RE: Our kickin' sitchyashun

["Alan Partridge" <apartridge@turbonet.com>]

So if I read between the lines properly, you're going to set up such an
instance to test the fiber of this community at Bucer's. This is a cause
that I find most interesting. However, a "bunch of Aryans" may be
difficult. You might be able to find one or two that'll do it for a few
quid, but you might have to look into the drama departments of nearby
colleges that will act it straight enough for you. There are
improvisation classes, are there not? Granted, there may be a couple of
jews in the mix, but as long as it doesn't show, it might be believable,
correct? Legal? Perhaps you could find out for us.

I salute you eevans. You could make us even more the laughing stock of
the arse-end of the state. You could cause a few of us to confront some
of the worst fears and grow from the experience. You could also spur a
bigger anti-Semitic sentiment in this community. What would happen?
Would a bunch of bystanders riot and eat those drama people alive, all
for a sociological experiment? Will you make the gamble? Will we find
out? Please eevans, we want to know: are you going to do it, or are you
taunting us with hypothetical situations? 

Kampai,

Alan Partridge,
-A non-representative of the BBC or it's affiliates, at home or abroad.


-----Original Message-----
From: Ed [mailto:eevans@moscow.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 6:46 PM
To: vision2020@moscow.com
Subject: Re: Our kickin' sitchyashun

I don't know about that.. What if a bunch of Aryans heckled a Jewish guy
out 
of a diner? Legal? Maybe so.

Cheers,
-Ed Evans

On Thursday 26 September 2002 17:27, Sunil Ramalingam wrote:
> Lucy,
> If you look to Idaho Code 67-5902(5) for the definition of person, it
reads
> "Person" includes an individual, association, corporation, joint
> apprenticeship committee, joint-stock company, labor union, legal
> representative, mutual company, partnership, any other legal or
commercial
> entity, the state, or any governmental entity or agency;
>
> I believe the Act applies to employers and proprietors, not
individuals
> such as the diners in a restaurant.  While in the Bertollini example
the
> diners were rude, I doubt they are liable under the Act.
>
> However, I urge you not to take my word for this, and should you
choose to
> heckle a fellow diner, do not claim that I said it would be okay.
This is
> just an estimate, and your results may vary.
>
> Sunil Ramalingam
>
> From: "Lucy Zoe" <lucyzoe@moscow.com>
>
> >Reply-To: <lucyzoe@moscow.com>
> >To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
> >Subject: RE: Our kickin' sitchyashun
> >Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 16:28:13 -0700
> >
> >Ron wrote:
> >As I understand it, the proprietor didn't evict him-- the other
diners
> >just
> >gave him a hard time verbally until he left (exercised their free
> >speech?).
> >
> >Lucy says:
> >You'll notice Ron, that the ACT doesn't say For a *proprietor,*
> >it says For a *person.*  Therefore, it doesn't really make a
difference
> >*who* denies another individual according to the Act.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx