IS OUTING ETHICAL?
Big Bri
for gays to out other gays. I think that gays have a right to privacy. If
they want to tell the world of their sexual orientation, they have the
right to do so. But they also have the right to keep it quiet if they
prefer. I think it's selfish of some gay activist groups to violate some
homosexuals right to privacy for their selfish purposes. NOTE: I am
not a homophobe and I do not think any less of homosexuals than of hetero
sexuals. I think they have the same rights as everyone else, including
the right to privacy. You may not respect their decision to keep it quiet,
but you should respect their right to do so.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL is a bleeding heart liberal card-carrying member of the ACLU.
CLARKSON '95
FARE...@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU
"Yassir Arafat had a terrible accident. He tried to fax a mail bomb...."
---Johnny Carson
ryerson.schwark
>I think the subject says it all. Personally, I think it's very unethical
>for gays to out other gays.
For a bleeding heart liberal you haven't learned the important lesson
of shutting your mouth and opening your ears. The issue is vastly
more convoluted than your simple analysis and strikes to the heart of
many issues facing the gay community and your volunteered opinion from
the sidelines isn't helping. Mind you we don't necessarily object to
by-standers, but walking into our party and saying "I don't know anything
about you, but I'd like to give you my opinion" isn't likely to meet
with a friendly reception.
Why don't you spend a little time thinking about:
1) gay rights is not about right to privacy. It is about the right
to openness. It is about walking down main street and kissing your
lover on the corner in full view like all the strayts do.
2) Privacy implies secret implies bad. As long as our sexuality is
something that shouldn't be talked about, we'll be something that should
be tolerated.
3) Why is it different saying "Johnny Depp likes to take it up the butt
and is queer as a three dollar bill" and "Johnny Depp likes the color
red"?
Ry Schwark
r...@usl.com
Terrance Heath
I have argued about outing with several people inthe gay community here, adn I have come full cirlce in how I feel about it. I still, however, believe it my be justified in the gays of public figures who are privately gay and publicly homophobic. In other words, I think people who privately enjoy what the gay community has to offer its membvers while publicly doing things to hurt the gay community, should have their hypocisy exposed. Unless we can, by consensus, oust these people from our organizat
ions, our bars and our beds, outing them seems to be an effective means of exposing their hypocrisy and thus stopping them from doing further damage to the rest of us.
Others have told me that I must consider the mode of punishment, that homophobic gays who have public support will - when exposed - be punished by that straight public for their homosexuality, rather than their hypocrisy. However, say in the case of a politician who is privately gay and publicy anti-gay, if we do not expose them they may continue to get a majority of public support. Some will suggests electing openly gay candidates as a solution, but in a homophobic district, an openly gay candidate
may not likely be elected. So what to do, other than outing?
I'm interested in hearing how other people feel about using outing as a sort of political weapon, or about other strategies if we feel we can't ethically out people.
Terrance Heath
abe...@enh.nist.gov
|>I think it's very unethical for gays...
|>I think that gays...
|>I think it's selfish of some gay activist groups...
|>for their selfish purposes.
|>you should respect their right...
|>NOTE: I am not a homophobe and I do not think any less of homosexuals than
|>of heterosexuals.
Thank you for sharing. We'll do exactly as you say now that we've seen
the light.
__
Sim David Aberson Ft. Lauderdale, FL aberson%3338...@sdsc.edu \/
Jake Coughlin
> I think the subject says it all. Personally, I think it's very unethical
> for gays to out other gays. I think that gays have a right to privacy.
gays should have the same basic rights as anyone else in this
country. unfortunately, some gays are hypocritical with their
stance on civil rights. do you think it's fair that we protect
those gays who actively damage our movement?
on a side issue, the queer movement isn't so concered with the
right to privacy, rather it's concerned with the right to
publicity. i can partake of all heterosexual priviledges if
i keep my sexuality private -- it's only when i'm public that i
need to defend my rights.
--
Jason Coughlin ( ja...@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com )
Queer Without A Cause!
"I find myself suddenly in the world, and I recognize that I have one
right alone: that of demanding human behavior of the other." -- Fanon
Big Bri
>In a previous article, fare...@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Big Bri) wrote:
>|>I think it's very unethical for gays...
>|>I think that gays...
>|>I think it's selfish of some gay activist groups...
>|>for their selfish purposes.
>|>you should respect their right...
>|>NOTE: I am not a homophobe and I do not think any less of homosexuals than
>|>of heterosexuals.
>Thank you for sharing. We'll do exactly as you say now that we've seen
>the light.
In your attempt to be sarcastic you neglected to answer the question.
ryerson.schwark
>>Thank you for sharing. We'll do exactly as you say now that we've seen
>>the light.
>In your attempt to be sarcastic you neglected to answer the question.
Some of us think he answered it just fine. If you don't like it, why
don't you stand up and answer it?
Ry Schwark
r...@usl.com
abe...@enh.nist.gov
>In your attempt to be sarcastic you neglected to answer the question.
No I didn't.
Clues for sale.
Jess Anderson
>abe...@enh.nist.gov writes:
In focusing on the sarcasm, you've neglected to examine
whether you actually *have* a question. Though you may
think you do, the evidence is much plainer than you seem to
think that you do not, for you've not given any of the
issues any serious or probing thought yet. That may take
you quite some time, should you wish to pursue the matter.
--
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: ande...@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
NeXTmail w/attachments: ande...@yak.macc.wisc.edu Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888
Big Bri
I guess you are right. He did answer it with his saracasm but I guess I
assumed that people would give reasons for believing as they do. This person
did not.
I believe I stated my reasons for believing it's unethical. People have to
right to keep their sexual orientation private if they so desire. They also
have the same right to make it public and be proud of it if they so desire.
I certainly have more respect for those who aren't ashamed of who they are
but I also respect the privacy rights of those who don't.
(exception: those are homophobes in public and homosexual or bisexual
in private are an exception and should be outed, IMHO)
Perhaps the question should have been phrased:
Do you think outing is ethical? WHY OR WHY NOT?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Some obviously think it's ethical. I respect the fact that they disagree with
my opinion but I simply want to know why.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL is a bleeding heart liberal card-carrying member of the ACLU.
CLARKSON '95
FARE...@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU
"Yassir Arafat had a terrible accident. He tried to fax a mail bomb...."
---Johnny Carson
[most bleeding heart liberals believe in the right to privacy as much as freedom
of speech]
Jari Junikka
>I think the subject says it all. Personally, I think it's very unethical
>for gays to out other gays. I think that gays have a right to privacy. If
>they want to tell the world of their sexual orientation, they have the
>right to do so. But they also have the right to keep it quiet if they
>prefer. I think it's selfish of some gay activist groups to violate some
>homosexuals right to privacy for their selfish purposes. NOTE: I am
>not a homophobe and I do not think any less of homosexuals than of hetero
>sexuals. I think they have the same rights as everyone else, including
>the right to privacy. You may not respect their decision to keep it quiet,
>but you should respect their right to do so.
Two quotations from Queers Read This:
Being queer is not about a right to privacy; it is about the
freedom to be public, to just be who we are. It means everyday
fighting oppression; homophobia, racism, misogyny, the bigotry
of religious hypocrites and our own self-hatred. (We have been
carefully taught to hate ourselves.) And now of course it means
fighting a virus as well, and all those homo-haters who are using
AIDS to wipe us off the face of the earth. Being queer means
leading a different sort of life. It's not about the mainstream,
profit-margins, patriotism, patriarchy or being assimilated.
It's not about executive directors, privilege and elitism. It's
about being on the margins, defining ourselves; it's about
gender-fuck and secrets, what's beneath the belt and deep inside
the heart; it's about the night. Being queer is "grass roots"
because we know that everyone of us, every body, every cunt,
every heart and ass and dick is a world of pleasure waiting to
be explored. Everyone of us is a world of infinite possibility.
We are an army because we have to be. We are an army because
we are so powerful. (We have so much to fight for; we are the
most precious of endangered species.) And we are an army of
lovers because it is we who know what love is. Desire and lust,
too. We invented them. We come out of the closet, face the
rejection of society, face firing squads, just to love each other!
Every time we fuck, we win. We must fight for ourselves (no one
else is going to do it) and if in that process we bring greater
freedom to the world at large then great. (We've given so much
to that world: democracy, all the arts, the concepts of love,
philosophy and the soul, to name just a few gifts from our
ancient Greek Dykes, Fags.) Let's make every space a Lesbian
and Gay space. Every street a part of our sexual geography.
A city of yearning and then total satisfaction. A city and
a country where we can be safe and free and more. We must look
at our lives and see what's best in them, see what is queer and
what is straight and let that straight chaff fall away! Remember
there is so, so little time. And I want to be a lover of each
and every one of you. Next year, we march naked.
and
I hate straight people who think they have anything intelligent
to say about "outing." I hate straight people who think stories
about themselves are "universal" but stories about us are only
about homosexuality. I hate straight recording artists who
make their careers off of queer people, then attack us, then
act hurt when we get angry and then deny having wronged us
rather than apologize for it. I hate straight people who say,
"I don't see why you feel the need to wear those buttons and
t-shirts. I don't go around telling the whole world I'm straight."
I hate that in twelve years of public education I was never
taught about queer people. I hate that I grew up thinking I was
the only queer in the world, and I hate even more that most queer
kids still grow up the same way. I hate that I was tormented by
other kids for being a faggot, but more that I was taught to
feel ashamed for being the object of their cruelty, taught to
feel it was my fault. I hate that the Supreme Court of this
country says it's okay to criminalize me because of how I make
love. I hate that so many straight people are so concerned about
my goddamned sex life. I hate that so many twisted straight
people become parents, while I have to fight like hell to be
allowed to be a father. I hate straights.
Jari Junikka
>fare...@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Big Bri):
>> I think the subject says it all. Personally, I think it's very unethical
>> for gays to out other gays. I think that gays have a right to privacy.
>gays should have the same basic rights as anyone else in this
>country. unfortunately, some gays are hypocritical with their
>stance on civil rights. do you think it's fair that we protect
>those gays who actively damage our movement?
I don't get the meaning of the Jake's second sentence.
Hypocritical in what way?
jari
Steve Dyer
>Do you think outing is ethical? WHY OR WHY NOT?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Who cares?
Now fuck off.
--
Steve Dyer
dy...@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Rod Williams
>I believe I stated my reasons for believing it's unethical. People have to
>right to keep their sexual orientation private if they so desire. They also
>have the same right to make it public and be proud of it if they so desire.
>I certainly have more respect for those who aren't ashamed of who they are
>but I also respect the privacy rights of those who don't.
>(exception: those are homophobes in public and homosexual or bisexual
> in private are an exception and should be outed, IMHO)
What pious nonsense -- nobody talks about heterosexuals' right
to keep their sexual orientation private. Some of us wish they
would, instead of slobbering all over each other in public,
while accusing *queers* of "flaunting their sexuality" for having
the temerity to mention that they're gay. People are *expected*
to be heterosexual and everything in our society is geared to
the *public* celebration of *that* sexual orientation. When you
say people have the right to keep their sexual orientation private,
you're not doing queers any favors -- you're saying you want us to
stay invisible.
It's assumed that all celebrities are straight, and their love
lives --real or lubriciously imagined -- are splashed all over
the media whether they like it or not But if they're gay or
lesbian, and refuse to play the game by being seen publicly with
a bimbo of the appropriate sex, the media is suddenly silent --
it's "lifelong bachelor" this and "still hasn't found Mr. Right"
that.
It's ironic that you leap on the ethics of "outing" right now,
when the same media that piously condemns the "outing" of gay and
lesbian celebrities jumps at the chance to "out" Arthur Ashe as
a PWA. Oh, but that's "a legitimate news story". Excuse me?
As someone already suggested, it might be a good idea for you
to sit quietly and read this newsgroup for a while before you
ask more silly questions.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
rod williams -=- pacific bell -=- san francisco -=- rjw...@pacbell.com
Joel B Levin
QUEERS READ THIS should be posted once a month.
/J
Jess Anderson
In article <MJD.92Ap...@saul.cis.upenn.edu>
m...@saul.cis.upenn.edu (Not Henry Jones Junior in disguise),
he of the dorky personal name field, exhibits the behavior
he decries:
>In article <1992Apr19.1...@macc.wisc.edu>
>ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
HDPNF writes, in response to a perfectly reasonable posting
by a predecessor, standard sophomoric twaddle:
>>>Gee, I thought it was about freedom and choice and dignity.
Yeah, and common sense, too, like you were saying something
no one else on earth ever heard of.
>>Gee, don't you think kissing your lover without fear is a
>>freedom?
>Yes, but it's not the only freedom.
No, but it's the one you put down.
>>Don't you think kissing your lover without fear is
>>dignified?
>Yes, but it's not the only dignity.
No, but it's another you put down.
>>Don't you think wanting to live your own life
>>without fear is a useful choice? I sure do.
>That is just a concatentation. To want is not a choice.
The question means something. Try to answer it.
>Nevertheless, I could say that people should be able to make
>the choice they want to, and not just the one choice that
>happens to support your argument.
The phrase "the one choice that happens to support your
argument" is a figment of your belabored thinking, not part
of a point the preceding poster or I made. It suggests you
don't read very well.
>I want people to have freedom, dignity, and choice on their
>own terms, and not just on yours.
Everybody wants that, of course. But your snot-nosed remark
to the person ahead of you was rude and uncalled for. I was
not advancing my choices but denouncing your having
ridiculed someone else's choices, as though you knew
something they didn't. Given who it was, that would be
a miracle akin to virgin birth.
>>Snide will get you snide right back.
>You are playing sophomoric word games.
I'm not, but you are. If you weren't, you would have taken
up the serious point I made about abstractions. Try that
and maybe we'll have some decent converse.
Jake Coughlin
> I would assume that most people on this net believe outing is ethical
> (since almost no one agreed with my original posting).
what is it with people that they extrapolate limited experiences to
these universal statements? i'll bet that if they saw only 1 red gum
ball in a packet of gum balls, they wouldn't conclude that all packets
of gum balls contain 1 and only 1 red gum ball. and yet, we have been
*plagued* by those making ridiculous broad sweeping statements about
people -- one would conclude that homophobes never chomped gum as
children!
> What is so
> wrong with wanting to know your reasons, and in turn, know more about
> the subject?!
there's nothing wrong with this, but why don't you check out your
original posting again? arne's sarcasm might not have been all that
sarcastic in hindsight...
Tim Pierce
>BRI FARENELL is a bleeding heart liberal card-carrying member of the ACLU.
>CLARKSON '95
And a freshling.
--
____ Tim Pierce / "Well, there's homosexuality in all animals
\ / twpi...@amherst.edu / but one, and that's the pig. If it weren't
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / for homosexuals we'd all have to live like
pigs." -- overheard at Sydney Mardi Gras
ryerson.schwark
>
> Nevertheless, I could say that people should be able to make the
>choice they want to, and not just the one choice that happens to support
>your argument.
>
>and not just on yours.
Vapid bullshit. What does this MEAN?
>
>> Snide will get you snide right back.
>
>You are playing sophomoric word games.
He's just trying to communicate with you on your own level.
Ry Schwark
r...@usl.com
David R. Preston
>A twit writes:
>> I would assume that most people on this net believe outing is ethical
>> (since almost no one agreed with my original posting).
>
>what is it with people that they extrapolate limited experiences to
>these universal statements?
They can't accept the fact that they are not worthy of
notice. The twit says "almost no one agreed" -- the fact
is almost no one paid any attention to it at all.... I'm
just glad it takes so little time for articles to be KILL'd
on this machine.
--
David R. Preston d...@dosbears.uucp
Information gladly given but safety requires
the avoidance of unnecessary conversation.
D. R. Preston 584 Castro St. #614 SF CA 94114 USA
Donn F. Pedro
>>Who cares?
>
>Me...or I wouldn't have asked the question.
>
>>Now fuck off.
>
>Yes, God.
Funny. I thought Clapton was GOD!
Donn Pedro ...................{uunet, sequent}!uswnvg!dfpedro.
Seek dis-illusionment.
Donn F. Pedro
>
>>to sit quietly and read this newsgroup for a while before you
>>ask more silly questions.
>
Evidence says not.
>I would assume that most people on this net believe outing is ethical
>(since almost no one agreed with my original posting).
You and Clayton should do lunch. Sweeping generalizations from
the statments of a few.
>I assume you have
^^^^^^
I noticed.
>reasons for believing as you do and are not arbitrary people. What is so
>wrong with wanting to know your reasons, and in turn, know more about
>the subject?!
It's the assumptions you make as you ask your questions.
Big Bri
>>I assume you have
> ^^^^^^
>I noticed.
>>reasons for believing as you do and are not arbitrary people. What is so
>>wrong with wanting to know your reasons, and in turn, know more about
>>the subject?!
>It's the assumptions you make as you ask your questions.
Let me restate the original question:
"I assume you have reasons for believing as you do and are not arbitrary
people. What is so wrong with wanting to know your reasons..."
He says: "It's the assumptions you make as you ask your questions"
Are my assumptions wrong? Are soc.motss'ers arbitrary people?
I hope not.
---------------------------BRI FARENELL-----------------------------------
FARE...@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU=====CLARKSON UNIV. CLASS OF '95
A "carping little liberal Democrat" and a card-carrying member of the ACLU.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The most violent element of society is ignorance." ---Emma Goodman
"The lust for power is rooted not in strength, but in weakness."
---Erich Fromm
ryerson.schwark
>
>I hope not.
We're as arbitrary, more or less, as the rest of the world. We're not Homo
saints, we're Homo faeries, and some days the sound of church bells hurt
our ears.
Jess Anderson
In article <1992Apr24.0...@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
r...@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (ryerson.schwark) writes:
>In article <farenebt....@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>
>fare...@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Big Bri) writes:
>>Are my assumptions wrong? Are soc.motss'ers arbitrary people?
>We're as arbitrary, more or less, as the rest of the world.
>We're not Homo saints, we're Homo faeries, and some days the
>sound of church bells hurt our ears.
All right, Bri, you should quit fooling around now and answer
the question (I think) Owen posed: why *are* you hanging out
here? And please, let's have a somewhat reasoned answer.
D. Owen Rowley
>"I assume you have reasons for believing as you do and are not arbitrary
>people. What is so wrong with wanting to know your reasons..."
Ok. heres the answer.
we don't need or have no stinkin reasons, so your assumtion is incorrect.
we cannot be arbitrary, because we do not act together, we live together
What is wrong is asking a newsgroup fullof people to fill you in
about something that doesn't exist.
Now .. all together...
*well why didn't you say so in the first place you nasty queers are makin'
fun of me .... duh!
>He says: "It's the assumptions you make as you ask your questions"
>Are my assumptions wrong? Are soc.motss'ers arbitrary people?
>I hope not.
Oy, soc.motss'ers are diverse people and yes making assumptions is
arbitrary.
LUX .. owen
--
D. Owen Rowley .. Note this acct is not my primary USENET access
mail gets to me quicker if you send it to ow...@autodesk.com
*No matter where you go, there you are.*
P.S. Powledge
> Are my assumptions wrong? Are soc.motss'ers arbitrary people?
You know, I'm getting really tired of this "you gays" and "you soc.motss'ers"
tone in your postings.
It reminds me of when David Dinkins was running for Mayor of New York a few years ago, and the press seemed to hold him personally responsible for everything Louis Farrakhan (sp, no doubt) ever said, did or thought:
"Well, hell, they both have ancestors from Africa; they *must* be in cahoots!!!"
This attitude says to me, *I'm* a real human being who wants to be judged
on my own merits and demerits, but *you're* just a part of some gigantic
congealed, undifferentiated mass. You'd no doubt think it was ridiculous
if I started writing postings that implied that all heterosexual men
were identical -- as if Richard Speck, Raymond Carver, and Paul Tsongas were all essentially interchangeable beings. But that's what I get from all
these "what do you gays think about ..." and "you gays aren't being very
nice to me!" postings.
And I must say, it seems *especially* ridiculous to wear these blinders in
soc.motss. I can't think of a forum with as many wildly disparate voices as
you have here. If you challenged me to fill in the sentence, "soc.motss'ers
think <A> about <B>," I simply couldn't do it. If a Vincent Manis posting
sounds just like a Melinda Shore posting which sounds just like a Chris
Black posting which sounds just like a Arnold Zwicky (BTW: congratulations!)
posting, then I think you're not reading very carefully.
--
||| Polly Powledge
||| Internet: P.S.Po...@ATT.COM
||| Uucp: att!hrmso!psp
Melinda Shore
> sounds just like a Melinda Shore posting which sounds just like a Chris
> Black posting which sounds just like a Arnold Zwicky (BTW: congratulations!)
> posting, then I think you're not reading very carefully.
Damn. I must not be doing it right - I would like very much for
my postings to sound like any one of these others.
--
Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - sh...@tc.cornell.edu
David R. Preston
I just received the following:
Subject: Delivery Report (failure) for soc-...@uknet.ac.uk
Message-Type: Delivery Report
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 18:58:13 +0100
Message-Id: <"eros.uknet.540:24.03.92.17.56.47"@uknet.ac.uk>
Content-Identifier: Re: IGLE: Bro...
Status: R
------------------------------ Start of body part 1
This report relates to your message: Re: IGLE: Bro...
of Fri, 24 Apr 1992 18:56:42 +0100
Your message was not delivered to
soc-...@uknet.ac.uk for the following reason:
Bad Address
Unknown local user 'soc-motss'
And so on. If anyone wants the complete delivery report,
send me mail....
--
Disclaimer: This disclaimer is not required by Leader Kibo. This article
does not necessarily represent the opinions of Leader Kibo. Have a nice
day.
********* HAPPYNET: YOU CONTROL HOW IT CONTROLS YOU *********
Ken Sherrill
LDK
adolphson
| Have the bogus newgroup messages disrupted soc.motss in the UK?
| I just received the following:
|
| Subject: Delivery Report (failure) for soc-...@uknet.ac.uk
| Message-Type: Delivery Report
I received one of these too, but I deleted it. If I receive another
should I save it?
Arne
Jack Hamilton
>I just received the following:
>
>Subject: Delivery Report (failure) for soc-...@uknet.ac.uk
>Message-Type: Delivery Report
>Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 18:58:13 +0100
>Message-Id: <"eros.uknet.540:24.03.92.17.56.47"@uknet.ac.uk>
>Content-Identifier: Re: IGLE: Bro...
>Status: R
I've gotten one or two of those. I also got one from uunet.uu.net.
--
------------------------------------
Jack Hamilton j...@netcom.com
Gene Ward Smith
ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>All right, Bri, you should quit fooling around now and answer
>the question (I think) Owen posed: why *are* you hanging out
>here? And please, let's have a somewhat reasoned answer.
I think he's trying to educate himself. So far it has been a crash
course.
--
Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University
gsm...@concour.cs.concordia.ca
Ailsa N.T. Murphy
if i get more, if someone says they are needed... and here i was
all excited that i had gotten a lot of mail... *pout*
-ailsa
Ailsa N.T. Murphy
uknet, and one from somewhere ELSE that is bouncing stuff now!
i don't think the hackers love us anymore, do you?
WHEN IS SOMEBODY GOING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THESE BROTHERFUCKERS????
-ailsa
+++++++ +++++++ +++++++ +++++++ +++++++ +++++++ +++++++ +++++++ +++++++
Received: from UKNET-RE(POSTMAST) by MAINE(IO81409) id 2995; (MAIL R2.5) Sat,
25 Apr 92 19:43:48 EDT
Received: from MAINE by MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Mailer R2.03A) with BSMTP id 9903;
Sat, 25 Apr 92 19:17:30 EDT
Received: from sun3.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk by MAINE.maine.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
with TCP; Sat, 25 Apr 92 19:17:13 EDT
Via: cogsci.edinburgh.ac.uk; Sun, 26 Apr 1992 00:12:41 +0100
Received: from uknet.ac.uk by eros.uknet.ac.uk id <755...@eros.uknet.ac.uk>;
Sat, 25 Apr 1992 23:48:13 +0100
From: postm...@uknet-relay.ac.uk
To: IO81409 <@cogsci.edinburgh.ac.uk:IO8...@edu.MAINE.MAINE>
Subject: Delivery Report (failure) for soc-...@uknet.ac.uk
Message-Type: Delivery Report
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1992 23:48:13 +0100
Message-Id: <"eros.uknet.918:25.03.92.19.49.36"@uknet.ac.uk>
Content-Identifier: Re: soc-motss...
------------------------------ Start of body part 1
This report relates to your message: Re: soc-motss...
of Sat, 25 Apr 1992 20:49:34 +0100
Your message was not delivered to
soc-...@uknet.ac.uk for the following reason:
Bad Address
Unknown local user 'soc-motss'
***** The following information is directed towards the local administrator
***** and is not intended for the end user
*
* DR generated by mta eros.uknet.ac.uk
* in /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/
* at Sat, 25 Apr 1992 20:49:36 +0100
*
* Converted to RFC 822 at eros.uknet.ac.uk
* at Sat, 25 Apr 1992 23:48:13 +0100
*
* Delivery Report Contents:
*
* Subject-Submission-Identifier: [/PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD=GOLD
400/C=GB/;<92116.021...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>]
* Content-Identifier: Re: soc-motss...
* Subject-Intermediate-Trace-Information: /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/;
* arrival Sat, 25 Apr 1992 20:49:34 +0100 action Relayed
* Subject-Intermediate-Trace-Information: /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/;
* arrival Sat, 25 Apr 1992 07:11:30 +0100 action Relayed
* Recipient-Info: soc-...@uknet.ac.uk,
* /S=soc-motss/O=UKnet/PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/;
* FAILURE reason Unable-To-Transfer (1);
* diagnostic Unrecognised-ORName (0);
* last trace (ia5) Sat, 25 Apr 1992 07:11:30 +0100;
* supplementary info "Unknown local user 'soc-motss'";
****** End of administration information
The Original Message follows:
------------------------------ Start of forwarded message 1
Received: from cogsci.ed.ac.uk by eros.uknet.ac.uk via JANET with NIFTP (PP)
id <191...@eros.uknet.ac.uk>; Sat, 25 Apr 1992 20:49:36 +0100
To: soc-...@uk.ac.uknet
Path:
edcogsci!edcastle!uknet!mcsun!uunet!centerline!noc.near.net!mars.caps.maine.edu
!maine.maine.edu!io81409
From: IO8...@edu.MAINE.MAINE (Ailsa N.T. Murphy)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: soc-motss@uknet
Message-Id: <92116.021...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Date: 25 Apr 92 06:11:30 GMT
References: <1992Apr24.1...@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>
<1992Apr24.1...@tc.cornell.edu> <8_9j4__....@netcom.com>
<kvgtcg...@mizar.usc.edu>
Organization: University of Maine System
Lines: 5
Sender: postm...@uk.ac.uknet
-ailsa
------------------------------ End of forwarded message 1
+++++++ +++++++ +++++++ +++++++ +++++++ +++++++ +++++++ +++++++ +++++++
Received: from UU2(AOLSYS!U) by MAINE(IO81409) id 2993; (MAIL R2.5) Sat, 25
Apr 92 19:43:48 EDT
Received: from MAINE by MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Mailer R2.03A) with BSMTP id 8076;
Sat, 25 Apr 92 10:05:27 EDT
Received: from uu2.psi.com by MAINE.maine.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP;
Sat, 25 Apr 92 10:05:25 EDT
Received: from aolsys.UUCP by uu2.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet)
id AA00265; Sat, 25 Apr 92 09:15:28 -0400
Received: from uu.psi.com by aolsys.aol.com
id aa15177; Sat, 25 Apr 92 4:09:34 EDT
Received: from uu.psi.com by uu2.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet)
id AA02862; Sat, 25 Apr 92 02:28:18 -0400
Received: by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.1.031792-PSI/PSINet)
id AA02061; Sat, 25 Apr 92 02:28:06 -0400
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 92 02:28:06 -0400
From: MAILER...@uu.psi.com
Subject: Returned mail: User unknown
Message-Id: <920425062...@uu.psi.com>
To: io8...@maine.maine.edu
----- Transcript of session follows -----
While talking to RUTGERS.EDU:
>>> RCPT To:<soc-...@rutgers.edu>
<<< 550 <soc-...@rutgers.edu>... User unknown
550 <soc-...@rutgers.edu>... User unknown
----- Unsent message follows -----
Received: from uu2.psi.com by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.1.031792-PSI/PSINet)
id AA02052; Sat, 25 Apr 92 02:28:06 -0400
Received: from aolsys.UUCP by uu2.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet)
id AA02717; Sat, 25 Apr 92 02:26:16 -0400
To: soc-...@rutgers.edu
Path:
aolsys!uupsi!psinntp!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!news.Brow
n.EDU!noc.near.net!mars.caps.maine.edu!maine.maine.edu!io81409
From: IO8...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Ailsa N.T. Murphy)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Outted Celebs (was Re: Is Christian Laettner gay?)
Message-Id: <92113.192...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Date: 22 Apr 92 23:20:03 GMT
References: <46...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
<1992Apr20.1...@watson.ibm.com> <as-...@rpi.edu>
<1992Apr21.2...@schaefer.math.wisc.edu>
Organization: University of Maine System
Lines: 10
Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated.
why not a poster campaign? little cheap posters that anyone
w/access to a photocopier can copy> then put them everywhere>
phone poles< bathrooms< any bulletin board you can find> then
you don"t need the media because everyone will already know>
pardon the odd punctuation< but my keyboard just freaked out>
i have to keep the caps lock on to get lower_case letters>>>
and none of the punctuation keys will do lower_case at all b(
_ailsa
Donn F. Pedro
:In article <1992Apr24.0...@macc.wisc.edu>
:ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
:
:>All right, Bri, you should quit fooling around now and answer
:>the question (I think) Owen posed: why *are* you hanging out
:>here? And please, let's have a somewhat reasoned answer.
:
:I think he's trying to educate himself. So far it has been a crash
:course.
More like a crash and burn course.
Nigel Whitfield
>I got the same bizarre response to a uk-motss posting. What's up?
Nothing as far as uk-motss is concerned? I really can't imagine why
you'd get a message like that from posting to the list address, since
the software doesn't even have the capability to issue an error of
that sort.
How odd...
Nigel.
--
Nigel Whitfield, uk-motss List Maintainer
Send list administrivia to uk-motss...@pyra.co.uk
Personal mail to jim...@pyra.co.uk or nig...@ibmpcug.co.uk