Alberto wrote: > Jeroen's behavious was no different than any other > listmember, except for magnitude or intensity. > If there's no law against drinking alchool, then > there's no law against getting drunk
That's true, but, at least in the US, there are laws against being drunk & disorderly in public, and against driving while drunk. There are laws against creating a public nuisance, as well. Look at it this way: You're at a bar having a few drinks. You get drunk, which is perfectly legal (and in some degree expected), but then you get abusive, calling the waitress names when she refuses to serve you any more drinks. When the bar manager comes to talk to you about it, you insult him and threaten to sue him. The bar owner then has you "escorted" outside the premises by the thick-necked man named "Bruiser". Once outside, you continue to scream abuse at the owner, staff and patrons of the bar, going so far as to try to jimmy open the window of the men's toilet to slip in that way. Are you arguing that you've done nothing wrong, and should be allowed back into the bar to continue drinking? This is stretching the analogy, of course, since Jeroen is not (as far as we know) under the influence of alcohol. He seems to be in full control of his actions, so he doesn't have the minimal defense of being under the influence of alcohol. I don't support a permanent ban, either, but I do support efforts to minimize the disruption of abusive behavior onlist. Adam C. Lipscomb __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
