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