Ed Kramer Court Papers Online
Flami...@yahoo.com
hearings in the Ed Kramer case.
http://geocities.com/edfilez
Joel Rosenberg
the Ed Kramer case, and just aching to pour over every detail of it.
mike weber
>A web site with court documents from various
>hearings in the Ed Kramer case.
>http://geocities.com/edfilez
>
Went to site.
Did "View Source". Got the following:
<meta name="Author" content="Nancy A. Collins">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Mozilla/4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD {Sony}
(Win98; U) [Netscape]">
<meta name="KeyWords" content="Edward Kramer,Ed
Kramer,Dragoncon,DragonCon,Dragon*Con,sci-fi,fandom, HWA,Titan Comics
& Books, Titan Comics, child
molestation,pedophile,paedophile,boylover,pederast,MRESA,MRESAnet,MRESANET,Metropolitian
Regional Educational Service Agency,Metro-RESA, Milton Levy,John
Saenz,Rebecca Tabor, Paul Cashman, Pat Henry,child pornography,
RPG,role playing games, D&D,World Fantasy Convention, World Horror
Convention,WFC, WHC, Bram Stoker Award,S.P. Somtow, Somtow,Little
Savages,child porn,sexual predator,Harlan Ellison">
<title>(p)ED(o)FILES</title>
Note inclusion of "Somtow" and "Harlan Ellison", Paul Cashman, RPG and
D&D and "World Fantasy Convention" and "Bram Stoker Award". to
mention just a few "interesting" names in the "KeyWords" tag.
If i didn't know better, i'd say this was written with someone with
some sort of weird grudge against the entire Fantasy/Horror field.
--
Your mouse has moved. Windows NT must be restarted for the
change to take effect. Reboot now? [ OK ]
================================================================
mike weber kras...@mindspring.com
Book Reviews & More -- http://electronictiger.com
Nancy A Collins
Loren MacGregor
>
> So? These are the court papers. I didn't expect you to like them.
He wasn't talking about the court papers. He was talking about the
key words you used to beef up your hit count. It's -exactly- as
ethical as it is when done by pornographers.
-- LJM
Deb Geisler
Besides being a deceptive practice, of course, I count at least 17 instances of
probably trademark violation. Use of another's trademark/service mark in
Keywords/meta-tags is actionable infringement of trademark/service mark. See:
http://www.nolo.com/encyclopedia/articles/ilaw/metatags.html
Of course, the presence of certain names in the keywords quoted above by Mike
Weber is also potentially actionable as libel per quod.
Deb
--
Deb Geisler
Graduate Program Director
Department of Communication & Journalism
Suffolk University
Boston, MA 02114
Voice: 617.573.8504
Email: dgei...@acad.suffolk.edu
That which does not kill us has made its last mistake.
Nancy A Collins
Loren Joseph MacGregor
>Loren MacGregor wrote:
>>
>> Nancy A Collins wrote:
>> >
>> > So? These are the court papers. I didn't expect you to like them.
>>
>> He wasn't talking about the court papers. He was talking about the
>> key words you used to beef up your hit count. It's -exactly- as
>> ethical as it is when done by pornographers.
>Besides being a deceptive practice, of course, I count at least 17
>instances of probably trademark violation. Use of another's
>trademark/service mark in Keywords/meta-tags is actionable
>infringement of trademark/service mark. See:
>http://www.nolo.com/encyclopedia/articles/ilaw/metatags.html
>Of course, the presence of certain names in the keywords quoted above
>by Mike Weber is also potentially actionable as libel per quod.
Mike was including the quoted keywords in part to reference a
previous discussion here, of course, where Somtow dropped in to
explain his tangential relationship to the case. It was clear
at that the time that Christ and Friday were not only attempting
to savage Kramer -and- to distance themselves from any relationship
with Kramer (despite a long history which can be easily documented
even by those who -don't- know the people involved), but to smear
people who -might- have a business relationship with Kramer, in a
clear attempt at obfuscation and at guilt by association, and to
muddy the waters of their own involvement as much as possible.
I knew very little about any of the people involved prior to
Christ and Friday's initial postings on this newsgroup. My
opinion about them has been based solely on what they have
posted, and the minimal curiosity which caused me to follow
up their posts by doing a bit of exploring. What I saw isn't
pretty. I have no opinion as to Ed Kramer's guilt or innocence,
which seems to me to be something that should be determined in a
court of law, not on the web or in a usenet posting. Based on
their postings, however, I -have- formed the conclusion that
Joe Christ and Nancy Friday are cowards, liars and creeps.
-- LJM
Vicki Rosenzweig
GMT:
>The 'keywords' all appear in various places on the site.
I just did a "view source" and found that some of the keywords people
here pointed out as problematic have been removed from the "meta" tags.
General note: the documents all appear to have been scanned, rather than
transcribed, making the site even slower than normal for Geocities.
>
>Loren MacGregor wrote:
>
>> Nancy A Collins wrote:
>> >
>> > So? These are the court papers. I didn't expect you to like them.
>>
>> He wasn't talking about the court papers. He was talking about the
>> key words you used to beef up your hit count. It's -exactly- as
>> ethical as it is when done by pornographers.
>>
>> -- LJM
--
Vicki Rosenzweig | v...@redbird.org
r.a.sf.f faq at http://www.redbird.org/rassef-faq.html
Loren Joseph MacGregor
>The 'keywords' all appear in various places on the site.
This is supposed to be a defense? A justification? A reasons?
-- LJM
Deb Geisler
>
> Quoth Nancy A Collins <Flami...@yahoo.com> on 11 Mar 2001 16:11:14
> GMT:
>
> >The 'keywords' all appear in various places on the site.
>
> I just did a "view source" and found that some of the keywords people
> here pointed out as problematic have been removed from the "meta" tags.
Yep. In particular, anything having to do with World Fantasy Convention, World
Horror Convention, Mssrs. Somtow and Ellison.
What still remains, however, are all references to Dragon*Con, which is still a
registered trademark, and Dungeons & Dragons (also a registered trademark of
Hasbro).
From the trademark side of things, there are still actionable mark
infringements. And from the libel side of things, there are still even more.
Deb Geisler
(Page source viewed 5:35 p.m. EDT 11 March 2001 includes the following code:
<meta name="KeyWords" content="Edward Kramer, Ed Kramer, Edward E. Kramer,
Edward Elliott Kramer, Dragoncon, DragonCon, Dragon*Con, sci-fi, fandom,
HWA,Titan Comics & Books, Titan Comics, Dungeons & Dragons, child molestation,
pedophile, paedophile, MRESA, Metropolitian Regional Educational Services
Agency, Metro-RESA, Milton Levy, Wilton Levy, Pat Henry, Robert Patterson Henry,
Sherry Henry, John Saenz, John Sinus, Rebecca Tabor, child pornography, role
playing games, Little Savages, child porn, sexual predator, pederast,
boylover">)
Joel Rosenberg
Christ, possibly? -- left all that lawyer-bait in, but it's clear that
their hatred for Ed Kramer has made them very, very reckless.
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>So? These are the court papers. I didn't expect you to like them.
I didn't bother looking, I don't believe you'd put up real court
papers.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com
Joel Rosenberg
> On 11 Mar 2001 14:28:32 GMT, Nancy A Collins <Flami...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >So? These are the court papers. I didn't expect you to like them.
>
> I didn't bother looking, I don't believe you'd put up real court
> papers.
>
They do appear to be real court papers, and the story they tell is:
[least favorable reading to Ed Kramer} he's guilty as hell, but the
cops had, at most, barely enough evidence to make a very compliant
judge lock him up until trial, and are hoping to develop more before
he's tried. Either that, or they knew that the judge wasn't going to
give bail in this case, and didn't want to let the defense know what's
up their sleeve until they absolutely have to.
or
[most favorable reading to Ed Kramer] he's the victim of a witch hunt,
based on an anonymous and untraceable accusation and an overzealous
member of the Ministry of Love feeding a child a story to tell.
Bernard Peek
<jo...@winternet.com> writes
>Yup. Kind of surprising that the anonymous authors -- Collins and
>Christ, possibly? -- left all that lawyer-bait in, but it's clear that
>their hatred for Ed Kramer has made them very, very reckless.
I'm not sure about Hasbro but the earlier users of the D&D trademark
would get their lawyers involved if anyone misused it. I doubt that
associating D&D with paedophilia counts as fair use.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
b...@shrdlu.co.uk
Loren MacGregor
>
> ... Based on their postings, however, I -have- formed the
> and creeps.
I misremembered the name, and hereby apologize to Nancy Friday. I
wouldn't wish it on anyone, that they be mistaken for Nancy Collins.
-- LJM
Martin Wisse
wrote:
Apart from legal issues, the behaviours of these people is morally
abhorrent. I for one don't want anything to do with these scumbags
whatsoever.
Martin Wisse
--
There's a special word for people who set up recorded messages
telling you that "your call is important to us" every five minutes
for two hours. That special word is "liar."
-Patrick Nielsen Hayden, rasseff
Rachael Lininger
I had been thinking that that was one of the more interesting confusions
I'd seen in a while.
Rachael
--
Rachael | "Though astronomy is a relatively safe hobby,
Lininger | keep in mind that stars are very, very hot and will burn
rachael@ | for millions of years if left unattended."
dd-b.net | _The Onion_
Ed Dravecky III
You did seem to expect to hide in the shadows. Too bad.
>> Went to site.
>> Did "View Source". Got the following:
>> <meta name="Author" content="Nancy A. Collins">
Funny how the original post in this thread had no name attached.
Why, it's almost like you were trying to hide something, Nancy!
--
Ed Dravecky III
ed3 at panix dot com
Ed Dravecky III
> Loren MacGregor <churn...@home.com> wrote:
> >Loren Joseph MacGregor wrote:
> > > ... Based on their postings, however, I -have- formed the
> > > conclusion that Joe Christ and Nancy Friday are cowards, liars
> > > and creeps.
> > I misremembered the name, and hereby apologize to Nancy Friday.
> > I wouldn't wish it on anyone, that they be mistaken for Nancy
> > Collins.
> I had been thinking that that was one of the more interesting
> confusions I'd seen in a while.
Am I the only one who thought "Joe Friday" if only for a second?
Alison Hopkins
Loren Joseph MacGregor
Apparently -I- thought "Joe Friday."
-- LJM
Keith Holder
Will NAMBLA have a table at draggin-con?
I think these are much more fascinating questions than: potential
trademark violations in meta tags.
Nancy Lebovitz
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Rachael Lininger
I didn't; there is a real Nancy Friday, and that short-circuited the other
process.
Mark Atwood
> >
> >Apparently -I- thought "Joe Friday."
>
> I didn't; there is a real Nancy Friday, and that short-circuited the other
> process.
Indeed, tho the real Nancy Friday is a well-known expert in
a particular flavor of the "unreal".
--
Mark Atwood | I'm wearing black only until I find something darker.
m...@pobox.com | http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Loren Joseph MacGregor
I think a far more interesting question is this: "Do those who have
commented about the alleged incidents involving Ed Kramer believe in
the United States standard of law?" Or even, "Do those who have
made public comments about Ed Kramer's guilt believe that 'innocent
until proven guilty in a court of law' is a standard that does not
apply to Ed Kramer?"
-- LJM (who has never met Ed Kramer, but believes in the Constitution
and the Bill of Rights and other assorted apparently meaningless
bits of paper)
Loren MacGregor
>
> In article <98j8kv$gl2$1...@news.efn.org>,
> Loren Joseph MacGregor <lmac...@efn.org> wrote:
> >In rec.arts.sf.fandom, Ed Dravecky III <e...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>Rachael Lininger <rac...@gw.dd-b.net> wrote:
> >>> Loren MacGregor <churn...@home.com> wrote:
> >>> >Loren Joseph MacGregor wrote:
> >>> > > ... Based on their postings, however, I -have- formed the
> >>> > > conclusion that Joe Christ and Nancy Friday are cowards, liars
> >>> > > and creeps.
> >>> > I misremembered the name, and hereby apologize to Nancy Friday.
> >>> > I wouldn't wish it on anyone, that they be mistaken for Nancy
> >>> > Collins.
> >>> I had been thinking that that was one of the more interesting
> >>> confusions I'd seen in a while.
> >
> >>Am I the only one who thought "Joe Friday" if only for a second?
> >
> >Apparently -I- thought "Joe Friday."
>
> I didn't; there is a real Nancy Friday, and that short-circuited the other
> process.
I know there is.
I guess I'm just glad I didn't ring in Joan Collins.
-- LJM
Avedon Carol
Will you slip on an oil-slick, skid off the edge of a cliff, bounce
off the pavement 80 feet below and have a semi run over you? I think
that's a pretty good question, too.
mike weber
Holder) typed
Nancy? Is this your left or your right sock?
--
Who would speak truth should have one foot in the stirrup.
(Church bulletin board, Dunwoody GA)
==========================================================
mike weber kras...@mindspring.com
Book Reviews & More -- http://electronictiger.com
Keith Holder
be attached to the indictment.
U.S. v. Friday, D.C. Mich., 404 F.Supp. 1343,1346.
Dave Weingart
>Presumption of innocence does not mean that no significance at all may
>be attached to the indictment.
Under US law, sorry, this is dead wrong, as the trial judge will inform
you over and over again when you're sitting in the jury box.
--
73 de Dave Weingart KA2ESK This .signature deliberately
mailto:phyd...@liii.com left blank.
http://www.liii.com/~phydeaux
ICQ 57055207
Kate Nepveu
Having access to online cases, which many people here probably do not, I
had to look this up.
Here's the context, for anyone who's interestd. This is a 1975 case which
is not widely cited--where "not widely" means cited by 4 courts.
****
Charles Friday is under indictment for falsely representing on a form in
connection with the purchase of a pistol from a gun shop that he was not
under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one
year, in violation of 18 U.S.C. secs. 922(a)(6), (d)(1).
[...]
Defendant brought this motion to dismiss the indictment claiming that the
federal statute under which he is charged is unconstitutional. Three
arguments are advanced. First, defendant argues that the statute, by
requiring the disclosure of pending indictments and predicating criminal
sanctions on failure to make such disclosure, deprives him of the
presumption of innocence guaranteed by the fifth amendment. Since he is
innocent in the eyes of the law, defendant says, the law may not attach
such consequences to the mere fact that he has been indicted. Defendant's
argument reads far too much into the phrase "presumption of innocence".
This term succinctly conveys the principle that no person may be convicted
of a crime unless the government carries the burden of proving his guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. To be sure, this means that no criminal
penalties may follow from the mere fact of indictment. It does not,
however, mean that no significance at all may be attached to the
indictment. Under the federal statutory scheme at issue here, Congress has
determined "that the indictment of an individual for a crime punishable by
imprisonment for a term exceeding one year is so often indicative of a
propensity for violence that the indictment classification . . . was
justified in the public interest". United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329,
1339 (6th Cir. 1973). The significance attached to the indictment is that
the indictee has a propensity for violence, and the consequences that
follow are (1) an inability lawfully to purchase a firearm and (2) a duty
to disclose the fact of the indictment in connection with such a purchase.
These consequences do not violate the presumption of innocence, because
they "[do] not authorize the fact finder at the criminal trial to infer
guilt under the Federal Firearms Act from the existence of a prior
indictment or even to discount the credibility of a witness because of
such an indictment". United States v. Thoresen, 428 F.2d 654, 661 (9th
Cir. 1970), quoted with approval in United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d at
1340.
****
The reader can determine for him/herself whether this situation supports
the implicit assertion of the prior poster.
Kate
--
http://www.steelypips.org/elsewhere.html -- Paired Reading Page; Reviews
"I wouldn't be satisfied with a life lived solely on the barricades. I
reserve my right to be frivolous." --Betty Friedan
David G. Bell
<10107-3A...@storefull-154.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
Miste...@webtv.net "Keith Holder" wrote:
I know some people don't like Mondays, but did some lawyer want to bunk
off early for the weekend?
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
If I were to go back to my schooldays, knowing what I know now, I would
pack cheese sandwiches for lunch.
Martin Wisse
Yes, but then again you are the weakest link.
Goodbye.
Martin Wisse
--
Lensmen are the very best men in the Galactic Patrol. (Always men. Only one
woman ever becomes a Lensman. Sort of like smurfs.) -Dani Zweig
Douglas Berry
p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) warmed at our fire and told this
tale:
>(3) Irv isn't going to explain any of it to the rest of us.
>
>Goodness, that was useful. Next!
Consider that some of this "stuff" is tied up in a felony court case
at the moment. I respectfully suggest that now is not the time to
start trying to explain the bizarre twists and turns that southern
fandom seem to take.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
mike weber
>On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 20:27:08 GMT,
> Irv Koch <irv...@pop.a001.sprintmail.com> wrote:
>>The situation on this Georgia mess is so complicated that I'm not about
>>to try to explain it, but I do appreciate each small chunk of facts, as
>>they drift in.
>
>
>As far as I can tell, the actual informational substance of this
>message is:
>
>(1) Irv has met most of these people,
>
>(2) Irv wants to make sure we appreciate that He Knows Stuff, but
>
>(3) Irv isn't going to explain any of it to the rest of us.
>
>Goodness, that was useful. Next!
>
Nah -- Irv just talks that way. After a while, you get to the point
where you can decode him.
Joel Rosenberg
> On 16 Mar 2001 03:45:53 GMT, a wanderer, known to us only as
> p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) warmed at our fire and told this
> tale:
>
> >(3) Irv isn't going to explain any of it to the rest of us.
> >
> >Goodness, that was useful. Next!
>
> Consider that some of this "stuff" is tied up in a felony court case
> at the moment. I respectfully suggest that now is not the time to
> start trying to explain the bizarre twists and turns that southern
> fandom seem to take.
Respectfully, I disagree. If any of it has any probative value --
which I tend to doubt -- that ought to be presented in court. If it
doesn't, it likely won't. While I find the Christ and Collins act
kind of tiresome, I really doubt it's going to poison the jury pool.
I'll take the horribly brave and controversial opinion that,
regardless of what Ed Kramer did wrong, if anything (and it's pretty
clear that, at least, he showed awfully bad judgment by driving to his
former girlfriend's apartment and banging on the door when he was
supposedly on his way to be interviewed by the police), he deserves a
fair trial if it gets that far, as appears to be likely.
That doesn't mean that Irv or anybody else is obligated to give any
background on this, although the level of hysteria and by vituperation
from Christ and Collins suggests that there is something else going
on, beyond the putative honest and postulated well-intentioned
righteous anger at someone they putatively believe molested a child.
(I think that molesting a child is a Big Deal, of course, but their
whole campaign reeks of concealed intention, although not particularly
well concealed intention.)
Again, just to be clear: I don't know and don't pretend to know if Ed
Kramer is a chicken hawk who the law has finally caught up with or
some poor schlump who has been caught up in a witch hunt. If it's the
former, he's already gotten a taste of what I think he deserves; it is
the latter, the poor guy has been done a horrible injustice, which is
only going to get worse, before it gets better, if ever.
Irv Koch
<snip reply to local "judge">
> Nah -- Irv just talks that way. After a while, you get to the point
> where you can decode him.
If you'd care to give your version of what I said, for The Judge's
benefit, please do. Thanks.
For others: Yes, Joe and Nancy may have some interesting things to say
on this matter, in alt.fandom.cons, and are certainly more on topic than
the trolls have been.
Jo Walton
jo...@winternet.com "Joel Rosenberg" writes:
> Again, just to be clear: I don't know and don't pretend to know if Ed
> Kramer is a chicken hawk who the law has finally caught up with or
> some poor schlump who has been caught up in a witch hunt. If it's the
> former, he's already gotten a taste of what I think he deserves; it is
> the latter, the poor guy has been done a horrible injustice, which is
> only going to get worse, before it gets better, if ever.
I don't know either. But the more I hear people screaming, sliming and
insinuating that he's the former, the more I feel inclined to give him
the benefit of every possible doubt.
Not since the infamous "You're never alone with a Strand" ad has a
campaign backfired so badly.
--
Jo J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
I kissed a kif at Kefk
Locus Recommended First Novel: *THE KING'S PEACE* out now from Tor.
Sample Chapters, Map, Poems, & stuff at http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk
James Nicoll
Joel Rosenberg <jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
>
>That doesn't mean that Irv or anybody else is obligated to give any
>background on this, although the level of hysteria and by vituperation
>from Christ and Collins suggests that there is something else going
>on, beyond the putative honest and postulated well-intentioned
>righteous anger at someone they putatively believe molested a child.
>(I think that molesting a child is a Big Deal, of course, but their
>whole campaign reeks of concealed intention, although not particularly
>well concealed intention.)
I thought this shed some light on what other factors might be
at work.
seen on alt.fandom.cons
From syl...@concentric.net Fri Mar 16 15:22:58 EST 2001
Path: news.panix.com!panix!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!sjc1.nntp.concentric.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!global-news-master
From: Joe Christ <syl...@concentric.net>
Newsgroups: alt.fandom.cons
Subject: Re: Kramer Court Documents Online
Date: 15 Mar 2001 04:57:50 GMT
Organization: http://geocities.com/joechrist.geo/shows.html
Lines: 135
Message-ID: <3AB04B3E...@concentric.net>
References: <3AA81CC...@yahoo.com> <3AAEEB78...@bellsouth.net> <3AAEF02A...@concentric.net> <3AAF0090...@bellsouth.net>
jtac...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> Joe,
>
> All I am saying is take responsiblility for what you do, and create. You do it
> on your videos. Tell the world that as a public service, we Joe Christ and Nancy
> Collins, have made available to the whole world the court documents pertaining
> to the case. You create a wedsite, you post a message, or someone post a message
> about the site, but you don't put your name on the site. This can be mistaken
> for hiding. Remember, we all look at the world differently.
>
Putting our names on the web site prominently would not serve
any particular purpose. Does it matter who put it up, really?
It's not as if it's a secret or anything.
What's there are public documents, easily picked up from
the court clerk's office in Gwinnett County. Anyone can do it.
The important thing is that what's there is all sworn testimony, and
various legal motions.
>
> You have mentioned to me that you told the police what you know because you
> believe it to be the right thing to do. That is commendable and I would do the
> same, but why did you feel the need to post a message on the web on behalf of
> the Gwinnett County PD looking for people who may be able to offer more info?
> Why do you feel it is necessary to post the documents on the case on a website?
> What is your motivation? Enlighten us!! Did Ed do something to you to piss you
> off?? We are not all privy to what goes on.
>
The Detective in the case seemed to think it was a
good thing if people (such as Nancy and myself)
who are recognizable to local fans, showed publicly that we aren't
afraid of the defendant. Did Kramer do something to
piss me off? You mean besides what he's charged with?
I think you know the answer to that.
> Did Ed not give you a job at the Dragon*Con office?
At half the pay of the job he claimed he was hooking me up with. Ask your
wife if I didn't constantly call Ed a liar and other things in the
office, almost daily. The Dragon*Con progress reports (or lack thereof)
make a good example. I know you remember that issue...I had to
lie to countless people for Ed on the phone every day, as they wondered
where their progress reports were.
> Did Ed not give Nancy a job at MRESA?
You mean where the FBI has been tearing everyone
a new asshole, because of Ed and whatever the hell he was doing up there? Where
Nancy had to leave because of hostility from the
various bosses who are under investigation by the Feds?
> Did Ed not allow you use of the video editing equipment at MRESA to edit your
> last video? At no cost to you? Yet you profited from the sale of the video?
That was supposed to be one of the 'perks' of the actual
job that never materialized, one promised by Ed to everyone he hired there.
As it turned out, I had to sneak in to MRESA after hours
with Ed's help, to finish the movie, and was rushed through it by
Ed, because he didn't want to get caught by his bosses. Ed had lied to
me initially about having permission for me to be there. I'll
be re-editing the whole thing in the next few months, elsewhere,
using my 'profits' to pay for it.
> Has Ed not given you free tables at Dragon*Con to sell your wares?
Do I not draw hundreds of people to my screenings there? That
was part of our business arrangement with Dragon*Con from the start.
It wasn't a favor, it was part of our compensation for us appearing there.
Although I think you may remember that this past year we had to go to Pat Henry
to get a second table, so Nancy & I could each have one, since
we were *two* guests. Dave Collette from ExotiCon told us that
Ed suggested us as guests to him because he could then have two guests
at his little convention for the price of one.
> I for one am a bit confused as to why you feel it is your duty to put Ed in
> jail. Maybe its not, but that is the percepton of some people. Tell the police
> what you know, and then no more. All your actions make people wonder what kind
> of deal they have with you to get you to turn against Ed. If no deal exist,
> great, but enlighten us. If you are going to post the facts, then let the world
> know all the facts, including your past relationship with Ed Kramer. If you
> can't talk about it because of the pending court trial, I understand, but then
> keep quiet about all aspects of the case.
What kind of *deal* could we possibly have with the police? We haven't done anything
to need to have a deal with them. It's not our duty to put Kramer in jail. The
prosecution should have no trouble doing that!
We're just helping to spread the word. And, hey, you
gotta admit...we're damn good at it! Someone should've done this after Kramer's
1997 arrest for child-molestation. Then we could all be just sitting back,
reminiscing about the events of a few years ago, and wondering if Kramer was up for
parole yet!
> This is not intended to be a personal attack and please do not take it as such,
> but I have heard your side of it, and since this is a public forum, I want to
> speak my mind.. That's all. I am confused and frustrated by all this. I see
> people convicting Ed in the press and on the web, yet he has not even gone to
> trial. It is not my place to judge others. I'm sure that you have felt the same
> type of judgement because of the nature of your videos.
Remember when I called you to tell you Ed was in jail? I asked you
if you had any clue as to why, and you asked me..."Child-molestation?"
This was really no surprise to most of the people I know on the Dragon*Con
board of directors. Right after Dragon*Con, Kramer repeatedly suggested
to Nancy that we let him take my 13-year-old son on a camping trip. Good
thing we were on to him by then. Our good friend. If you look at our website,
consisting of nothing but actual court documents, and think Kramer's being
"convicted on the web", that certainly says a lot, doesn't it?
> The issue has even created problems for volunteers at the con, and myself.
> Why? because we happen to attend Dragon*Con and happen to be volunteers we are
> all painted with one broad stroke of the brush.
Don't thank me, thank your former 'chair' and his supporters. I'm still
friendly with several 'top' board members who don't seem to think
we're doing anything wrong. *We're* not responsible for Kramer's
problems with the state and federal authorities. *Kramer's* responsible
for his own situation.
> I have seen people be falsely accused of crimes and go to jail. The papers
> report that all the time. So why not just keep quiet and let justice do its
> thing? Why is it that people seem to believe that you are spearheading this
> effort to have Ed put in prison. Perhaps creating websites with court documents,
> but not your name on it could be a reason. Just a thought. Thats all. Thanks
I have seen people commit crimes and get away with them...it's all relative.
I think you know that I'm not concerned with how people perceive me. People
see or hear about my movies and think I'm evil. Then they meet me in person and
think I'm
a nice guy. Then they fuck with me, and think I'm evil again.
-Joe Christ
--
"Somehow I managed to get a job as an apprentice structural engineering
draughtsman, where I was supposed to design buildings which people would
sit in and the roof would not fall down and kill them. A big responsibility
for someone whose total education had come from PLANET STORIES." Bob Shaw
Loren MacGregor
>
> Again, just to be clear: I don't know and don't pretend to know if Ed
> Kramer is a chicken hawk who the law has finally caught up with or
> some poor schlump who has been caught up in a witch hunt. If it's the
> former, he's already gotten a taste of what I think he deserves; it is
> the latter, the poor guy has been done a horrible injustice, which is
> only going to get worse, before it gets better, if ever.
This pretty much sums up my feeling. As do the paragraphs I cut.
-- LJM
Joe Christ
Ed Dravecky III
> mike weber wrote:
> > Miste...@webtv.net (Keith Holder) typed:
> > > Do they give oatmeal baths in Hell?
> > > Will NAMBLA have a table at draggin-con?
> > > I think these are much more fascinating questions than:
> > > potential trademark violations in meta tags.
> you?
Mike is definitely Mike.
"Keith" is an unknown quantity--advertising a website run by Nancy
Collins and Joe Christ, one on which they attempted to hide their
authorship but were outed by a stray tag in the HTML code. Given
the long string of "fake" names behind which Nancy has posted as
recently as last week, "Keith" could well be a fake as well. I'll
happily accept a copy of his complete driver's license, uncensored,
as proof of his existence. Until then "Keith" is a non-entity, at
least as far as I am concerned. The mileage of others may vary.
mike weber
typed
>Ed? Is that you?
>
Wanna bet how many people on this NG would believe in me over your
little sock-puppet friend?
Irv Koch
> On 15 Mar 2001 12:21:15 GMT, Joe Christ <syl...@concentric.net>
> typed
> >Ed? Is that you?
> >
>
> Wanna bet how many people on this NG would believe in me over your
> little sock-puppet friend?
No bet.
I have physically met Mike (and his famous brother)(and my wife even met
their mother, IIRC).
I've met Joe and Nancy.
I've met Ed.
All are separate humans, axes to grind (or defend) and all.
The Keith Holder (from Winder, GA, apparently) appears to also be a real
human (rather than a hoax), but most of the info. has come from his
enemies.
P Nielsen Hayden
As far as I can tell, the actual informational substance of this
message is:
(1) Irv has met most of these people,
(2) Irv wants to make sure we appreciate that He Knows Stuff, but
(3) Irv isn't going to explain any of it to the rest of us.
Goodness, that was useful. Next!
--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
P Nielsen Hayden
Douglas Berry <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On 16 Mar 2001 03:45:53 GMT, a wanderer, known to us only as
>p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) warmed at our fire and told this
>tale:
>
>>(3) Irv isn't going to explain any of it to the rest of us.
>>
>>Goodness, that was useful. Next!
>
>Consider that some of this "stuff" is tied up in a felony court case
>at the moment. I respectfully suggest that now is not the time to
>start trying to explain the bizarre twists and turns that southern
>fandom seem to take.
You're probably right.
P Nielsen Hayden
Irv Koch <irv...@pop.a001.sprintmail.com> wrote:
>mike weber wrote:
><snip reply to local "judge">
>> Nah -- Irv just talks that way. After a while, you get to the point
>> where you can decode him.
>
>If you'd care to give your version of what I said, for The Judge's
>benefit, please do. Thanks.
Sorry if I've struck you as The Judge. I'm just a little bemused at
the essential emptiness of this conversation.
I do take Doug Berry's point that it's probably just as well not to
hash this stuff out on Usenet.
Avedon Carol
Are you sure, Loren? Do you think a _chickenhawk_ deserves the kind
of treatment Ed Kramer is getting/in for?
--
Avedon
"At holiday parties, Republican political operatives boasted freely about
their success in snaring the White House. A common refrain, told in a
joking style, was: 'We stole the election fair and square.'" (Robert Parry)
Irv Koch
> Irv Koch <irv...@pop.a001.sprintmail.com> wrote:
<snip a batch of snippy stuff>
> Sorry if I've struck you as The Judge. I'm just a little bemused at
> the essential emptiness of this conversation.
OK.
> I do take Doug Berry's point that it's probably just as well not to
> hash this stuff out on Usenet.
Regrettably, I'm personally close to too much of it. I feel like I need
to collect as much info. as practical because there's no telling what,
and who, is going to be affected, in the future. A future in which I'm
likely to be involved, at least tangentially. But spitting that info.
back out is a bad idea, until a fairly distant, cooled off, future.
I suspect, also, you've been in a situation in which multiple friends,
or at least people you knew (and might like to be friends with) went
after each other with as harsh attacks as they could come up with.
So, beyond saying that "these are all real people, even though one
accuses the other of being only an alias for someone else" almost
anything said, gets horribly complicated. It's not just that people
will get angry or injured, it's that there are MULTIPLE conflicts
involved.
It's not practical to say ANYTHING, without then going into several
related issues.
There is also a problem similar to "classified/confidential"
information. The correct procedure is to not "talk around it" or
"hint," but to verbally bite one's tounge if mentioning it at all with
statements like "that's an interesting subject but I can't talk about
it."
If you're at Lunacon, and have time (there should be party flyers up
pointing to where I'll be <G>), I can try, in private, to just list all
the hassles.
Mitch Wagner
<98m5ob$n2t$2...@news.efn.org>:
>In rec.arts.sf.fandom, Keith Holder <Miste...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>Do they give oatmeal baths in Hell?
>
>>Will NAMBLA have a table at draggin-con?
>
>>I think these are much more fascinating questions than: potential
>>trademark violations in meta tags.
>
>I think a far more interesting question is this: "Do those who have
>commented about the alleged incidents involving Ed Kramer believe in
>the United States standard of law?" Or even, "Do those who have
>made public comments about Ed Kramer's guilt believe that 'innocent
>until proven guilty in a court of law' is a standard that does not
>apply to Ed Kramer?"
Another interesting question: "Are the people who post nasty things about
Ed Kramer people who have been personally hurt by him, or are they idiots
who believe in lynching someone (metaphorically speaking) based on gossip
and news reports?"
--
Mitch Wagner
mike weber
>Another interesting question: "Are the people who post nasty things about
>Ed Kramer people who have been personally hurt by him, or are they idiots
>who believe in lynching someone (metaphorically speaking) based on gossip
>and news reports?"
>
Or is Ed cast in the light of Granny in the back of the sleigh?
Loren Joseph MacGregor
>On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 00:42:46 GMT, Loren MacGregor
><churn...@home.com> wrote:
>>This pretty much sums up my feeling. As do the paragraphs I cut.
>Are you sure, Loren? Do you think a _chickenhawk_ deserves the kind
>of treatment Ed Kramer is getting/in for?
No, not entirely. I was reading through my allergies. I believe,
rather, that there is very little that Ed Kramer can do or could have
done which merits the treatment he is receiving.
I guess that someone who is late on delivering a program book for a
conventions deserves everything they get, though.
-- LJM
Loren MacGregor
>
> On 18 Mar 2001 02:03:02 GMT, mit...@sff.net (Mitch Wagner) typed
>
> >Another interesting question: "Are the people who post nasty things about
> >Ed Kramer people who have been personally hurt by him, or are they idiots
> >who believe in lynching someone (metaphorically speaking) based on gossip
> >and news reports?"
> >
> Or is Ed cast in the light of Granny in the back of the sleigh?
Bingo.
-- LJM
Alison Hopkins
Loren MacGregor wrote in message <3AB4D272...@home.com>...
Explain reference, please? I am missing something!
Ali
Kip Williams
The image is of some Russians sleighing across the steppes, and
wolves are chasing them. They drive the horses mercilessly, but the
wolves are gaining on them. It's been told in other ways, but in
this version, the worried passengers look at each other, and then
they look at old Granny there, at the back of the thing. She's had a
long life, and, well, she's not too helpful to everyone else any
more, much as they all love and cherish her. Maybe, just maybe, if
they toss Gran off the sleigh, the slavering wolves will stop and
brunch on her instead of following them quite so closely for the
next mile or so.
The part of 'Gran' having already been cast in this sordid little
tableau, one can then assign other roles to the remaining actors.
Of course, if they're not home within that precious mile, they'll
have no other choice but to toss someone else off the sleigh. Sad,
but true. Damn wolves have tasted blood now. As it happens, the one
who pushed Granny is now closest to the back of the sleigh.
--
--Kip (Williams)
amusing the world at http://members.home.net/kipw/
Mitch Wagner
<3ab44b1e...@news.alltel.net>:
>On 18 Mar 2001 02:03:02 GMT, mit...@sff.net (Mitch Wagner) typed
>
>
>>Another interesting question: "Are the people who post nasty things
>>about Ed Kramer people who have been personally hurt by him, or are
>>they idiots who believe in lynching someone (metaphorically speaking)
>>based on gossip and news reports?"
>>
>Or is Ed cast in the light of Granny in the back of the sleigh?
Huh?
--
Mitch Wagner
Kip Williams
I refer anyone else with this query to my own post under the subject
"Granny and the Sleigh."
What? You're still reading this? It's got drama! It's got pathos!
It's got relevance to the human conundrum! All questions answered,
with economy and droll understatement. "A masterpost!" sez Kip
(Williams).
--
--Kip (Williams)
(parenthetically) yours at http://members.home.net/kipw/
Mitch Wagner
Already read the other post.
"I laughed. I cried. I stuffed my face."--Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times.
--
Mitch Wagner
Alison Hopkins
Mitch Wagner wrote in message ...
<g> And I was very grateful. It actually got back on to the "Darmok" topic,
yes?
Ali
Mitch Wagner
<3ab50848$0$12241$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>:
Isn't that the TV show with Jenna Elfman as a young married woman strugging
with a drinking problem? "Darmok and Grog"?
--
Mitch Wagner
Alison Hopkins
*Bad* Mitch. Damn funny!
Ali
mike weber
<fn...@dial.pipex.com> typed
>Explain reference, please? I am missing something!
>
"Granny's old, she hasn't got much time left anyway. And while the
wolves pause to eat *her*, we can get away."
mike weber
Mark Evans
: The image is of some Russians sleighing across the steppes, and
: wolves are chasing them. They drive the horses mercilessly, but the
: wolves are gaining on them. It's been told in other ways, but in
: this version, the worried passengers look at each other, and then
: they look at old Granny there, at the back of the thing. She's had a
: long life, and, well, she's not too helpful to everyone else any
: more, much as they all love and cherish her. Maybe, just maybe, if
: they toss Gran off the sleigh, the slavering wolves will stop and
: brunch on her instead of following them quite so closely for the
: next mile or so.
But from the version of Little Red Riding Hood I heard as a child it was
likely that Granny was already leading that wolf pack. (My Grandmother's
version left a distinct impression that old ladies were tougher, and more
savage, than they look. And versed in lycanthrophy.)
Mark Evans
--
Mark Evans
Established in 1951.
Kip Williams
Yes, it's been told in different ways. The way you're describing is
"Throwing the Baby to the Babushka."
Kristopher
>
> Yes, it's been told in different ways. The way you're
> describing is "Throwing the Baby to the Babushka."
W/bathwater
Kristopher
--
There may be some discomfort as you are extracted from reality...
Loren MacGregor
>
> Kip Williams wrote:
> >
> > Yes, it's been told in different ways. The way you're
> > describing is "Throwing the Baby to the Babushka."
>
> W/bathwater
Not if you're thinking of the little Russian dolls and grandmothers.
-- LJM
Kip Williams
But in that case you have to throw figures from the sleigh in the
order of size, starting with the largest and working down to the
smallest. Presumably, the baby's all alone in the sleigh by that
time and has to do its own jumping.
(One of us; One uf us. We are now complete.)
Martin Wisse
wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 00:42:46 GMT, Loren MacGregor
><churn...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>Joel Rosenberg wrote:
>>>
>>> Again, just to be clear: I don't know and don't pretend to know if Ed
>>> Kramer is a chicken hawk who the law has finally caught up with or
>>> some poor schlump who has been caught up in a witch hunt. If it's the
>>> former, he's already gotten a taste of what I think he deserves; it is
>>> the latter, the poor guy has been done a horrible injustice, which is
>>> only going to get worse, before it gets better, if ever.
>>
>>This pretty much sums up my feeling. As do the paragraphs I cut.
>
>Are you sure, Loren? Do you think a _chickenhawk_ deserves the kind
>of treatment Ed Kramer is getting/in for?
No. Justicve belongs in the justice system. The treatment of Ed Kramer,
whether or not he's guilty, is vile. It's vigilantism.
Martin Wisse
--
The series makes me think of those websites which keeps
opening new browser windows, and each of those windows
spawns more windows, until the whole system locks up.
Dan Krashin [about the Wheel of Time series]
Avedon Carol
Wisse) wrote:
>>On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 00:42:46 GMT, Loren MacGregor
>><churn...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Joel Rosenberg wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Again, just to be clear: I don't know and don't pretend to know if Ed
>>>> Kramer is a chicken hawk who the law has finally caught up with or
>>>> some poor schlump who has been caught up in a witch hunt. If it's the
>>>> former, he's already gotten a taste of what I think he deserves; it is
>>>> the latter, the poor guy has been done a horrible injustice, which is
>>>> only going to get worse, before it gets better, if ever.
>>>
>>>This pretty much sums up my feeling. As do the paragraphs I cut.
>>
>>Are you sure, Loren? Do you think a _chickenhawk_ deserves the kind
>>of treatment Ed Kramer is getting/in for?
>
>No. Justicve belongs in the justice system. The treatment of Ed Kramer,
>whether or not he's guilty, is vile. It's vigilantism.
Even assuming he's guilty, I want to know what he's actually guilty
_of_ before I'm going to agree that he deserves to go to jail. So
far, there doesn't seem to be any indication that he's actually raped
anyone. What it really sounds like is that people want to throw him
in jail for his presumed fantasies.
Keith F. Lynch
> Are you sure, Loren? Do you think a _chickenhawk_ deserves the kind
> of treatment Ed Kramer is getting/in for?
Loren Joseph MacGregor <lmac...@efn.org> wrote:
> I guess that someone who is late on delivering a program book for a
> conventions deserves everything they get, though.
Not to mention moving his convention to be opposite Worldcon! The
blackguard! String him up!
--
Keith F. Lynch - k...@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail sent to thousands of randomly collected
addresses is not acceptable, and I do complain to the spammer's ISP.
Keith Holder
>The treatment of Ed Kramer, whether or
>not he is guilty [of the felony of
>aggravated child molestation], is vile.
As has been stated Time & Again: A nerd-filk element on Usenet exists
that, if not outright NAMBLA-esque, desires to evince sentiments of
'benign neglect' toward pedophiles.
The treatment of the 'Founder of dragon*CON is not "vile," but such
opinions sympathetic to child molesters are.
Lis Carey
<13329-3AB...@storefull-158.iap.bryant.webtv.net>:
You seem to have missed the rather important point that, as of this
moment, Ed Kramer is merely accused of child molestation; we don't yet
know that he's guilty of child molestation.
In any case, we protect the rights of the accuse--whether or not we
believe them to be guilty--not primarily for the sake of the particular
person currently accused, but for the sake of everyone who might
someday be accused of some vile crime--a category which, since we
_know_ that innocent people are sometimes accused and even convicted,
most definitely includes ourselves.
Be scrupulous of the rights of the accused, no matter how guilty you
think they are; it may be your own future self you're protecting.
--
Lis Carey
Re-elect Gore in '04
Loren Joseph MacGregor
>>The treatment of Ed Kramer, whether or
>>not he is guilty [of the felony of
>>aggravated child molestation], is vile.
>As has been stated Time & Again: A nerd-filk element on Usenet exists
>that, if not outright NAMBLA-esque, desires to evince sentiments of
>'benign neglect' toward pedophiles.
Allegation. Apparently you know this exists. Who are the members
of this "nerd-filk element?" Where do they post? Can you give an
example of such a post?
>The treatment of the 'Founder of dragon*CON is not "vile," but such
>opinions sympathetic to child molesters are.
The treatment of -anyone- accused but not convicted of a crime,
which approves of and supports vigilante justice, is indeed vile.
As was said earlier to Nancy and Joe, if you have -personally-
witnessed acts which you believe to be illegal involving Ed
Kramer, you should be talking to authorities, not spreading malice
on usenet. If you have -not- witnessed such acts, but are only
going by hearsay, you should be ashamed of yourself.
And, finally, if you -have- witnessed such acts and have -not-
gone to the authorities, it would seem that you are a guilty party
as well.
So, which is it: You witnessed illegal acts, and did nothing,
you witnessed illegal acts and did nothing because of your own
complicity or fear of involvement, or you are spreading gossip
about which you have no firsthand knowledge?
There doesn't seem to be a fourth choice.
-- LJM
Dave Weingart
>>As has been stated Time & Again: A nerd-filk element on Usenet exists
>>that, if not outright NAMBLA-esque, desires to evince sentiments of
>>'benign neglect' toward pedophiles.
>
>Allegation. Apparently you know this exists. Who are the members
>of this "nerd-filk element?" Where do they post? Can you give an
>example of such a post?
Hmmm...well, I'm a nerd-filker.
I can't recall saying anyting about NAMBLA though.
--
73 de Dave Weingart KA2ESK This .signature deliberately
mailto:phyd...@liii.com left blank.
http://www.liii.com/~phydeaux
ICQ 57055207
Martin Wisse
Holder) wrote:
> Wisse-Piss:
Aahhh, such jocularity. Unmatched since kindergarten.
>>The treatment of Ed Kramer, whether or
>>not he is guilty [of the felony of
>>aggravated child molestation], is vile.
>
>
>As has been stated Time & Again: A nerd-filk element on Usenet exists
>that, if not outright NAMBLA-esque, desires to evince sentiments of
>'benign neglect' toward pedophiles.
Yes, and?
>The treatment of the 'Founder of dragon*CON is not "vile," but such
>opinions sympathetic to child molesters are.
Anything is excused when it's allllllllll about the childrunnnnnnnnn eh?
No ulterior motives whatsoever, of course.
You are still a nasty piece of shit.
Martin Wisse
--
Validate me! Give me eternal digital life! Quote me in your .sigs!
A cry for help from D. Joseph Creighton
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
[snippage of Loren making excellent points to a loathsome troll]
>So, which is it: You witnessed illegal acts, and did nothing,
>you witnessed illegal acts and did nothing because of your own
>complicity or fear of involvement, or you are spreading gossip
>about which you have no firsthand knowledge?
>
>There doesn't seem to be a fourth choice.
Solely in the spirit of rassef, I can think of a couple of additional choices.
4) He witnessed something, he went to the authorities, and he's _also_
spreading bile on Usenet. (I don't believe this for a minute; it's just
not logically excluded.)
5) He had a clairvoyant vision of illegal acts occurring, which he is
convinced is true but knows is inadmissible, so it will do no good to
go to the authorities, and he can only relieve the tension by spreading
bile on Usenet. (I don't believe this either.)
6) The truth or falsity of his accusations is irrelevant to him; he's just so
unhappy and frustrated in his own life that he feels the only way he can feel
better is to dump on somebody, and Ed's problems make him seem like a workable
target, and certainly one in no position to retaliate. (This I might believe,
although actually this is just another take on your choice #3.)
-- Alan
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WIN...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Physical mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 69, PO BOX 4349, STANFORD, CA 94309-0210
===============================================================================
David Burns
Dave Weingart <phyd...@liii.com> wrote in message
news:99qbv0$3q0$1...@cedar.ggn.net...
> One day in Teletubbyland, Loren Joseph MacGregor <lmac...@garcia.efn.org>
said:
> >>As has been stated Time & Again: A nerd-filk element on Usenet exists
> >>that, if not outright NAMBLA-esque, desires to evince sentiments of
> >>'benign neglect' toward pedophiles.
> >
> >Allegation. Apparently you know this exists. Who are the members
> >of this "nerd-filk element?" Where do they post? Can you give an
> >example of such a post?
>
> Hmmm...well, I'm a nerd-filker.
>
> I can't recall saying anyting about NAMBLA though.
obSouth Park: You mean no one has written a song about the National
Association of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes?
--
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
Loren MacGregor
>
> One day in Teletubbyland, Loren Joseph MacGregor <lmac...@garcia.efn.org> said:
> >>As has been stated Time & Again: A nerd-filk element on Usenet exists
> >>that, if not outright NAMBLA-esque, desires to evince sentiments of
> >>'benign neglect' toward pedophiles.
> >
> >Allegation. Apparently you know this exists. Who are the members
> >of this "nerd-filk element?" Where do they post? Can you give an
> >example of such a post?
>
> Hmmm...well, I'm a nerd-filker.
>
> I can't recall saying anyting about NAMBLA though.
I've said a fair amount about NAMBLA over the years. More to the
point, I've said that I was sexually active at the age of 12, that
it didn't seem to hurt me, that it was definitely my choice, and
that the experience didn't cause me to grow up to be a pederast. I
guess that makes me one of the people Keith Hudson (whose brilliant
brain causes him to come up with such marvelous and
thought-provoking bon mots as "Wisse-Piss" for Martin Wisse) is
talking about.
I can live with that.
-- LJM
Loren MacGregor
>
> In article <99q5gl$4ua$1...@news.efn.org>, Loren Joseph MacGregor <lmac...@garcia.efn.org> writes:
>
> [snippage of Loren making excellent points to a loathsome troll]
>
> >So, which is it: You witnessed illegal acts, and did nothing,
> >you witnessed illegal acts and did nothing because of your own
> >complicity or fear of involvement, or you are spreading gossip
> >about which you have no firsthand knowledge?
> >
> >There doesn't seem to be a fourth choice.
>
> Solely in the spirit of rassef, I can think of a couple of additional > choices.
>
> 4) He witnessed something, he went to the authorities, and he's _also_
> spreading bile on Usenet. (I don't believe this for a minute; it's just
> not logically excluded.)
That's true. I don't believe it either, but it is possible.
> 5) He had a clairvoyant vision of illegal acts occurring, which he is
> convinced is true but knows is inadmissible, so it will do no good to
> go to the authorities, and he can only relieve the tension by spreading
> bile on Usenet. (I don't believe this either.)
Well, this is a skiffy group, so clairvoyance is allowed I suppose.
> 6) The truth or falsity of his accusations is irrelevant to him; he's
> just so unhappy and frustrated in his own life that he feels the only
> way he can feel better is to dump on somebody, and Ed's problems make
> him seem like a workable target, and certainly one in no position to
> retaliate. (This I might believe, although actually this is just
> another take on your choice #3.)
Yeah, I can see that, too. Or even:
7) He wants to curry favor with someone, and has decided that this
kind of attack is a good way to do so with the people concerned.
-- LJM
D. Potter
argive. Yeah, that's right:
But you're not a filker. (Perhaps Mr. Hudson is assuming a nonexistent
dichotomy. Many do.)
It seems to bug these people no end that we aren't interested in casting Mr. K.
into deepest Tartarus before there has been a trial. Many signs point to there
having been a falling out among Thebes.
I mean thieves. Thieves.
However, my evil and grinsome twin (no, not that one, the other one) also
wishes to note that the word "Myrmidons" always reminds me of the end of
"Repent, Harlequin..." That is, that the proper response to these folks, and
their socks, is "Mrmee, mrmee, mrmee."
PS: You are one of the people about whom the narrow-minded cannot wrap their
minds.
Good.
--
D. Potter
Spring Training *at last*. (And Puck's elected to the Hall of Fame [Robin
Goodfellow swings mean bat.]!)
Ray Radlein
>
>
> [snippage of Loren making excellent points to a loathsome troll]
>
> >So, which is it: You witnessed illegal acts, and did nothing,
> >you witnessed illegal acts and did nothing because of your own
> >complicity or fear of involvement, or you are spreading gossip
> >about which you have no firsthand knowledge?
> >
> >There doesn't seem to be a fourth choice.
>
> Solely in the spirit of rassef, I can think of a couple of
> additional choices.
>
> 4) He witnessed something, he went to the authorities, and he's
> _also_ spreading bile on Usenet. (I don't believe this for a
> minute; it's just not logically excluded.)
>
> 5) He had a clairvoyant vision of illegal acts occurring, which
> he is convinced is true but knows is inadmissible, so it will do
> no good to go to the authorities, and he can only relieve the
> tension by spreading bile on Usenet. (I don't believe this
> either.)
>
> 6) The truth or falsity of his accusations is irrelevant to him;
> he's just so unhappy and frustrated in his own life that he feels
> the only way he can feel better is to dump on somebody, and Ed's
> problems make him seem like a workable target, and certainly one
> in no position to retaliate. (This I might believe, although
> actually this is just another take on your choice #3.)
Oh, I can think of a few even *less* charitable hypothetical
possibilites:
(7) He is making as much noise as he can in a frantic effort to
internally shout down his own barely-repressed urges.
(8) He is attempting to divert attention away from his own actions.
(9) He has no idea what he is actually posting or why. The voices just
won't shut up and leave him alone.
I think that leaves the limbo bar of insulting speculation pretty
darned near the ground.
- Ray R.
--
*********************************************************************
"Right now, it looks like a hunter; but if you push this button,
here, and fold it like so, it turns into... a deer!"
"What a cute little doll!"
"Please! It's not a *doll* -- it's an *Actaeon Figure*!"
Ray Radlein - r...@learnlink.emory.edu
homepage coming soon! wooo, wooo.
*********************************************************************
Marilee J. Layman
8) He's a child molester himself and wants to deflect the attention.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
Well, if you're going to make it a challenge . . . Can we get below
grond level?
(10) Keith posts so rarely because they only take the inmates on field
trips to the library every so often.
(11) He has no independent existence and is in fact a posting-bot programmed
by a thirteen-year-old script kiddie possessed by the ghost of Joseph
McCarthy.
Kip Williams
9) It's part of an urgent deception involving alien invasion.
10) It's a dream, imaginary story, or alternate universe.
11) Monkeys on keyboards strike again.
12) There is an explanation, but security prevents sharing it.
13) Performance art.
Irv Koch
> grond level?
>
> (10) Keith posts so rarely because they only take the inmates on field
> trips to the library every so often.
(13) He is a troll from Winder, GA*, who may be trying to curry favor
with a minor Horror Author in the GA metro area.** He hates sf&f fans
because even the most miserable of them manage to create a better social
life than he has. He has been run out of alt.cats.meow or some such,
for posting roast cat recipes.
By the way, a long time ago I knew the lady who ran the library in a
state prison vaguely in his direction. It was inside the building. I
wonder, as a serious question how they handle internet access. My wife
and many many friends are librarians in a variety of settings; any
useful library now has internet stations for the patrons. "Filtering"
and "supervision" are hot issues and will remain so for quite a while.
Therefore, I truly wonder how they handle this in prisons?
* I claim this is in the "metro area." I grant that such is debatable.
** My information is sufficiently unreliable that I won't name names in
public.
Dorothy J Heydt
>11) Monkeys on keyboards strike again.
Not cats?
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
Joel Rosenberg
"Irv Koch" <irv...@pop.a001.sprintmail.com> wrote in message
>
> By the way, a long time ago I knew the lady who ran the library in a
> state prison vaguely in his direction. It was inside the building. I
> wonder, as a serious question how they handle internet access. My wife
> and many many friends are librarians in a variety of settings; any
> useful library now has internet stations for the patrons. "Filtering"
> and "supervision" are hot issues and will remain so for quite a while.
> Therefore, I truly wonder how they handle this in prisons?
That's easily: badly.
They'll probably just default to shutting off access entirely. (I think
there are good arguments for limiting/restricting convicted prisoners'
outgoing information or incoming information, but few if any good arguments
for stifling both.) As I've said before, it wouldn't bother me at all if
the incarcerated get HBO or The Sex Channel in their cells.
Bernard Peek
<churn...@home.com> writes
>Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr wrote:
>> 5) He had a clairvoyant vision of illegal acts occurring, which he is
>> convinced is true but knows is inadmissible, so it will do no good to
>> go to the authorities, and he can only relieve the tension by spreading
>> bile on Usenet. (I don't believe this either.)
>
>Well, this is a skiffy group, so clairvoyance is allowed I suppose.
But can he be sure that his clairvoyance showed him what was happening
in this universe and not a parallel one?
[...]
>7) He wants to curry favor with someone, and has decided that this
>kind of attack is a good way to do so with the people concerned.
Definitely plausible if the people in question wear badges and carry
guns.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
b...@shrdlu.co.uk
Kristopher
>
> In article <3AC1E3E6...@home.com>,
> Kip Williams <ki...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> 11) Monkeys on keyboards strike again.
>
> Not cats?
Cats have better taste than to write such things.
Thomas Womack
> By the way, a long time ago I knew the lady who ran the library in a
> state prison vaguely in his direction. It was inside the building. I
> wonder, as a serious question how they handle internet access.
The last interview with prison officials I saw that mentioned this sort of
thing said that they didn't want to allow the inmates anywhere near a
computer "because they'll hack into Barclays' Bank as soon as look at it".
This was a couple of years ago; things may be more enlightened by now, but I
somehow doubt it.
Also, I believe inmates' paper mail is still fairly strongly censored in
Britain; given that, and given that it's difficult to arrange a Net
connection without covert outward channels, I'd be very surprised were they
permitted.
Tom
Ed Dravecky III
> obSouth Park: You mean no one has written a song about the
> National Association of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes?
"NAMBLA? Those bastards stole our name."
"And our domain name!"
--
Ed Dravecky III
ed3 at panix dot com "I have no life--just e-mail." -The Norm
Kip Williams
>
> In article <3AC1E3E6...@home.com>, Kip Williams <ki...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >11) Monkeys on keyboards strike again.
>
> Not cats?
They just don't have the attention span.
To produce the published speeches of Dan Quayle would take cats
dozens, maybe hundreds of years; monkeys can do it in a few hours.
Ray Radlein
>
> Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> >
> > Kip Williams <ki...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > >11) Monkeys on keyboards strike again.
> >
> > Not cats?
>
> They just don't have the attention span.
>
> To produce the published speeches of Dan Quayle would take cats
> dozens, maybe hundreds of years; monkeys can do it in a few hours.
Well, that's *one* explanation that fits the observable facts.
David G. Bell
djh...@kithrup.com "Dorothy J Heydt" wrote:
> In article <3AC1E3E6...@home.com>, Kip Williams <ki...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >11) Monkeys on keyboards strike again.
>
> Not cats?
Would cats have people like that?
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
If I were to go back to my schooldays, knowing what I know now, I would
pack cheese sandwiches for lunch.
Jo Walton
t...@womack.net "Thomas Womack" writes:
And you only get two books a week.
Two books a week, and no net access.
Now _that's_ deterrence.
--
Jo J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
I kissed a kif at Kefk
Locus Recommended First Novel: *THE KING'S PEACE* out now from Tor.
Sample Chapters, Map, Poems, & stuff at http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk
mike weber
<mjla...@erols.com> typed
>8) He's a child molester himself and wants to deflect the attention.
>
Granny. Sleigh.
--
=============================================================
"They put manure in his well and they made him talk to lawyers!"
-- Cat Ballou
mike weber -- kras...@mindspring.com
Book Reviews & More -- http://electronictiger.com
mike weber
typed
>"Irv Koch" <irv...@pop.a001.sprintmail.com> wrote
>
>> By the way, a long time ago I knew the lady who ran the library in a
>> state prison vaguely in his direction. It was inside the building. I
>> wonder, as a serious question how they handle internet access.
>
>The last interview with prison officials I saw that mentioned this sort of
>thing said that they didn't want to allow the inmates anywhere near a
>computer "because they'll hack into Barclays' Bank as soon as look at it".
>This was a couple of years ago; things may be more enlightened by now, but I
>somehow doubt it.
>
"Tank MacNamara" did a series a few years ago inspired by mail order
houses using convict labour to take phone orders, including credit
card info...