No one has yet produced evidence that AMBIENT
	cigarette smoke is a poison worth the restriction of liberty.  It is
	not clear that the studies on direct ingestion of the smoke should be
	considered generalizable to the ambient case.

No one is SURE that red dye #2 or any of a large number of other chemicals
proscribed from products destined for human consumption is dangerous.  We
have very good evidence that some of them are, and rather tenuous evidence
against others.  But we forbid them.  Why?  Because in SOME situations that
are expected to mirror real life they are found to be dangerous.

  We KNOW that cigarette smoke is harmful to the smoker.  Further, there
are many compounds in it that are dangerous, and that are bioactive even
in minute quantity.  Should I assume that because I am not absorbing as
much of these compounds as the smoker I am not going to be injured?  I
KNOW my health is being affected.  If you do not believe me I suggest that
you bring an allergist and an ear, nose, and throat specialist into my
office.  My officemates will be GLAD to light up, and then we can observe,
in an objective and measurable fashion, the effect of these poisons on my
body.

unc!tim	    How the hell am I supposed to get anything said if people won't
	listen to me?

  We are listening to you.  We find your position undefensable.  It is
you who are not listening!

unc!tim	   The anger in my article is not just show, it is very real.

  So is my anger when some  lights up on the
subway next to me and then some pretentious twerp from a college that I
never heard of before tells me that the  is not
violating my rights.

unc!tim	   I hate repeating myself, you hairy-footed fool, so don't expect me
	to be nice to you when you refuse to grant me even the courtesy of
	your attention, and don't cry when I respond to your attacks in kind.

	______________________________________
	The overworked keyboard of Tim Maroney

	duke!unc!tim (USENET)
	tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA)
	The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Nice!  We don't expect you to be nice.  It is obviously beyond your powers
to be either nice or rational.  And your keyboard certainly IS overworked!
Do you do ANYTHING besides reply to netnews?

					Mark Terribile
					hou5e!mat