Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxu.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!we13!ihnp4!ihuxu!ducha From: ducha@ihuxu.UUCP (D.K.Nguyen) Newsgroups: ih.eats,net.consumers,net.legal Subject: Old Peking again ... Message-ID: <259@ihuxu.UUCP> Date: Fri, 9-Mar-84 14:38:21 EST Article-I.D.: ihuxu.259 Posted: Fri Mar 9 14:38:21 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 11-Mar-84 00:57:25 EST Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 20 More on Old Peking.... Remember the last posting on the mal-treatment, somehow the article got to the owner(s?) of the restaurant. They called up the friend of mine who made the reservation, and demanded an apology from us. The ground for the "sorry" is that my friend had previously agreed to their arrangement (tables, foods,...). Now that they are not going to get one from me, they said that (I quoted from my friend) I have no right to post such criticism (legally!). I didn't like their treatment because I was paying the same amount like everybody else, but I do not get the same services (full menu to choose from, table arrangement, etc...) Although I recognized their points of view, I believe that the freedom of speech still rules. My question to you the net-readers: "What is the consumers' right? To only speak out positive criticism but not negative ones?". Duc Kim Nguyen ihnp4!ihuxu!ducha -- Duc Kim Nguyen ihnp4!ihuxu!ducha