Flamage re Mark Ethan Smith/Netiquette
Vincent Manis
(or interested in) the issues involved. However, I found the language
so offensive that I sent a message to postmaster@killer, requesting that
s/he explain something about netiquette to the poster. I agree with
Steve that there's no point in discussing the merits of the posting,
as we all learned in the Mading case.
I suspect that this would, in general, be a good way of handling
offensive posters. Simply send a copy of the posting to postmaster on
their system (s/he can see it anyway), with a request that they ask the
poster to cool it a bit. No reason to waste our bandwidth on soc.motss;
having 10 or 15 such requests arrive at a system is a very good way of
dealing with offensive posts from that system.
Please let's not get in another dispute about freedom of speech: neither
the U.S. Bill of Rights nor the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
protects other people's right to puke on my shoes.
Vincent Manis ma...@instr.camosun.bcc.cdn
Camosun College ihnp4 |
3100 Foul Bay Road seismo |!ubc-vision!instr.camosun.bcc.cdn!manis
Victoria, BC V8P 4X8 uw-beaver |
(604) 592-1281 x480 manis%instr.camo...@ubc.csnet
manis%instr.camosun.bcc.cdn%ubc....@relay.cs.net
"One Thing to name them all, One Thing to define them,
One Thing to place them in environments and bind them.
In the Lambda Order they are all first-class."
- G. L. Steele, with apologies to J. R. R. Tolkien
era...@violet.berkeley.edu
>Not reading any other Usenet group but soc.motss, I'm not cognisant of
>(or interested in) the issues involved. However, I found the language
>Please let's not get in another dispute about freedom of speech: neither
>the U.S. Bill of Rights nor the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
>protects other people's right to puke on my shoes.
Canada must be a very nice country, Vincent. Here's a ruling from
Anthony "Tony" Kennedy, Reagan's nominee to the United States
Supreme Court, in 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Case _Smith v Bowles_,
Docket Number 83-2727:
"The single utterance of a profanity is hardly the kind of act
that can give rise to a suit for compensable injury in either
federal or state court."
In order to get rid of me, federal employees at a base where they
lose millions of dollars in unaccounted for funds every year, not
to mention overruns, waste, fraud and abuse, would simply attack
me the same way this and other pseudos have done on the net. But
since I needed the job, instead of quitting, I filed a lawsuit.
The government removed the suit to federal court, insisting that
telling me to eat fecal matter was an official federal duty.
Judge Kennedy admitted that it was not an official federal duty,
being against both Navy and civil service rules, but found that
it had been properly removed on the basis stated above. He illegally
ruled that the case was properly removed on grounds other than those
used to remove it.
You have to know federal law to understand the illegality of
Judge Kennedy's act. The government can only remove a case to
federal court, if the act is entitled to federal immunity. If
the act is not entitled to federal immunity, the case should be
remanded. It was up to a lower judge to decide if I sustained
loss of livelihood from being talked to that way by coworkers.
I don't know if the gov't. told Judge Kennedy that I was a
homosexual or transexual (I'm not), or that I'm a Jew or a woman
or emotionally disabled (I am), but whatever it was, Judge Kennedy
found nothing wrong with federal coworkers telling me to eat fecal
matter. But I've been noticing that quite a few people were upset
about the recent posting by the pseudo. Is everybody emotionally
disabled like me? Look at Colin Jenkins and Tom Mandel and
Karl Denninger--they see nothing wrong with people telling me to
eat fecal matter. Obviously this is the way to treat people who
are different, this is the environment the disadvantaged must live
and work in, and there is protection in our laws for property, for
profits, and for profanity. There is no protection for people or
for economic, human, and civil rights. There are laws, but Judge
Kennedy, as the swing vote on the Supreme Court, will make sure
they are not enforced.
For example, suppose you are an employer, and the law forced you to
hire a woman, a minority person, a disabled person, or a person
with a different sexual preference. You simply tell them to eat
fecal matter until they either quit, or they file a complaint. If
they quit, you've won. If they need the job too badly, you just
keep it up until they file a complaint, and then call them
disruptive for filing the complaint and fire them. Judge Kennedy
will take care of the legal matters, so you have nothing to worry
about. Hire the disadvantaged, harass them intolerably, and then
either they quit, or they complain and you can fire them. If they
try to talk back, you can accuse them of attacking people or
being disruptive, although why it is okay for others but not for
them is not something the court will ever discuss.
--Mark
Michael C. Berch
> [...] Here's a ruling from
> Anthony "Tony" Kennedy, Reagan's nominee to the United States
> Supreme Court, in 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Case _Smith v Bowles_,
> Docket Number 83-2727:
>
> "The single utterance of a profanity is hardly the kind of act
> that can give rise to a suit for compensable injury in either
> federal or state court."
>
> In order to get rid of me, federal employees at a base where they
> lose millions of dollars in unaccounted for funds every year, not
> to mention overruns, waste, fraud and abuse, would simply attack
> me the same way this and other pseudos have done on the net. But
> since I needed the job, instead of quitting, I filed a lawsuit.
> The government removed the suit to federal court, insisting that
> telling me to eat fecal matter was an official federal duty.
> You have to know federal law to understand the illegality of
> Judge Kennedy's act. The government can only remove a case to
> federal court, if the act is entitled to federal immunity. If
> the act is not entitled to federal immunity, the case should be
> remanded. It was up to a lower judge to decide if I sustained
> loss of livelihood from being talked to that way by coworkers.
Um, it's been a few years since I dealt with this stuff on a daily
basis, but removal (from state to federal court) and remand (from a
appeals court to a trial court) don't have a lot to do with each
other. "Removal", in US civil procedure, is a procedure whereby one
of the parties in a suit in state court invokes Federal jurisdiction
in a case where there would have been original Federal jurisdiction in
a US District Court. (This would involve parties who are
domiciliaries of different states ("diversity" jurisdiction), where
the U.S. is a party, suits under various Federal statutes or the U.S.
Consititution, etc.) Removal does NOT affect choice-of-law, personal
jusridiction, or venue issues, except trivially; it does affect
procedural law, as cases removed to District Court will proceed under
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
"Remand", on the other hand, is where an appeals court sends a case
back to a trial court for determination of factual issues or entry of
judgment, etc. This can happen in either Federal or state court, and
usually follows every completed appeal, when the case is remanded for
entry of judgment (affirmed or modified), or a new trial, etc.
In short, "removal" should have had no substantive effect on Smith's
case, and whatever Judge Kennedy's ruling on the removal issue, it
remains a procedural, technical issue, and would have absolutely no
bearing on the facts or merits of Smith's charges. In any event, the
factual merits of Smith's case would always be decided by a trier of
fact -- judge or jury in a trial court, whether originally or after
remand -- and whether this transpired in state or Federal court is
irrelevant to the merits.
I have seen a lot of legal language and various assertions by Mark
Ethan Smith about the various litigation she has been involved in, and
frankly, most of it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I would not
consider Smith a good source of legal expertise regarding employment
law, gender-discrimination law, or any of the other fields involved.
Michael C. Berch
Member of the California
(and U.S. District Court, Northern Dist. of Calif.) Bar
m...@tis.llnl.gov / {ames,ihnp4,lll-crg,lll-lcc,mordor}!lll-tis!mcb
-----
And in addition, I sent the following mail to Smith several months
ago, and never received a reply. My offer to correspond with the
attorney in question stands (correspondence should be sent to the
address above, not the one in the appended message).
From mcb Wed Oct 21 18:00:29 1987
Return-Path: <mcb>
Received: Wed, 21 Oct 87 18:00:22 pdt by lll-tis.ARPA
id AA01175
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 87 18:00:22 pdt
From: Michael C. Berch <mcb>
Full-Name: Michael C. Berch
Message-Id: <871022010...@lll-tis.ARPA>
To: ames!cmcl2!cucard!dasys1!msmith, era...@violet.berkeley.edu
Subject: Assertions re pronouns and sexism
Newsgroups: soc.women,misc.legal
In-Reply-To: <16...@dasys1.UUCP>
Status: RO
In article <16...@dasys1.UUCP> you write:
> [Regarding use of pronouns:]
> Any attorney who doesn't know what this is about, can read past articles
> in soc.women, or contact me email for the email address of an
> attorney friend of mine who can explain it to you.
OK, you're on. I can't read the past articles in soc.women, since
they are expired at my site (I would certainly read them, if they are
not too long, if you mail them to me), so I would gladly correspond
with your friend in order to receive an explanation.
Michael C. Berch
Member of the California Bar
ARPA: m...@lll-tis.arpa
UUCP: {ames,ihnp4,lll-crg,lll-lcc,mordor}!lll-tis!mcb
Karl Denninger
>
>I don't know if the gov't. told Judge Kennedy that I was a
>homosexual or transexual (I'm not), or that I'm a Jew or a woman
>or emotionally disabled (I am), but whatever it was, Judge Kennedy
>found nothing wrong with federal coworkers telling me to eat fecal
>matter. But I've been noticing that quite a few people were upset
>about the recent posting by the pseudo. Is everybody emotionally
>disabled like me? Look at Colin Jenkins and Tom Mandel and
>Karl Denninger--they see nothing wrong with people telling me to
>eat fecal matter. Obviously this is the way to treat people who
>are different, this is the environment the disadvantaged must live
>and work in, and there is protection in our laws for property, for
>profits, and for profanity. There is no protection for people or
>for economic, human, and civil rights. There are laws, but Judge
>Kennedy, as the swing vote on the Supreme Court, will make sure
>they are not enforced.
Tilt, unfair, where did MY name come from!
<Fwoooosh!>
Mark, what you have said is pointless. The only question which you might
fairly ask (if you were trying to prove/disprove discrimination) is:
"Does Karl Denninger feel it is more or less wrong for someone
to tell Mark E. Smith to eat fecal matter than any other person".
But no, that was not what you said.
Besides; where in the world did you get the idea that I condoned, endorsed,
or 'saw nothing wrong with' people telling others to eat shit, and why was
my name brought into this in the first place?
Please leave my name out of these things unless you will provide enough
information so I can at least know what you're claiming I have done!
<fffffffthp!>
(Now, since you got me to hit 'F')
>For example, suppose you are an employer, and the law forced you to
>hire a woman, a minority person, a disabled person, or a person
>with a different sexual preference.
Suppose that person is the most qualified, and I hire him/her/it due to this
fact, and no other. They simply can do the job I need done, and won't bitch
about the working conditions (which may or may not include that I am a real
asshole under pressure and might tell them to 'eat shit' when things get
tight and they screw up [NOTE: this is an EXAMPLE and not how it is done
around here])
>You simply tell them to eat
>fecal matter until they either quit, or they file a complaint. If
>they quit, you've won.
Nope -- I've lost the time and effort I put into that employee. This is
substantial, and real. No one in their right mind would do this and think
they had 'won'. When you fire someone you *always* lose, if a person quits
or leaves due to harassment you lose twice.
>If they need the job too badly, you just
>keep it up until they file a complaint, and then call them
>disruptive for filing the complaint and fire them.
And an employee can make enough of an a** of him/herself that they deserve
to be fired complaint or no. Complaining formally (ie: you file complaint)
does not give you the right to disrupt the workplace as well, for example.
--
Karl Denninger | Data: +1 312 566-8912
Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. | Voice: +1 312 566-8910
...ihnp4!ddsw1!karl | "Quality solutions for work or play"
Obnoxious Math Grad Student
of Mark Ethan Smith in the past, but after reading his most recent posting I
have some reservations that should be expanded upon.
In article <64...@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, era...@violet.berkeley.edu writes:
>Docket Number 83-2727:
>"The single utterance of a profanity is hardly the kind of act
>that can give rise to a suit for compensable injury in either
>federal or state court."
>
>In order to get rid of me, federal employees at a base where they
>lose millions of dollars in unaccounted for funds every year, not
>to mention overruns, waste, fraud and abuse, would simply attack
>me the same way this and other pseudos have done on the net. But
>since I needed the job, instead of quitting, I filed a lawsuit.
People called you names, so you filed a lawsuit, because their name calling
was a violation of your civil rights. Hey, bitch@chinet, wherever you are,
you got it all wrong. It isn't me and the brahms gang pulling off the hoax
of pretending to be Mark Ethan Smith, it's our mutual friend Timmy! Who else
would take the position that name calling is a violation of law, that people
who call you names are part of a conspiracy against you?
>The government removed the suit to federal court, insisting that
>telling me to eat fecal matter was an official federal duty.
In your case, perhaps it was. Here, all along, I thought the issue involved
some act of real discrimination, such as sex-linked harrassment, calling you
names based on your gender. But no, they told you to eat shit, and this is
what got you all out of sorts. This lends a whole new perspective on the
entire case. This is smelling fishier with each iteration. In what context
did they tell you to eat shit? Did they tell other people to eat shit, too?
You should have found out, maybe you could have initiated a class action suit
against people who tell other people to eat shit.
>You have to know federal law to understand the illegality of
>Judge Kennedy's act.
Which you clearly don't, meaning the conversation here should come to a halt
pretty quickly, but alas, no such luck.
> It was up to a lower judge to decide if I sustained
>loss of livelihood from being talked to that way by coworkers.
It's not necessary for any judge to go to the trouble of pondering and
rendering a decision on so trivial and obvious a non-issue as this. The
idea that people telling you to eat shit because they didn't like you
(obviously as part of the vast conspiracy against you) resulted in a loss
of livelihood is so stupid as to defy any attempt to rationalize it.
>I don't know if the gov't. told Judge Kennedy that I was a
>homosexual or transexual (I'm not), or that I'm a Jew or a woman
>or emotionally disabled (I am),
"but obviously they did and so this is all
a plot against me."
> but whatever it was, Judge Kennedy
>found nothing wrong with federal coworkers telling me to eat fecal
>matter. But I've been noticing that quite a few people were upset
>about the recent posting by the pseudo. Is everybody emotionally
>disabled like me? Look at Colin Jenkins and Tom Mandel and
>Karl Denninger--they see nothing wrong with people telling me to
>eat fecal matter.
The illegality of calling you names isn't the issue here at all, mostly
because it's such a stupid claim that it can be summarily ignored. The real
issue is your inability to take what you dish out. Like our old friend
Captain Carnage, you seem to think that you can stick your tongue out at other
people and make noises, blame entire groups of people for your personal
problems, then yell at the people who shout back at you, but when someone
does the same to you, you run to mummy and daddy telling them to put a stop
to their naughty behavior. There is such a thing as a Constitution, a Bill
of Rights, a clause involving freedom of speech. Nowhere is anything
mentioned about freedom from profanity. If your co-workers want to tell you
to eat shit, they have every right to do so, you have no (legal) recourse to
limit their freedom of speech. You should read the law some time, it might do
you a load of good especially if you intend to spend the rest of your life in
court fighting imaginary conspirators who tell you to eat shit.
> Obviously this is the way to treat people who
>are different, this is the environment the disadvantaged must live
>and work in, and there is protection in our laws for property, for
>profits, and for profanity. There is no protection for people or
>for economic, human, and civil rights.
Get it right, jerk. There is no protection from your being offended by
what other people have to say, even if it is about you. If they tell lies
about you that defame you and actually cause you to suffer this loss of
livelihood, then that's another story. But telling you to eat shit doesn't
cause you a loss of livelihood. No one is obliged to cater to other people's
hypersensitivities. If you find yourself unable to work because people call
you names, then you really are emotionally disabled and probably shouldn't
have been working in the first place. But I notice that all the name calling
you've been subjected to on the net hasn't disabled you from excessive posting.
>For example, suppose you are an employer, and the law forced you to
>hire a woman, a minority person, a disabled person, or a person
>with a different sexual preference. You simply tell them to eat
>fecal matter until they either quit, or they file a complaint.
So, at last, the new law of the land goes into effect. If employers or
fellow co-workers tell you to eat shit, persistently, they are undoubtedly
out to persecute you. What a crybaby! (I'd tell you to take it like a
man, but that would probably be most inappropriate and probably a little
confusing.) You have the brains of Tim Maroney coupled with the hormone
problems of Rhonda Scribner, whatever they may be. Am I persecuting you?
Does anybody really care? Your litigiousness is probably keeping quite a
few employees on the public payroll, to support an already overburdened
legal system in order that it can deal with superfluous lawsuits by the
likes of people who take offense at everything. Colin, if you're going to
complain about waste of taxpayers' money, how about the extra workload
imposed on the California court system to support crybaby litigation?
ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"We can pay farmers not to grow crops, but we cannot pay artists to
stop making art. Yet something must be done." --Jacques Barzun
Edward C. Kwok
The opportunity to discuss first year law school is irresistable:
In article <229*ma...@instr.camosun.bcc.cdn> ma...@instr.camosun.bcc.cdn (Vincent Manis) writes:
>Please let's not get in another dispute about freedom of speech: neither
>the U.S. Bill of Rights nor the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
>protects other people's right to puke on my shoes.
I believe the act of "puking on another's shoe" done intentionally constitute a
prima facie case of a civil battery (or at least "offensive contact"). You can
recover quite a bit of punitive damage, pain and suffering award and so
forth, if you were puked in public and suffered much emotional distress from
the embarassment.
Mark E. Smith
>Hire the disadvantaged, harass them intolerably, and then
>either they quit, or they complain and you can fire them. If they
>try to talk back, you can accuse them of attacking people or
>being disruptive, although why it is okay for others but not for
>them is not something the court will ever discuss.
I saw an excellent example of this on the Donahue show today, not
that we don't see it in soc.women constantly. One of the guests was
a black man who had been beaten at Howard Beach. Donahue asked
him what happened and he said, "A white guy in a car said, 'F***
off, ni***rs,' so I said, 'F*** you, honky.'"
A few minutes later a white man in the audience said, "Well, if
you hadn't responded, there wouldn't have been a problem."
The *problem* to racists, sexists and other asorted bigots, is
when subhumans talk back to their superiors, get uppity , don't
stay in their place or show proper respect. Denigrating human
beings isn't a "problem," the "problem" only occurs when the
people being denigrated don't quietly submit to it, ignore it,
swallow it, lower their eyes and run away, pretend it never
happened, etc. There is only a "problem" if the subhumans talk back
to the ubermenchen as if they also had free speech and human rights.
Then you have to teach them differently, to eliminate the "problem."
--Mark
--
Mark Ethan Smith {allegra,philabs,cmcl2}!phri\
Big Electric Cat Public Unix {bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!msmith
New York, NY, USA {philabs}!tg/
STartripper
>telling me to eat fecal matter was an official federal duty.
Mark, have you ever heard of the FDA? They set standards for how much
shit you have to eat! Eat bug-legs, while you're at it! Rat hairs,
too! YUM!
I hope, Mark, that I manage to phrase this so that we agree that it
isn't an attack, or a hand of "blame the victim". I do _not_ mean
this as a criticism, but you'd take less teasing/harrassment/abuse if
you were less "fun" to taunt. You get so angry, you flame so hot, your
rage _feeds_ the fools who hassle you just to see the veins in your neck
throb. And honestly, Mark, I think _you_ have more power to make
hassling you unpopular than any of us do. Your emotional makeup may
make it much harder for you to reply "sorry, I'm not really that
hungry" when someone tells you to eat shit, just as my physical makeup
(fat woman with bad back) makes it hard for me to push the STellica
when it stalls in an intersection, but we all have to push against our
limitations.
Telling someone to eat shit is sometimes rude, sometimes unwise, and
sometimes very funny (try telling your young niece to eat shit when
she's half a bite into her chocolate pudding -- then duck, or you'll
wear it! [brown-spattered voice of experience....]), but people,
whether feeding from the public trough or not, do tell each other to
eat shit. And not letting _them_ see your anger is much more
rewarding to you, and disappointing to them, than demonstrating that
calling you names can cause you a bad case of the shit-fits.
Sometimes I'm waddling about my business and some brainless wonder
figures I need to be told I don't live up to his standards of beauty.
And if I've had a bad day, sometimes I have trouble not letting the
hurt show. But the last time someone made pignoises at me for
blimping in public, I oinked _louder_ while pointing at him. I'm
pleased to say that the youthful idiot ran away, while I laughed.
_Yes_, in case you're wondering, it hurts, as I'm sure being told to
eat shit when you were doing your job as well as you could also hurt.
But there's no law against two or three high schoolers tippytoing up
behind me, and suddenly giving me stereo "soooooooeeeeeeeeeee"
hogcalls. And I wouldn't want there to be such a law -- I'd rather
just slap fingers when they need it, and trust myself to make it
unrewarding to play games that hurt me. Sometimes I think the most
powerful phrase in the language is "it doesn't work here!"
STartripper QQQCLC s...@frog.uucp
John G Dobnick
> In article <64...@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> e...@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) writes:
>>The government removed the suit to federal court, insisting that
>>telling me to eat fecal matter was an official federal duty.
>
> Mark, have you ever heard of the FDA? They set standards for how much
> shit you have to eat! Eat bug-legs, while you're at it! Rat hairs,
> too! YUM!
>
>
> STartripper QQQCLC s...@frog.uucp
[Begin quasi-flame]
I must take serious exception to your alt.flame article.
It seems to be lacking the one requisite ingredient for this
group... namely *flame*!!!!
Thus, I am *forced* to make the following announcement.
HOW DARE YOU! Posting a non-flame to the flame group!
And not only that, but a SENSIBLE article, too!
I don't know.... some people's children! Sheeesh!
Grumble... mumble... mutter...
[End quasi-flame]
Random thoughts:
There is a deliberate spelling error in this posting to be used as
kindling. The "quality" of this group has been declining of late.
Maybe we can re-ignite it? Wouldn't it be best to just ignore MES?
It's such a boring topic, anyway.
--
John G Dobnick
Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
UUCP: {ihnp4|uwvax}!uwmcsd1!jgd
INTERNET: j...@csd4.milw.wisc.edu
"Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation,
and is thus a source of civilized delight." -- William Safire
Inna Lauris
>Canada must be a very nice country, Vincent. Here's a ruling from
>Anthony "Tony" Kennedy, Reagan's nominee to the United States
>Supreme Court, in 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Case _Smith v Bowles_,
>Docket Number 83-2727:
>
>"The single utterance of a profanity is hardly the kind of act
>that can give rise to a suit for compensable injury in either
>federal or state court."
>For example, suppose you are an employer, and the law forced you to
>hire a woman, a minority person, a disabled person, or a person
>with a different sexual preference. You simply tell them to eat
>fecal matter until they either quit, or they file a complaint.
~~~~~
Mark,
I am a bit confused about the facts of the matter. According to Kennedy's
ruling there was a 'single utterance' of profanity. If my English is good
enough, it means that one jerk uttered some profanity ONCE.
If this is the case, than I do agree with judge that there were no sufficient
grounds for suing . Imagine, if someone at work told me the same thing and I
would go ahead and file complaint with the company.
However, if whoever was telling you profanities was doing so systematically
with the knowledge if not support of higher level managers, then I am as
outraged as you are.
But based on the facts that you presented, it seems that there was one only
occurence. Can you please clarify it.
Inna
--
*****************************************************************
All I ask is the chance to prove that money cannot make me happy
nsc!daisy!inna
Mark E. Smith
>
>People called you names, so you filed a lawsuit, because their name calling
>was a violation of your civil rights. Hey, bitch@chinet, wherever you are,
>you got it all wrong. It isn't me and the brahms gang pulling off the hoax
>of pretending to be Mark Ethan Smith, it's our mutual friend Timmy! Who else
>would take the position that name calling is a violation of law, that people
>who call you names are part of a conspiracy against you?
You were pretty indignant when I accused you of being the pseudo who told
the pseudo about my being a pseudo. You were only using your pseudo to
repeat what the pseudo told you about me. Now I accuse the pseudo of being
you. If you tell us who the pseudo is who told you that you weren't the
pseudo, we'll know the pseudo wasn't you. Until then, if you insist on
lying by not telling the truth, we will know that you are the pseudo.
If you repeat what you say as the pseudo and you don't use your real name,
you are likely to be mistaken for him. There is no reason for anyone to
believe it isn't either you or one of your close friends.
>In what context
>did they tell you to eat shit? Did they tell other people to eat shit, too?
>You should have found out, maybe you could have initiated a class action suit
>against people who tell other people to eat shit.
The problem to the racists and bigots who use pseudos is when subhumans talk
back instead of staying in their place and showing proper respect, when they
don't quietly submit to it, ignore it, or swallow it, or lower their eyes
and run away. When you and your ubermenchen harrass other people, you
say that there would have been no problem if they just hadn't responded.
If, for example, all the people you flamed at simply accepted what you said
and showed their "proper" respect, there wouldn't have been a problem.
>>You have to know federal law to understand the illegality of
>>Judge Kennedy's act.
>
>Which you clearly don't, meaning the conversation here should come to a halt
>pretty quickly, but alas, no such luck.
Stick to your mathematics, Wiener. When you've spent as much time as I
have in court, then and only then would you be qualified to make your
fascist pronouncements.
>> It was up to a lower judge to decide if I sustained
>>loss of livelihood from being talked to that way by coworkers.
>
>It's not necessary for any judge to go to the trouble of pondering and
>rendering a decision on so trivial and obvious a non-issue as this. The
>idea that people telling you to eat shit because they didn't like you
>(obviously as part of the vast conspiracy against you) resulted in a loss
>of livelihood is so stupid as to defy any attempt to rationalize it.
Leave it to a blowhard fascist to tell other people when they should or
should not be offended by what someone else says to them. Since judges
have ruled in my favor in several such cases, your opinion is worthless here.
>If your co-workers want to tell you
>to eat shit, they have every right to do so, you have no (legal) recourse to
>limit their freedom of speech.
Of course this would be the opinion of a Reaganite yuppie assimilated Jew who
gets his kicks flaming people on the network. HIS freedom of speech, to tell
people to eat fecal matter and to describe them in derogatory terms of his own
invention, should go unquestioned, since he is a white adult male. Anyone
else's freedom of speech is another story.
>But telling you to eat shit doesn't
>cause you a loss of livelihood. No one is obliged to cater to other people's
>hypersensitivities. If you find yourself unable to work because people call
>you names, then you really are emotionally disabled and probably shouldn't
>have been working in the first place. But I notice that all the name calling
>you've been subjected to on the net hasn't disabled you from excessive posting.
This really says it all right here. "No one is obliged to cater to other
people's hypersensitivities." Typical white male copout. If you don't go
along with our way of thinking, if you are offended by the way we act,
YOU are being "hypersensitive" and we have no obligation to deal with you
or your "problem." The question is whether or not the welfare system is in
trouble because it is being abused, or because people simply aren't given
enough money to take care of their needs, which include human contact and
social activity, which for some people consists only of phone calls.
>Does anybody really care? Your litigiousness is probably keeping quite a
>few employees on the public payroll, to support an already overburdened
>legal system in order that it can deal with superfluous lawsuits by the
>likes of people who take offense at everything. Colin, if you're going to
>complain about waste of taxpayers' money, how about the extra workload
>imposed on the California court system to support crybaby litigation?
More of the usual complaints about anyone who takes offense at offensiveness
being called a crybaby. That's not the way MEN do it, is it Matt? No, you
"take it like a man" as you so elegantly put it in another of your
vicious attacks.
--Mark
Edward C. Kwok
>>
>>I believe the act of "puking on another's shoe" done intentionally constitute a
>>prima facie case of a civil battery (or at least "offensive contact"). You can
>
>
Whether the act was done with intention (i.e. the actor desires the result or
the actor possesses knowledge to substantial certainty that the result will
follow the act), is a question of fact. In my humble opinion, a virus
caught in the course of a natural/counter-natural act with an amiga will
result in the filling of a bit-bucket, rather than on the foot of another
individual, regardless of the "foot-print" of the other's equipment. Then
again, what do I know about this matter, Mr. Sexton?
Chip Salzenberg
vs. Matt Weiner flamefest, I would like to congratulate the two combatants
on the high quality of their flames. For example, a recent MES posting...
In article <3O...@killer.UUCP> e...@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) writes:
}
}You were pretty indignant when I accused you of being the pseudo who told
}the pseudo about my being a pseudo. You were only using your pseudo to
}repeat what the pseudo told you about me. Now I accuse the pseudo of being
}you. If you tell us who the pseudo is who told you that you weren't the
}pseudo, we'll know the pseudo wasn't you. Until then, if you insist on
}lying by not telling the truth, we will know that you are the pseudo.
}If you repeat what you say as the pseudo and you don't use your real name,
}you are likely to be mistaken for him.
A masterpiece of confusion. Bravo!
}Of course this would be the opinion of a Reaganite yuppie assimilated Jew
}who gets his kicks flaming people on the network.
I nominate Mark Ethan Smith for the Alt.Flame New Epithet of the Year Award
for the heretofore unimagined "Reaganite yuppie assimilated Jew"! What's
next, "Libertarian white-collar egghead WASP"? Keep those entries coming!
--
Chip Salzenberg UUCP: "{codas,uunet}!ateng!chip"
A T Engineering My employer's opinions are a trade secret.
"Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't." -- me
Obnoxious Math Grad Student
In article <40...@ptsfa.UUCP>, seth@ptsfa (Seth Miller) writes:
>In article <3O...@killer.UUCP> e...@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) writes:
>>In article <880107113...@garnet.berkeley.edu> wee...@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes:
>> [Lots of garbage about each other that proves that both are assholes]
>Hey, guys (or gals or its), would you please keep your garbage
>out of soc.motss. We really don't care about you or your
>trivial problems. I wish you would both grow up and stop
>acting like a couple of 3 year olds.
The article that began this was a forgery in my name. Mark's been having
people break in to some of his accounts--I have no idea of the above was
by Mark or not.
There are some terminal cases of three-year-old-itis out there, but I'm not
one of them.
ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Heck, I didn't even know they had a university in Houghton Michigan."
Michael C. Berch
alt.flame remain.]
In article <3O...@killer.UUCP> e...@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) writes:
[...]
> >> It was up to a lower judge to decide if I sustained
> >>loss of livelihood from being talked to that way by coworkers.
> >
> >[Weiner:]
> >It's not necessary for any judge to go to the trouble of pondering and
> >rendering a decision on so trivial and obvious a non-issue as this. The
> >idea that people telling you to eat shit because they didn't like you
> >(obviously as part of the vast conspiracy against you) resulted in a loss
> >of livelihood is so stupid as to defy any attempt to rationalize it.
>
> Leave it to a blowhard fascist to tell other people when they should or
> should not be offended by what someone else says to them. Since judges
> have ruled in my favor in several such cases, your opinion is worthless here.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
OK, I'll try one more time. Names of parties. Dates. Places. Name
of court. Citation to reported decision, if any. Docket number, if not.
Smith has been gabbling on about various litigation, but other than
the docket number of the case discussed above, the only other action
I've ever seen real documentation of is something that came up in the
Larry Lippman debacle, where the docket simply showed a suit filed and
a dismissal. Is there a published decision in the case discussed
above? Are there other cases?
A few months ago I wrote to Smith (two addresses) to take her up on her
offer to provide details via an attorney who was knowledgeable about
this. That letter was not answered. Last week I posted some legal
notes about "removal" and "remand" and I also posted my original letter
taking Smith up on the offer of documentation. Frankly, at this point I am
beginning to wonder whether these cases supposedly decided in Smith's
favor actually exist, or are "pseudos" themselves ...
Michael C. Berch
m...@tis.llnl.gov / {ames,ihnp4,lll-crg,lll-lcc,mordor}!lll-tis!mcb
Mark E. Smith
Article <30...@killer.UUCP> is a forgery, as anyone who knows me,
or has been reading my articles for several years can tell.
I've asked Charlie to see if the article actually originated here
or not. I hadn't responded to the forged article purporting to
be from weemba, so I believe we have here conclusive evidence that
ignoring such things and refusing to respond, does not solve the problem.
--Mark
Creative Business Decisions
In article <3O...@killer.UUCP>, e...@killer.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) writes:
>In article <880107113...@garnet.berkeley.edu> wee...@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes:
>>to eat shit, they have every right to do so, you have no (legal) recourse to
>>limit their freedom of speech.
>gets his kicks flaming people on the network.
Half of your article is an attack on Matt (or pseudo-Matt) for saying
things that fit your stereotyped image of what he is or must be.
The above line of yours is rapidly creating a stereotype of YOU that
is not particularly complimentary. Please explain what you meant,
or be prepared to be written off as one who hides behind the net to
fling racial epithets. What separates you from Eric Mading, Mark?
What makes you better than him?
Roger Lustig (Q2...@PUCC.BITNET)
I dreamt I saw Joe Hill last night, alive as you and me.
"But Joe," I said, "you're ten years dead." "I never died," said he.
Les Hill
>There are some terminal cases of three-year-old-itis out there, but I'm not
>one of them.
Sure.
--
------------------------------------------------
"All your city lies in dust, my friend"
UUCP: ...{ihnp4,rutgers}!codas!ufcsv!ufcsg!leh
Internet: l...@beach.cis.ufl.edu
Seth Miller
>
>
Hey, guys (or gals or its), would you please keep your garbage
out of soc.motss. We really don't care about you or your
trivial problems. I wish you would both grow up and stop
acting like a couple of 3 year olds.
Thank you.
Seth Miller
Pacific Bell
Disclaimer: We don't care, we don't have to, we're the phone company.
Mark E. Smith
>
>Mark's been having
>people break in to some of his accounts--I have no idea of the above was
>by Mark or not.
Matthew hadn't read the article in question when he wrote this.
Somebody apparently managed to get my password on killer, and I've
changed it now, so it probably won't happen again.
Nobody reading that article who has read my articles, would think
I'd written it. The cracker's own cleverness gives him away. The
point of that article was to mislead, bait, confuse and amuse. I
have more serious purposes in posting, which probably explains why
I've become the target of so many attacks.
--Mark
Max Hauser
"But who's the victim? And who's to blame?"
't matters not: They're all the same.
The foregoing lines are of course forgery,
not really posted from this account.
Michael A. Petonic
>>>You have to know federal law to understand the illegality of
>>>Judge Kennedy's act.
>>
>>Which you clearly don't, meaning the conversation here should come to a halt
>>pretty quickly, but alas, no such luck.
>
>Stick to your mathematics, Wiener. When you've spent as much time as I
>have in court, then and only then would you be qualified to make your
>fascist pronouncements.
I love it. It seems that that whenever someone can't adequately
deal with something, they label their foe a "fascist."
MES, can you come up with anything tht links Wiener's arguments
to fascism?
It's not just MES, but a lot of people (mostly liberals) who will
label anything they don't agree with as being fascist. I guess
anyone who isn't an anarchist could be labeled as a fascist.
Whenever someone calls someone a fascist, I usually get a
pathetic picture in my mind of some flag waving, greasy
haired guy on a street corner who pesters everyone
who comes by to listen to his problems. And anyone who
doesn't stop is a fascist.
-MikeP
Michael A. Petonic
>The problem to the racists and bigots who use pseudos is when subhumans...
^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
>...fascist pronouncements....
^^^^^^^
>...Leave it to a blowhard fascist to tell other people when they should...
^^^^^^
>Of course this would be the opinion of a Reaganite yuppie assimilated Jew who
>...invention, should go unquestioned, since he is a white adult male....
^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^
>...people's hypersensitivities." Typical white male copout. If you don't...
^^^^^ ^^^^
>...being called a crybaby. That's not the way MEN do it, is it Matt? No,...
^^^
>"take it like a man" as you so elegantly put it in another of your
>--Mark
Regarding the first line, I think the only one keying on or being
racist is Mark. Also, sexist would be a good name to call, but
I wouldn't want to start doing that, would I???
The reason I took selected excepts out of MES's flame is to show
the net what made Mark great and so well loved.
-MikeP
Seth Miller
>Apparently the first message didn't get through.
>
>
Exactly!! Obviously it didn't get through to you either. EDIT YOUR
NEWSGROUP LINE! Understand? Sprichst Du English oder muss ich auf
Duetsch schreiben oder bist Du einfach nur ein Aschloch?
Inna Lauris
>
>gets his kicks flaming people on the network.
>
I do not want to get involved in the dispute between you and Math Student;
it is going to be a messy discussion.
However, I resent you refering to him as "Reaganite yuppie assimilated Jew".
I am a Jew myself, mostly assimilated and I happen to be a Reagan supporter.
What bothered me about your posting was the tone of your reference. What
bearing the fact of his being or not being an assimilated Jew has on your
arguments? And the fact that you are Jewish yourself is no excuse in this
matter. You should stick to the facts and ideas in your arguments and leave
people nationality and religion alone.
the wharf rat
>
> Article <30...@killer.UUCP> is a forgery, as anyone who knows me,
> or has been reading my articles for several years can tell.
Hey, how do we know that *this* is real ?? Anyway, what does it
matter ? We're all really Rich Rosen, right ?
how's that fer illiteration ?
ps- how were we supposed to tell ? :-)
the wharf rat
> changed it now, so it probably won't happen again.
>
Well, how do we know *this* is the 'real' MES ?? Must be hard to
keep passwords secret when you've got a split personality... Know what ?
I think your puttin' us on, Mark. Stolen passwords, indeed. I liked it
better when you were campaiging for uni-sex pronouns; this is just plain silly.
W.rat
ps- This article is a forgery, and every
word in it is a lie.
Obnoxious Math Grad Student
>>Apparently the first message didn't get through.
>
>Exactly!! Obviously it didn't get through to you either. EDIT YOUR
>NEWSGROUP LINE! Understand? Sprichst Du English oder muss ich auf
>Duetsch schreiben oder bist Du einfach nur ein Aschloch?
Fuck off, Seth. If you and others are going to spew out flames in 5
newsgroups against me for words I never said, I will every so often
politely remind you of what's going on. If you don't like it, edit
your own fucking newsgroup headers first.
|>Hey, guys (or gals or its), would you please keep your garbage
|>out of soc.motss. We really don't care about you or your
|>trivial problems. I wish you would both grow up and stop
|>acting like a couple of 3 year olds.
The above quotation is from you. It was crossposted to 5 newsgroups.
It is garbage. Yet you posted it. How come?
era...@violet.berkeley.edu
>In article <3O...@killer.UUCP> e...@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) writes:
Look again, Inna.
The article ID is 3O31, not 3031. The forger used the letter "O"
and it would have had a numeral if it had been posted by me in
the ordinary manner.
I missed that also, and I want to thank the person who pointed
it out to me.
I'm Jewish, and though I have defended myself against attacks, I
have never attacked anyone. I have responded to those who attacked
me. There is a difference between an attack, and a response to
an attack or a defense. I have never and would never make anti-Semitic
statements or irrational postings like that, and I hope that in the
future you'll check the article carefully to see if it is a forgery
before assuming that I wrote it. Due to the recent rash of attacks
on me and forgeries, I have devoted less of my time to soc.women and
more time to the feminist mailing list.
--Mark
Mark E. Smith
>The article that began this was a forgery in my name. Mark's been having
>people break in to some of his accounts--I have no idea of the above was
>by Mark or not.
And you'd be the first to know all about this, wouldn't you? Since you have
refused to admit to being the pseudo, it becomes apparent that either you
or your close friends are working together as the pseudo. You broke into
my accounts to crack my pseudo, and failing that, you obscured my plan file
by trying to recreate the original account I had on chinet, disabling the
paranoid person option I had elected as was my choice. You and your friends
working together have tried to prevent me from posting many times in the past.
Now that I have become adept at uncovering your plots to alter netnews software
in an effort to silence me, you know you cannot get away with simple tricks.
So you engage in this campaign of forgery, in an attempt to discredit me.
Mr. Wiener, you will not get away with this charade. I will get you.
--Mark
Salit
>In article <28...@killer.UUCP>, e...@killer.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) writes:
>> Somebody apparently managed to get my password on killer, and I've
>> changed it now, so it probably won't happen again.
>>
>I think your puttin' us on, Mark. Stolen passwords, indeed.
Mr. W.rat may be right or wrong, I don't know.
However stealing password is not a hard task, especially for someone that broke
several layers of protection in killer. (remember new@killer?)
I'm not sure, so I say maybe. I suggest that Mr. W.rat stick to the same
habit.
> W.rat
Hillel Gazit gazit%ganelon...@oberon.usc.edu
Seth Miller
Since I have never been involved in one of your flame wars before
and I hope never to be involved in one again, I don't know which
newsgroups you do read. That is why the note I posted I cross posted
to all the groups that YOU were cross posting to. That way I could
be sure you would get it as I am pretty sure you don't read soc.motss.
You will notice that my second posting was not cross posted and was
only posted to alt.flame.
I don't understand why you say that my first posting was/is garbage.
It doesn't seem like garbage to me. It seems like a very simple
request for you to keep this stuff out of soc.motss. I really don't
care who started it. Whether it was MES or someone who broke into
his/her account or you or your poltergeist or anyone. It doesn't
really matter. We would just like it to stay out of soc.motss.
Why can't any of you honor a simple request like that. It is not
really asking all that much, is it?
You know, you guys are supposed to be adults. Why don't you start
acting like adults and cut the bullshit.
Seth
J Greely
> What separates you from Eric Mading, Mark?
May I suggest a crowbar? :-)
>What makes you better than him?
Oh, sorry. Thought you said something else there.
-j
-=-
"That's what they're saying about me now? That I'm paranoid?"
-- Rorschach
..!tut.ohio-state.edu!greely@dodo
Oleg Kiselev
>the pseudo about my being a pseudo. You were only using your pseudo to
>repeat what the pseudo told you about me.
I finally figured out what it was about MES that *really* bothers me: the
use of the word "pseudo". "Mark Ethan Smith" is "pseudo", "ere" and "reason"
are "pseudos", EVERYTHING is a "pseudo" on some level or another. Does MES
want to have a photo ID and Social Security number attached to every "pseudo"?
Or maybe I got it all wrong and MES uses "pseudo" in the same sense as the
rest of us use "poster" and "person"?
--
Oleg Kiselev -- ol...@quad1.quad.com -- {...!psivax|seismo!gould}!quad1!oleg
HASA, "A" Division
DISCLAIMER: I don't speak for my employers.
John B. Meaders
>> Somebody apparently managed to get my password on killer, and I've
>> changed it now, so it probably won't happen again.
>>
>
I think "Mark" is an extremely paranoid person. I have to admit that 'it'
amuses me with its constant whining about this or that. My question is
why does it constantly bait people and then cry foul when somebody fights
back? Go crawl back into the cave you crawled out of Mark (or whatever your
name is).
--
John B. Meaders, Jr. 1114 Camino La Costa #3083, Austin, TX 78752
ATT: Voice: +1 (512) 451-5038 Data: +1 (512) 371-0550
UUCP: ...!ut-emx!auscso!jclyde!john
...!ut-emx!auscso!johnm
Richard Sexton
>In article <28...@homxc.UUCP> l...@homxc.UUCP (the wharf rat) writes:
>>In article <28...@killer.UUCP>, e...@killer.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) writes:
>>> Somebody apparently managed to get my password on killer, and I've
>>> changed it now, so it probably won't happen again.
>>>
>>
>>I think your puttin' us on, Mark. Stolen passwords, indeed. I liked it
>
>I think "Mark" is an extremely paranoid person. I have to admit that 'it'
>amuses me with its constant whining about this or that. My question is
>why does it constantly bait people and then cry foul when somebody fights
>back? Go crawl back into the cave you crawled out of Mark (or whatever your
>name is).
>--
>John B. Meaders, Jr. 1114 Camino La Costa #3083, Austin, TX 78752
This is the real John B. Meaders, Jr.
Somebody broke into my account and posted that dreck^^^^^^^^^^^^but
made it look like it was really me.
But I have fooled them. I am posting this from another account,
and they will never be able to figure out how.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
--
"It's too dark to put the keys in my ignition"
ric...@gryphon.CTS.COM
{ihnp4!scgvaxd!cadovax, philabs!cadovax, codas!ddsw1} gryphon!richard
Obnoxious Math Grad Student
>Since I have never been involved in one of your flame wars before
>and I hope never to be involved in one again, I don't know which
>newsgroups you do read. That is why the note I posted I cross posted
>to all the groups that YOU were cross posting to. That way I could
>be sure you would get it as I am pretty sure you don't read soc.motss.
You could have also tried e-mail, like some other people did. And if
you're so certain that I don't read soc.motss, then there was no need
for you to post there, now was there??
>You will notice that my second posting was not cross posted and was
>only posted to alt.flame.
Yes. And that's where flame wars belong. The article that you flamed
had not been a flame, just a polite reminder that your flame--which had
been posted in soc.motss--was based on inaccurate information.
Now why this polite reminder gets flamed, I really don't know.
>I don't understand why you say that my first posting was/is garbage.
>It doesn't seem like garbage to me.
It was garbage, in the sense of saying I was posting 3-year-old garbage
to soc.motss. I wasn't.
> It seems like a very simple
>request for you to keep this stuff out of soc.motss.
It was more than a very simple request. It was also insulting. Mildly,
yes, but still insulting.
Now you tell me why my polite reminder counted as garbage?
> I really don't
>care who started it. Whether it was MES or someone who broke into
>his/her account or you or your poltergeist or anyone. It doesn't
>really matter. We would just like it to stay out of soc.motss.
Well fine. Next time you post such a request in soc.motss, leave
out complaints about me posting stuff that I haven't posted. Indeed,
leave out any references to who is saying what, since it's only by
header information in the original that the weemba forgeries can be
identified as such.
>Why can't any of you honor a simple request like that. It is not
>really asking all that much, is it?
It isn't hard. So take your own advice, and don't motivate me to
make a simple polite corrective next time, and just ignore the
forger(s), eh?
>You know, you guys are supposed to be adults. Why don't you start
>acting like adults and cut the bullshit.
If you're addressing me, just what bullshit are you talking about?
I apologize to the readers of this newsgroup for not posting a flame.
Bruce G. Barnett
^
This article also has a 'O' instead of an '0' in the message ID. I
think it too is a forgery. Someone is amusing him/herself by forging
articles and tricking people into a flame war.
--
Bruce G. Barnett <bar...@ge-crd.ARPA> <bar...@steinmetz.UUCP>
uunet!steinmetz!barnett
Mark Reina
> In article <3O...@killer.UUCP> e...@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) writes:
> >In article <880107113...@garnet.berkeley.edu> wee...@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes:
> >>[Someone else wrote...]
> >>>You have to know federal law to understand the illegality of
> >>>Judge Kennedy's act.
> >>
> >>Which you clearly don't, meaning the conversation here should come to a halt
> >>pretty quickly, but alas, no such luck.
> >
> >Stick to your mathematics, Wiener. When you've spent as much time as I
> >have in court, then and only then would you be qualified to make your
> >fascist pronouncements.
> ^^^^^^^
> I love it. It seems that that whenever someone can't adequately
> deal with something, they label their foe a "fascist."
Actually whenever anyone disagrees with me I am quite sure that the
level of flourine in the water has something to do with it. I mean
if anyone really thought about "it" they would agree with me.
Mark Reina
Richard Wexelblat
--
--Dick Wexelblat {uunet|ihnp4|decvax}!philabs!rlw
r...@philabs.philips.com
Michael Robinson
>In article <22...@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, wee...@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes:
>
>>The article that began this was a forgery in my name. Mark's been having
>>people break in to some of his accounts--I have no idea of the above was
>>by Mark or not.
>
>And you'd be the first to know all about this, wouldn't you? Since you have
>refused to admit to being the pseudo, it becomes apparent that either you
>or your close friends are working together as the pseudo.
Now folks, before everyone gets all bent out of shape again, please note:
>Message-ID: <31...@killer.UUCP>
That's 31O8 with a letter 'O', not the number '0'.
Looks like someone needs a spanking and to be sent to bed without dinner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Robinson USENET: ucbvax!ernie!robinson
ARPA: robi...@ernie.berkeley.edu
soggy and hard to light
>
>refused to admit to being the pseudo, it becomes apparent that either you
>or your close friends are working together as the pseudo.
...
>You and your friends
>working together have tried to prevent me from posting many times in the past.
>Now that I have become adept at uncovering your plots . . .
>Mr. Wiener, you will not get away with this charade. I will get you.
Let me guess--this is another in a series of famous genuine
forgeries, and someone is copying this straight out of
an abnormal psych text, right?
Let's see--circular logic, belief in conspiracies and plots,
threats against the imagined offender. . .yep, it's all here
except delusions of grandeur.
I suggest that we either believe everything coming out
of Mark Smith's accounts, or we believe none of it just
to be on the safe side.
Pooh
po...@oddjob.uchicago.edu
"I am a knave."
Joe Talmadge
>jo...@auscso.UUCP (John B. Meaders, Jr.) writes:
>>I think "Mark" is an extremely paranoid person. I have to admit that 'it'
>>amuses me with its constant whining about this or that. My question is
>>why does it constantly bait people and then cry foul when somebody fights
>>back? Go crawl back into the cave you crawled out of Mark (or whatever your
>>name is).
>>--
>>John B. Meaders, Jr. 1114 Camino La Costa #3083, Austin, TX 78752
>
>This is the real John B. Meaders, Jr.
>
>Somebody broke into my account and posted that dreck^^^^^^^^^^^^but
>made it look like it was really me.
>
>But I have fooled them. I am posting this from another account,
>and they will never be able to figure out how.
This is the ghost of Elvis Presley, posting from Joe Talmadge's
account. I would just like to let everyone know that above posting
was neither John Meaders nor Richard Sexton. It was the ghost of
Houdini, forging an article from Richard's account.
Elvis
PS Anybody got any drugs?
Joe Buck
The article I'm following up to is a forgery. Note the Message-ID: it
has an O instead of a zero in the number. Using postnews or Pnews
(from rn) will never generate an article of this kind. Will whoever
is doing this please stop? It's not amusing any more.
--
- Joe Buck {uunet,ucbvax,sun,<smart-site>}!epimass.epi.com!jbuck
Old Internet mailers: jbuck%epimass...@uunet.uu.net
Dan Tilque;1893;92-789;LP=A;60aC
> We're all really Rich Rosen, right ?
>
> how's that fer illiteration ?
I don't know, this terminal doesn't handle pictures very well.
>
>ps- how were we supposed to tell ? :-)
You ask what message the other message would say if you asked it which message
was the real message.
---
Dan Tilque
da...@tekla.tek.com or da...@tekla.UUCP
Mark E. Smith
>In article <31...@killer.UUCP> e...@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) writes:
>
>The article I'm following up to is a forgery. Note the Message-ID: it
>has an O instead of a zero in the number. Using postnews or Pnews
>(from rn) will never generate an article of this kind. Will whoever
>is doing this please stop? It's not amusing any more.
Thanks, Joe. It *is* sort of amusing to notice the people who don't
bother to look at the header and assume that I might post something
like those forgeries. They are *all*, without exception, people who
have flamed me, attacked me, and made attacks on my humanity or denied
me equal terms in the past.
To those in soc.motss who are so irate about this material being
posted to their group, the original "8th Wonder" article was posted
to soc.motss. Can you think why an article attacking somebody for
being "dickless" might be posted to a group that judges people by
whether or not they have a dick? Are you sure the person who wanted
to show you his contempt for women isn't one of yours? I've noticed
that overt contempt for women has become less overt among gays since
AIDS, but I rather doubt that it has disappeared completely. Certainly
nobody from your group has protested the "dickless" attack as being
inappropriate.
I don't know how these forgeries are being done. I suspect that
they have to access my account on killer to do it, so I've changed
my password again. That may or may not help. Please read the article
before responding. Check the header. If you have been reading my
articles for several years, looking for evidence of the "paranoia,"
"psychosis," and tendency to "attack" people that flamers persistently
attribute to me, without finding any such evidence, and are now
happy to find such evidence in the forged articles, check your
prejudgments before responding. If I actually were paranoid or
psychotic, or actually attacked people who hadn't attacked me first,
the cracker wouldn't have to go to such trouble to make it look as
if I did.
If you mailed a vote on soc.equal-rights andor comp.human-rights and
it bounced, please post something and we'll try to get a mailpath.
I've received very few votes, but the "no" votes are so emphatic and
full of stuff like, "NO NO NO NO NO! The flames are the only fun in
soc.women," that I believe there would be more such "no" votes if
not for mailer problems. So far the "no" votes greatly outnumber
the "yes" votes, but not by 90%, indicating that there might be a
number of male posters who do not oppose equal rights, but haven't
voted.
--Mark
Rob Wolfe
I have been reading the various scribblings of Mark and others re:Pseudos
and all sorts of other stuff and all I can think to say is:
come on people LIGHTEN UP
--
Rob Wolfe
UUCP: {uunet|watmath|utai|garfield|mnetor}!dalcs!aucs!811318w
normal mail: Jodrey School of Computer Science,
Acadia University,Wolfville,NS,Canada B0P 1X0
Bill Nickerson
I know this is an important topic, but could you bring it to a head and stop
bitching at each other. Wear asbestos or something...
Thanx.
- Bill
Bill Nickerson
Could someone tell me the original intent of this news group? I can't see
through the flames.... (Incidentally, you guys may wish to send things via
Snail and let the rest of us continue normally....)
- Bill N.
Michael Robinson
>In article <3O...@killer.UUCP> e...@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) writes:
+---(The telltale 'O')
>>You were pretty indignant when I accused you of being the pseudo who told
>>the pseudo about my being a pseudo. You were only using your pseudo to
>>repeat what the pseudo told you about me.
>
>I finally figured out what it was about MES that *really* bothers me:
Some random juvenile delinquent writes a forgery that confirms what you
"*really*" want to believe about Mark, and all of a sudden you understand what
it is about him that bugs you.
It seems that the real Mark doesn't do a good enough job of living down to your
expectations. You expect something more along the lines of some kid's Mark
Ethan Smith fantasy.
Too bad you don't pay more careful attention. You might of saved yourself the
trouble of responding to a forgery and showing your closemindedness to the
world.
Gregory Nowak
Yo, ELVIS! Say Hi to Joe for r m And Houdini too. As for drugs, I've
got the world's best. I've found all the best stuff in Mexico --
KILLER weed... (So *that's* what they're on!) And some incredible peyote.
Stuff's good for your health, too.
Ambrose Bierce
(I don't know through WHICH channel I'll be posting this.)
--
...!seismo!princeton!phoenix!greg
Greg Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ 08540
Jay Maynard
>
> [Lots of garbage about each other that proves that both are assholes]
>
Mark and Matt:
Eat shit, both of you.
Yes, I know that was excessively obnoxious of me.
It felt so good, though.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC (@WB5BBW)...>splut!< | GEnie: JAYMAYNARD CI$: 71036,1603
uucp: {uunet!nuchat,academ!uhnix1,{ihnp4,bellcore,killer}!tness1}!splut!jay
Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
The opinions herein are shared by none of my cats, much less anyone else.
soggy and hard to light
>So far the "no" votes greatly outnumber
>the "yes" votes, but not by 90%, indicating that there might be a
>number of male posters who do not oppose equal rights, but haven't
>voted.
There is a logic flaw here. The people who voted AGAINST the
groups might simply object to their creation as a separate
group, or object to its moderation (as was specifically addressed
by two followups that I've seen). It does NOT necessarily imply
that they are against equal rights.
Pooh
po...@oddjob.uchicago.edu
Look for significance where there is none, and you will surely find it.
Mark E. Smith
Followup-To: alt.flame
Distribution:
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection BBS, Dallas, Tx
In article <14...@uoregon.UUCP> dbo...@uoregon.UUCP (David Boyes) writes:
>In some article in alt.flame....
The article ID was in your reference line.
>Do you have console logs or records of login/logout times for the
Do you have the ability to look at the article ID in your reference
line? If so, you'd see it has a letter "O" instead of a number
"0" and is a forgery.
>Pardon me, but I think I'm going to go and be sick.
Please do it elsewhere.
--Mark
David Boyes
In some article in alt.flame, MES says:
> Since you have
>refused to admit to being the pseudo, it becomes apparent that either you
>or your close friends are working together as the pseudo.
Huh? I refuse to admit to being the pseudonym you two are arguing
about too. Does that necessarily make me the pseudonym? This makes NO
sense at all, Mark.
Do you have console logs or records of login/logout times for the
accounts in question, Mark? Without such information, you're going to
have a very difficult time proving any of the charges you made in the
referenced article you posted. Also, be aware that the 'paranoid'
option for finger is easily circumvented and sometimes the system does
it for you. Our 4.3bsd system here regularly 'unparanoids' people on a
completely random basis -- the best solution to that is simply not to
have a .plan file (assuming that is possible -- I don't use any of the
systems referenced; I dislike Unix and use it only because I don't
have enough disk space on my 4341 to run news....sigh). What isn't
there, can't be modified.
>Mr. Wiener, you will not get away with this charade. I will get you.
Come off it, Mark. Stop acting like a thwarted child and go on with
your life. 'Getting' someone doesn't buy you anything except a lot of
enemies. Take a bit of advice from Christ's speech to the disciples on
evangelism: if they're not listening, knock the dust off your sandals
and go elsewhere.
Pardon me, but I think I'm going to go and be sick.
--
David Boyes | ARPA: 556%OREGON1...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
Systems Division | BITNET: 556@OREGON1
UO Computing Center | UUCP: dbo...@uoregon.UUCP
'How long d'ya think it'll be before just us oldtimers remember WISCVM?'
Karen Johanns
>
> To those in soc.motss who are so irate about this material being
> posted to their group, the original "8th Wonder" article was posted
> to soc.motss. Can you think why an article attacking somebody for
> being "dickless" might be posted to a group that judges people by
> whether or not they have a dick? Are you sure the person who wanted
> to show you his contempt for women isn't one of yours? I've noticed
> that overt contempt for women has become less overt among gays since
> AIDS, but I rather doubt that it has disappeared completely. Certainly
> nobody from your group has protested the "dickless" attack as being
> inappropriate.
There are few things more irritating to me than women being rendered
invisible by another feminist.
Mark, I don't possess, nor have I ever possessed, a dick. However,
I am a subscriber and a regular contributor to the soc.motss
newsgroup. It is NOT an all-male forum; there are Lesbians there
and even a couple of straight women occasionally. As I also recall,
I protested "Woody The Owls'" article quite strenuously whthe moment
it flashed across my screemn. Please don't assume the gender content
of this particular newsgroup, because it is definitely not all male.
As far as the sexism issue that you raised, I don't find the gay
men in soc.motss, or gay men in general, any more or less sexist
and anti-feminist than straight men, and certainly since I've
nbegun reading soc.women the attacks on feminism have been
led quite regularly by men who do not participate in soc.motss.
(I'm not going to speculate on anyones' sexual orientation here).
Soc.motss is for gay men and Lesbians. Lesbians are there, so
please don't render us invisible so casually!
Karen
--
Karen Johanns
Big Electric Cat Public Unix
{bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!kjohanns
"Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore."
Chet Ramey
>account. I would just like to let everyone know that above posting
>was neither John Meaders nor Richard Sexton. It was the ghost of
>Houdini, forging an article from Richard's account.
>
>Elvis
Do you think any of these guys will be able to tell me just where
the hell it is that I am? I hear cars passing above; I suspect
I'm part of some bridge in New Jersey.
Jimmy Hoffa
p.s. Boy, what a sentence!
_______________________________________________________________________________
| Chet Ramey ch...@mandrill.CWRU.Edu {cbosgd,decvax,sun}!mandrill!chet |
| |
| God created Arrakis to train the faithful |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STartripper
>In article <14...@quad1.quad.com> (Oleg Kiselev) sticks his foot in his mouth:
>>In article <3O...@killer.UUCP> e...@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) writes:
> ^
> +---(The telltale 'O')
>
>>>You were pretty indignant when I accused you of being the pseudo who told
>>>the pseudo about my being a pseudo. You were only using your pseudo to
>>>repeat what the pseudo told you about me.
>>
>>I finally figured out what it was about MES that *really* bothers me:
...that this guy using a name _he_ chose flames about other people using
names _they_ choose. And Michael Ethan Robinson dives in to defend
Mark against the hideous accusation of being inconsistant. Well,
worse accusations could be made, and probably will be.
But Michael, why blow smoke? Even though Oleg fell for a posting you
claim is forged (whether by the original MES or one of the little
MESses is totally unimportant to my point), he's right. The reason
those postings from killer were believed by some netters is simple --
they're recognizable parodies of what Mark Ethan Smith actually writes.
The only reason you have for believing that _this_ posting is by the
person on the header is that it rather sounds like me -- or else it
doesn't. Being "victimized" (always the victim, eh?) by faked
postings wouldn't bother me -- in fact I encourage Mark to do it --
since it would require the poster to write as well as possible, to
attempt to be fair, to be witty, willing to admit it when mistaken,
and only incidentally to say "fuck" now and then and end too many
sentences with ..... I'm not worried -- and if I post this at all
(you're seeing it, aren't you?) neither are john or wjr (who're in
charge of yelling at me if I screw up on the net).
>Some random juvenile delinquent writes a forgery that confirms what you
>"*really*" want to believe about Mark, and all of a sudden you understand what
>it is about him that bugs you.
Some random net-commentator parodies (in the tradition of Vaughn
Meader, Richard M. Dixon, etc.) Mark, and casts some light on one of
the things that Mark has done to degrade the quality of discussion on
the net, and all of a sudden you yell "Hoo HAH! Oleg fell for it!
What a jerk!" Michael, I won't accuse you of being the forger, because
I don't give a flying fuck who it is. (I think, in fact, that there
are two or more pseudomarks, since the forged MES-style varies rather
a bunch. The one Oleg flamed is the best of the lot, I think) I would
suggest, however, that instead of forging MES-sages, whoever it is
(or, perhaps, they are) demonstrate their _real_ skills by forging
postings from me, or from some other poster who actually attempts to
_use_ the net for communication among equals. I'm ready to be
impressed, but not really expecting it. If you send me back to my
cc.file looking for a posting I don't remember writing, I will be
delighted, and I will tell the net. If the folks responsible for the
site have to look at my files to see if I did it, I'll be almost as
pleased. But I'm not holding my breath!
After all, if someone _does_ forge quality, won't that improve the
flavor of the net? Worth it, even if I do have to make a form-letter
saying "that was some other STella Calvert/STartripper posting"....
>Too bad you don't pay more careful attention. You might of saved yourself the
>trouble of responding to a forgery and showing your closemindedness to the
>world.
It doesn't matter whether it was a forgery or not! All the smoke you
blow won't conceal the point Oleg (bless his irascible little heart)
made -- Mark expects the right to flame danglers, but to be free of
flames about cunts; Mark expects the right to blast people for using
"pseudos", but probably was not born to a Mr. and/or Mrs. Smith, who
named their daughter Mark Ethan; and Mark shrilly insists
(unsuccessfully, thank ghod!) on being treated with more respect than
he's willing to give to others who DARE to disagree with him.
Sheesh! Can't we improve the quality of the flames in this group?
Even if it means putting Mark-wars on hold for a while?
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
STartripper QQQCLC s...@frog.uucp
Suite 293, 738 Main Street, Waltham, MA, 02154
(if you have another address, it's still good, but I'm willing to post
my maildrop on the net.... Please don't send bombs to the nice people
who run the mailbox service....)
BoB teCh
>
> I have been reading the various scribblings of Mark and others re:Pseudos
> and all sorts of other stuff and all I can think to say is:
>
> come on people LIGHTEN UP
gosh how eloquent.
sounds a lot like this guy's last poignent request,
" come on people GET A LIFE"
gosh, who could forget the depth of feeling and emotion from his classic
" come one people GROW UP"
?
i stand in awe.
aaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwww....
BoB
teCh
but above all, I am *definately* a pseudo... hee hee hee hee hee hee hee
Rob Wolfe
[in reply to my comment that everyone involved in the MES flame war should
LIGHTEN UP ]
>
>gosh how eloquent.
>
>sounds a lot like this guy's last poignent request,
>" come on people GET A LIFE"
>gosh, who could forget the depth of feeling and emotion from his classic
>" come one people GROW UP"
>aaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwww....
>BoB
>teCh
>but above all, I am *definately* a pseudo... hee hee hee hee hee hee hee
now I dont remember posting either of the two other comments attributed to me
maybe it was a pseudo :-) but........ so what!
my point (such as it was) is that folks are getting carried away to such
an extent that there was some really vicious stuff being written and
being the good pacifist type that I am ( go ahead and flame me for that too)
I thought that a bit of distance from the battle would help.
Apparently not.
Just goes to show you that some people would rather flame away rather than
try to put across a rational (?) argument.
Attacks on someone ( and no i am not referring to myself ) if the are
done merely for the sake of denigrating them or something that they
believe (rightly or wrongly) are silly and not worth the bandwidth.
End of speech for today.
Steve Ardron
> In article <31...@killer.UUCP> e...@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) writes:
>
> The article I'm following up to is a forgery. Note the Message-ID: it
> has an O instead of a zero in the number.
It seems to me that some of these "forgeries" might not be forgeries. There
have been enough postings pointing out the O as opposed to 0 errors that
any forger would have to know about it, and yet they keep occuring. Also, it
is significantly easier to type 0 than O so I find it hard to see the
mistake being made in the first place.
I am reluctant to get into this MES flame stuff as I don't know the background,
but it looks to me as though he/she is using the "forgeries" to make postings
without any blame being attached, especially since he/she was the first to
bring it up about article numbers.
Stevie.
DISCLAIMER: My employers would shoot me if they knew I was writing this stuff.
The Beach Bum
> try to put across a rational (?) argument.
> Attacks on someone ( and no i am not referring to myself ) if the are
> done merely for the sake of denigrating them or something that they
> believe (rightly or wrongly) are silly and not worth the bandwidth.
>
> End of speech for today.
> --
> Rob Wolfe
Oh come off it, Rob. What the hell are you doing being nice and leaving
alt.flame in the news groups header? If you are going to post such
mamby-pamby dribble in this group, do it with spunk. Call someone an
asshole at least. Instead of being a total dweeb for trying to look nice
on the net, you should lash out from time to time and be cruel and
vindictive.
End of speech for the week.
And yes, I am definitely a pseudo. Who names their kids `John' anyway?
- John.
--
John F. Haugh II SNAIL: HECI Exploration Co. Inc.
UUCP: ...!ihnp4!killer!jfh 11910 Greenville Ave, Suite 600
"Don't Have an Oil Well? ... Dallas, TX. 75243
... Then Buy One!" (214) 231-0993 Ext 260
Mark E. Smith
>In article <29...@killer.UUCP>, e...@killer.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) writes:
>>
>> To those in soc.motss who are so irate about this material being
>> posted to their group, the original "8th Wonder" article was posted
>> to soc.motss. Can you think why an article attacking somebody for
>> being "dickless" might be posted to a group that judges people by
>> whether or not they have a dick? Are you sure the person who wanted
>> to show you his contempt for women isn't one of yours? I've noticed
>> that overt contempt for women has become less overt among gays since
>> AIDS, but I rather doubt that it has disappeared completely. Certainly
>> nobody from your group has protested the "dickless" attack as being
>> inappropriate.
>
>invisible by another feminist.
>
>Mark, I don't possess, nor have I ever possessed, a dick. However,
>I am a subscriber and a regular contributor to the soc.motss
>newsgroup. It is NOT an all-male forum; there are Lesbians there
>and even a couple of straight women occasionally. As I also recall,
Karen, the article you are responding to is a forgery! The opinions are
not mine, the style is not mine, and the conclusion is not mine. I have
many close ties to the lesbian and gay community in the Bay Area and would
never make statements like these. When those statements were made, the
farthest thing from my mind was to attribute them to a member of the lesbian
and gay community. I hope you can appreciate my horror at seeing these
statements appear with my name associated with them. Since I have withdrawn
from the public net for the most part, I was unware of this latest forgery
until today. The netnews administrators have ignored this forgery problem
in their typical nonchalant fashion. They are uninterested in determining
the cause of the problem or preventing it from reoccuring. They are also
peculiarly hostile to any effort to find the culprit.
>As far as the sexism issue that you raised, I don't find the gay
>men in soc.motss, or gay men in general, any more or less sexist
>and anti-feminist than straight men, and certainly since I've
>nbegun reading soc.women the attacks on feminism have been
>led quite regularly by men who do not participate in soc.motss.
>(I'm not going to speculate on anyones' sexual orientation here).
Yes, it is very refreshing to compare the attacks of the straight men in
soc.women with the positive remarks of others like Mike Robinson and
others who have worthwhile things to say. The agenda of the straight
man in soc.women is oppressing women, continuing male-dominated political
charades to keep us where we are, and impishly asking "What's wrong" as if
everyhting was fine and dandy. The remarks of the pseudo here that derides
gays shows his own homophobic and femophobic tendencies draw from the same
place. Typical of the fascist strategy to set oppressed groups against each
other.
--Mark
Max Hauser
signatures is despicable and intolerable, and I don't condone it.
Now, then: in article <30...@killer.UUCP>, e...@killer.UUCP
(Mark E. Smith) (or a reasonable facsimile) writes:
> In article <26...@dasys1.UUCP>, kjoh...@dasys1.UUCP (Karen Johanns) writes:
> >In article <29...@killer.UUCP>, e...@killer.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) writes:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ NO!!!!!!!!
> [Forged article, and reactions to it, deleted]
>
> Karen, the article you are responding to is a forgery!
> ... the style is not mine ...
---------------------
This refrain from MES, as if to say that no reader who has followed
her writing could be misled by the forgeries, is wasted on those of
us who have indeed followed MES for a long time and cannot help but
note the parallels to her most prominent verbal devices, like exotic
conclusions presented without support; calumniation; and the need
to blame someone whenever things go wrong. MES obligingly demonstrates
these yet again, later in the same article, as though writing a
continuing handbook for prospective MES-pretenders.
Perhaps if we could all read minds, as MES herself tacitly but
incessantly claims to do when glibly declaring the motivations of her
critics and indeed anyone else she perceives as a nuisance (witness
the next paragraph), it would then be obvious to all of us who is the
real MES and who the fake. Otherwise, we are obliged to go by strong
cues like tone, which, for the current forger, is not that far off the
mark (so to speak).
> ... The netnews administrators have ignored this forgery problem
> in their typical nonchalant fashion. They are uninterested in determining
> the cause of the problem or preventing it from reoccuring. They are also
> peculiarly hostile to any effort to find the culprit.
Here's a fine example. All is conclusion, without any facts. For all
that I know, this assertion is absolutely accurate; but then I don't
know, do I, from the information that MES has stated; and neither,
from her statement, does she. Such an allegation will do little to
convince any innocently skeptical reader; that some people will accept
all assertions like this as gospel, too, reflects eloquently on them.
>... The agenda of the straight man in soc.women is oppressing women ...
This is sure to win over any new curious male readers in soc.women,
isn't it? And when they respond, hurt or defensive, it will only
"prove" MES's point. Nevertheless it is a litany sadly familiar to
the many quiet male readers of soc.women, as is the parallel, if less
frequent, assertion that women who disagree with MES are actually men
with pseudonyms. I will not even dwell on the sexism explicit in the
broad-brush quote above.
And MES wonders that she is easy to imitate.
David Boyes
In some article in alt.flame, Mark Ethan Smith writes:
>... the style is not mine
Hmph. I respectfully beg to differ.
>The netnews administrators have ignored this forgery problem
>in their typical nonchalant fashion. They are uninterested in determining
>the cause of the problem or preventing it from reoccuring. They are also
>peculiarly hostile to any effort to find the culprit.
Perhaps they have more important things to do than play Mike Hammer,
detective, for someone who shows no sign of being appreciative of
any of their efforts? Perhaps they have significant gainful work assigned to
them by their employers that they must do in order to keep their jobs?
Perhaps they consider the problems of a public-access system to be
less important than the systems they are paid to maintain?
Mark, in the past when people have gone out of their way to assist
and/or aid you in investigating your claims, you've simply turned
around a few months later and posted articles like the one referenced
in this article. Speaking for myself only, putting in a lot of time
for no returns at all is a pretty silly thing to do. I'm certainly not
going to go out of my way to help someone who places epsilon value on
my help and proceeds to denigrate it in a public forum in the manner
quoted above.
>Yes, it is very refreshing to compare the attacks of the straight men in
>soc.women with the positive remarks of others like Mike Robinson and
>others who have worthwhile things to say.
Worthwhile on whose scale? Are they worthwhile simply because they
happen to fit your personal Weltanshauung? Their opinions are just as
valid as yours -- as is their privilege to post them to the newsgroups
that they see as appropriate (provided, of course, that their choice of
newsgourps is at least marginally appropriate).
>The agenda of the straight
>man in soc.women is oppressing women, continuing male-dominated political
>charades to keep us where we are, and impishly asking "What's wrong" as if
>everyhting was fine and dandy.
//FLAME EXEC PGM=HIGH
Funny you should say that, Mark. Read the above again. Do you believe
it? If you do, you are one of the most audacious hypocrites I have
ever had the misfortune to speak to. You claim that stereotypes are
evil and promote the status quo. Pardon me, but just what do *you*
call the above paragraph?
I don't see any qualifiers -- no 'some', no 'many' there. Some of us
*are* trying to understand your position -- IF YOU GIVE US A CHANCE,
OK? Stuff like that paragraph is just as evil as the stereotypes you
whine and complain about in most of the rest of your articles.
//FLMETERM EXEC PGM=QUENCH
>... shows his own homophobic and femophobic tendencies ...
^^^
Bit of a big assumption, don't you think, Mark? Especially since you
don't know who 'forged' those articles in your name? Or have you
forgotten about your crusade for non-gender specific pronouns?
>Typical of the fascist strategy to set oppressed groups against each
>other.
>--Mark
No comment. Just no comment. Just say 'No.'
/*
/&
;;;;KV41
>Karen, the article you are responding to is a forgery!
I see. Now you are all me, instead of Rich Rosen, and I'm supposed
to guess who wrote which forgeries. I think I'll start with this one,
since it seems to be the easiest.
I guess Mike Robinson wrote this particular forgery.
But first, here's what Mike has to say about
anonymous forgeries, <ported without permission from Earthmind
(415) 843-4234, Mike's BBS>:
emind>>>You don't have to be a Usenet administrator to post untraceable articles
emind>>>Anybody can do it just as well as the site administrator. If only white
emind>>> males
emind>>>know how, it is only because only white males have bothered to read the
emind>>>news documentation (posted and publicly available).
emind>>>
emind>>>If women and minorities would bother to read the documentation, they
emind>>>could post libelous or defamatory anonymous postings on the net and not
emind>>>be
emind>>>held responsible either.
Now back to the latest forgery:
>The opinions are
>not mine, the style is not mine, and the conclusion is not mine.
Repetition for effect. That's Mike alright. Hi Mike!
>I have
>many close ties to the lesbian and gay community in the Bay Area....
Ties to the gay community? The only human who has stopped by in
the past 4 or 5 months was you, Mike. And you told me you had a
girlfriend. But if I'm supposed to have ties to these folks, and
you're the only person, net-setter or not, I've ftfed, you must be a
gay or lesbian. Funny that it didn't occur to me. :-)
>Yes, it is very refreshing to compare the attacks of the straight men in
>soc.women with the positive remarks of others like Mike Robinson and
>others who have worthwhile things to say.
Pretty good, Mike. But you cheated. Coming by and talking me into
using your rhetoric gimmicks in an article once, was the only
thing you could do once you realized that you couldn't parody my
style effectively unless I included the gimmicks you use instead
of rhetoric. And I've always been a sucker for a cute guy, so I
fell for it.
Hey, I'm only human--anybody can make a mistake. :-)
>homophobic and femophobic tendencies
Femophobic????? Yeah, that's what hackers are. Femophobes. Thanks
for the word. See, Karen? Gays are no more femophobic than
SWM's. Why would I want to develop close ties with communities
of femophobes?
Here's how I see it. Heterosexual males often prefer other males
for almost everything except sex. Gay males prefer other males
for everything, including sex. So gays are *more* sexist than hets.
How about comp.equal-rights with Michael Muller and Sherry Mann
as co-moderators?
--Mark
David Collier-Brown
>> >In article <29...@killer.UUCP>, e...@killer.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) writes:
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ NO!!!!!!!!
>> [Forged article, and reactions to it, deleted]
>>
>> Karen, the article you are responding to is a forgery!
>> ... the style is not mine ...
> ---------------------
>This refrain from MES, as if to say that no reader who has followed
>her writing could be misled by the forgeries, is wasted on those of
>us who have indeed followed MES for a long time and cannot help but
>note the parallels to her most prominent verbal devices, like exotic
>conclusions presented without support; calumniation; and the need
>to blame someone whenever things go wrong.
But Max, __emotion clouds judgement__. If you don't wish to agree
with someone's arguments, you often denigrate them. If you then
find the person's arguments have degraded to pure drivel, you will
see no difference. (source: paraphrased monograph on textual
criticism)
Therefor, to recognize a forgery, you either have to agree with
someone or be neutral to what they are saying. (I'm _trying_ for
neutral...)
> MES obligingly demonstrates
>these yet again, later in the same article, as though writing a
>continuing handbook for prospective MES-pretenders. [...]
>Here's a fine example. All is conclusion, without any facts.
Ok, let me restate it:
thesis:
"The netnews administrators have ignored this forgery
problem in their typical nonchalant fashion" [mark]
evidence:
silence from the various sys/mail admins [me]
conclusion:
"They are uninterested in determining the cause of
the problem or preventing it from reoccuring." [mark]
thesis: "They are also peculiarly hostile to any effort to find
the culprit." [mark]
evidence: none stated [me]
I will argue that the first conclusion is probably true, and that
the reason is at least one of {disinterest | inability | malice}.
I personally believe the first two are sufficient (by occam's razor).
Mark has some reason (experience) to lead him to suspect the last.
If the second quoted thesis follows from evidence, he is justified
in the conclusion that malice exists. I hope it doesn't...
--dave (ain't life fun?) c-b
--
David Collier-Brown. {mnetor yetti utgpu}!geac!daveb
Geac Computers International Inc., | Computer Science loses its
350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | memory (if not its mind)
CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months.
Michael Robinson
>[all sorts of unpleasant things about me]
I apologize for the dirty laundry. Mark and I have had something of a spat,
and I regret that it was dragged out into the street (so to speak) like this.
I would, though, like to put the following in context:
emind>You don't have to be a Usenet administrator to post untraceable articles
emind>Anybody can do it just as well as the site administrator. If only white
emind>males
emind>know how, it is only because only white males have bothered to read the
emind>news documentation (posted and publicly available).
emind>
emind>If women and minorities would bother to read the documentation, they
emind>could post libelous or defamatory anonymous postings on the net and not
emind>be
emind>held responsible either.
This was in response to the following, written by Mark:
emind>Those with the knowledge and power to make untraceable attacks on others
emind>are all white males, and their victims are not. The net is 90% white
emind>male because it is the one place that nobody can be held responsible
emind>for what they say.
Shortly after I posted the above cited text, a user remarked that it sounded
racist and sexist (that it suggested that women and minorities were lazy),
and, not actually believing me to be so, asked me to clarify my statements.
My response (which Mark omitted) was as follows:
emind>Implied in Mark's accusations was the suggestion that white males had
emind>conspired to deliberately discourage women and minorities from using the
emind>net. I found this reasoning distasteful, and my statements were intended
emind>to show that the exact same evidence could just as easily be used to
emind>reach a conclusion which Mark would find equally distasteful.
emind>
emind>Both conclusions are absurd. The situation on the net reflects the
emind>racial and gender bias and attitudes prevalent in techological fields.
emind>No more, no less. Like I've said, no conspiracies required.
And, as there undoubtably will be those who will point it out if I don't
go on record, I deny forging any articles at all, and certainly not any
from Mark.
Mark E. Smith
In <67...@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, robi...@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Michael Robinson or a forger) writes:
>I apologize for the dirty laundry. Mark and I have had something of a
>spat, and I regret that it was dragged out into the street (so to speak)
>like this.
A "spat?" You mean like a lovers' quarrel or a disagreement between
friends? I've never been over to your place. You came over here a
few times. We have a difference in basic values. I have some, you
don't seem to.
>I would, though, like to put the following in context:
emind>You don't have to be a Usenet administrator to post untraceable
emind>articles. Anybody can do it just as well as the site administrator.
emind>If only white males
emind>know how, it is only because only white males have bothered to
emind>read the news documentation (posted and publicly available).
emind>
emind>If women and minorities would bother to read the documentation,
emind>they could post libelous or defamatory anonymous postings on the
emind>net and not be
emind>held responsible either.
>Shortly after I posted the above cited text, a user remarked that it
>sounded racist and sexist (that it suggested that women and minorities were
>lazy), and, not actually believing me to be so, asked me to clarify my
>statements.
Apart from being sexist and racist, your statement was of the "Do
what thou wilt," variety, failing to note or care that defamation is
not a victimless crime. You seem to feel that there is no such thing
as right and wrong, from the standpoint of hurting others, and you
appear to be suggesting that two wrongs would or could make a right.
You also said, "Anarchy is anarchy. Fascism and anarchy are
mutually exclusive."
You seem to be unaware that fascism has been known to present
itself as Satanism or anarchy. A youngster given total freedom to
persecute and kill Jews with impunity, can be so excited over that
"freedom," that he may not notice that he has only the freedom to
hurt others, not the freedom to help or spare them. If he tried, he
would become a victim himself. Fascism often looks like anarchy to
those doing the persecuting, but it is obviously fascism to the victims.
>My response (which Mark omitted) was as follows:
emind>Implied in Mark's accusations was the suggestion that white males
Says who? Where is it "implied?" I did not suggest or imply any
conspiracy. I simply pointed out the prevalent sexism you admit exists.
I don't like people putting words in my mouth, saying my statement
implies something it does not, and then arguing with their own
distortions. Didn't they teach you not to do that in Rhetoric 101, Mike?
emind>had conspired to deliberately discourage women and minorities from
emind>using the net.
Again, the reasoning that is distasteful is your own. I pointed
out that the prevalent sexism discourages some, and it does. No
conspiracy needed or implied. An atmosphere that is sexist will
discourage those who are harmed by sexism.
But it is incredible to me that you could suggest two wrongs could
make a right. If somebody stole your wallet, I wouldn't say, "Well,
if you bothered to put in the time and effort, you could learn to steal
wallets also." Stealing is a crime, it can hurt people. If
somebody steals from you, I would not suggest you steal from others.
Defamation is a crime. You suggest that the answer to defamation is
more defamation.
I disagree.
emind>Both conclusions are absurd. The situation on the
emind>net reflects the racial and gender bias and attitudes prevalent in
emind>techological fields. No more, no less. Like I've said,
>no conspiracies required.
And none were "implied."
>And, as there undoubtably will be those who will point it out if I don't
>go on record, I deny forging any articles at all, and certainly not any
>from Mark.
Maybe you didn't forge any defamatory articles. But you see
nothing wrong with it. You evensuggest that anyone harmed by it
could learn to do the same to others. But not to the ones who
harmed *them*, Mike, since the perpetrators are anonymous. They'd
have to defame people stupid enough to use their real names, making
themselves easy targets for anonymous criminals. I don't like
anarchy, Mike. I prefer a social contract, where people can be
held liable for their actions, and the rights of the vulnerable can
be protected. So we have some very basic differences, not just
a "spat." I have values that mean so much to me, I'd rather die than
abandon them. The first rule for physicians is, "Do no harm."
Not, "Do what thou wilt," but "Do no harm." It is stupid of me,
as a person with values, to participate in a system that prides
itself on being an anarchy, and I'm paying the price for my stupidity.
I'm meeting stupid people. But I've also met some very intelligent
people, and I sincerely wish there was a way intelligent people could
hold discussions without being constantly disrupted with
anonymous defamation and juvenile, pointless obscenity. Use
of strong language to emphasize a point is one thing--postings
that consist solely of obscene personal attacks contribute nothing
to discussion, disrupt and prevent discussion, and the "anarchy"
that defends such postings as "free speech," the very thing they
are intended to suppress, is not so much anarchy as idiocy.
--Mark
Oleg Kiselev
In article <67...@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era...@violet.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) writes:
>I guess Mike Robinson wrote this particular forgery.
Yes, I can see the logic -- "I hate Mike Robinson and I know that Mike Robinson
is capable of posting fake articles, therefore he posted this particular fake."
>emind>You don't have to be a Usenet administrator to post untraceable articles
>emind>Anybody can do it just as well as the site administrator. If only white
>emind>males
>emind>know how, it is only because only white males have bothered to read the
>emind>news documentation (posted and publicly available).
>emind>If women and minorities would bother to read the documentation, they
>emind>could post libelous or defamatory anonymous postings on the net and not
>emind>be held responsible either.
So? Is the concept of "SARCASM" alien to MES?
And yes, as many of us know, it is laughably trivial to post an "untraceable"
forgery. Technically, every article I posted beween 1986 and early 1987 was
a "forgery" because they alleged to be posted from a machine that never had a
USENET connection. So if MES needs another reason to be paranoid, she can now
put me on the list of nasty nasty white males who disagree with her and can
post forgeries. I hope she loses some sleep over it, too.
--
Oleg Kiselev -- ol...@quad1.quad.com -- {...!psivax|seismo!gould}!quad1!oleg
HASA, "A" Division
DISCLAIMER: I don't speak for my employers.
Karl Denninger
>>2.) Mark not making any attacks on the gay users of M-Net (I
>>would not term entering an item in the Gay conference,
>>titled "Why queers are superior to women", to be adhering
>>to a philsophy of live and let live; it is a deliberate
>>attempt to be offensive ahd harassing),
>
>Entering an offensive topic like that certainly would be an attack or
>an attempt to harass if it was done without provocation. As Russ
>knows full well, I had a conference on m-net once, called Human
>Viability. But I was unable to facilitate discussions on the subject
>because of vicious personal attacks from srr and other young men who
>claimed to be gay. They filled my conference with obscene personal
>attacks one me, based on their belief that inclusive pronouns shouuld
>not be used inclusively, as I prefer, but should be reserved for the
>exclusive use of persons with penises. After seveal months of
>disruptions and attacks from young gay males insisting that they were
>entitled to certain preferences because they were male and I wasn't,
>I decided to see how they'd like it if I invaded their conference with
>my response, instead of letting them continue to disrupt mine. In
>that topic, I listed all the reasons srr and the other young gay males
>had given for their belief that persons with pensises are superior to
>women and entitled to preferential treatment and undiminished terms.
[Remainder deleted; you really didn't want to read it twice]
FWOOOSH.....
Well, Mark.... Hi there... remember me?
Remember a conference called 'Womanspace' on 'ddsw1'? Where no one has ever
been censored, their items (or mail) interfered with, or posting status
obstructed. Where people could (and *did*) discuss their points of view on
woman's rights, etc...?
Remember how you, as fairwitness, declared that I, personally, was 'censoring'
you on our machine by forcing you off, killing your id, denying you posting
access to the net, etc.? Remember how I proved that this was not the case,
on several occasions (once by posting from your id to the bbs, after 'su-ing'
to it, which was what you had claimed I had prevented you from doing!)
And do you remember storming off the machine, *DELETING THE CONTENTS OF THE
WOMANSPACE CONFERENCE IN THE PROCESS*. Yes, Mark, you had the permissions
to do this; you were the fairwitness. Nonetheless, that act was deliberate,
malicious, and without provocation.
Anyone care to wonder why I don't easily believe your assertions above?
[This is assuming you really exist, which lately seems to be in more and
more doubt..... I did talk to *someone* who professed to be M.E.S. on the
phone once though... hmmmm...]
>If they think they're entitled to *more* respect than they show me, because
>they're male and I'm not, I respectfully disagree.
>
If you think you're entitled to *more* respect than you show me (and my
other users), because you're MES and a woman and I'm not, I respectfully
disagree.
Mark, when you stop being combative and assuming that the entire world is
out to get you, test your assumptions before making inflamatory statements
(or worse), etc. you might find that the world is much nicer to you (note:
the world hasn't changed, you have). Until then, you'll find exactly what
you look for; after all if it isn't real you can just make it up... :-)
TTTThhhhwip!
-----
Karl Denninger | Data: +1 312 566-8912
...ihnp4!ddsw1!karl |
These views are mine but may be shared by others at their own risk. MCS
doesn't necessarially share nor condone them (ask michael@ddsw1, he's more
levelheaded right now). :-)