[talk.politics.misc] The Difference It Makes . . .

lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) (01/16/88)

I wouldn't bother to respond to this article, but its got some really
obnoxious personal attacks. If Mr. Lazarus wants to continue the
personal invective I suggest he send me E-mail and spare the rest of
the net.

(Note: although I have added alt.flame to the distribution I don't get
it so I won't respond to postings there.)

In article <8801160000.AA20929@jiff> jiff!lazarus (Andrew J Lazarus) writes:
>
>Please note I am no relation (thank Goodness) to
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>lazarus@athena
Seconded!!!!!!!

Besides, my Lazarus is taken from Lazarus Long, the Heinlein
character. It isn't my name.

>
>Let's see, my neighborhood MacDonalds have about 8 workers at any one time;
>suppose they are all on minimum wage (doubtful), and minimum wage goes up
>one dollar/hr. So McDonalds is out about $12/hr more, including fringe
>bennies. Now, this McDonalds appears to me to do about $10 in sales
>per minute, that's $600/hour, so I guess a Big Mac has to go up two cents,
>not ten.

FORGET MCDONALDS!!! Look at the postings regarding actual effect of
minimum wage on black teen-age unemployment. Read back a week or so!!!!

>Not that I think the ten cents is a big problem. You know, one point,
>lazarus@athena, is that people who work full-time on a minimum wage
>job and find they can't eat on it are so unlikely to embrace
>Republicanism. Think about it.

I already made this point. In my opinion that is why Democratic
politicians perpetuate this situation. Politicians aren't dumb, you know.

>There are so many conservative postings from athena, I guess your
>true login scrooge@athena was already allocated.

I. I just checked - there is no Scrooge on Athena - sorry.

II. Perhaps the reason there are so many conservatives on Athena is
that we are (virtually) all MIT undergraduates. Being much more
intelligent than Berkeley people we are naturally much more
conservative.

III. I will add that we aren't all rabid right-wingers. Check out Seth
Gordon's postings. He also posts from Athena, and is a personal
friend. Unfortuantely he is distressingly left wing. As he is also, in
my opinion, extremely smart, I am sure he will see the light some time
in the next few years.



These are the official opinions			Mike Friedman
of my organization. So, TOUGH!!

robinson@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (Michael Robinson) (01/17/88)

In article <2296@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes:

>(Note: although I have added alt.flame to the distribution I don't get
>it so I won't respond to postings there.)

For this reason, I've left talk.politics.misc in the distribution, but I 
don't read it, so I won't respond to postings there.

>In article <8801160000.AA20929@jiff> jiff!lazarus (Andrew J Lazarus) writes:
>>Not that I think the ten cents is a big problem. You know, one point,
>>lazarus@athena, is that people who work full-time on a minimum wage
>>job and find they can't eat on it are so unlikely to embrace
>>Republicanism. Think about it.
>
>I already made this point. In my opinion that is why Democratic
>politicians perpetuate this situation. Politicians aren't dumb, you know.

So, you think that someone who was working hard at a full-time job and not
making enough to live on would not embrace the ideology of the Republican 
party.

Why do you think that is?

Is it that the Republican party would leave him or her (especially her) to 
swing in the wind?  I think so.

Republicans like to talk of meritocracy.  To each according to their ability,
they say.  Those who are most qualified to succeed should enjoy most the 
rewards of success.  Those who cannot or will not succeed deserve none of the
well deserved wealth of the successful.

Critics call this social Darwinism.  Cynics call this the Peter Principle.
None of the above is an accurate or fair description of how the ideological
principle manifests itself in the real world.

The hard-working, able-bodied man or woman gainfully employed at a full-
time job who can not earn enough to support themselves knows how this
abstract notion works in the real world.  So does the young, well-bred, well-
educated kid who maybe works four hours of a eight hour work day, and makes
more in one of the hours he doesn't work than some earn in a full eight.

The reason the persons you mentioned will not embrace a conservative ideology
is because they know the Republican lie, and because they know it can never
benefit them.

They know that success is not who you are, but who you were born to.  They
know it is not how well you work, but what job you do.

Those who reject right-wing hypocrisy do so because they know it is not what
you learn, but what school you go to, not what you know, but who you know that
makes the difference between comfort and a struggle for survival.  They know
that the caliber of one's character does not matter as much as the color of
one's skin in determining the distribution of reward, justice, and respect.

The coin of the Republican realm is elitism, and divisiveness the seed that
is sown.  The motto of the conservative guard is "I've got mine!" and woe be
to those who challenge the ownership.  Whether ill-gotten or not, a man's
loot, his estate, his place at the trough, is his no less than if it were
given him by God Almighty (praise the Lord).  So sayeth the Republican National
Commitee.

Should he reap where others have sown, that is of no concern.  The conservative
cabal shall defend his prowess as a more qualified reaper of grain.  Should
others starve that he may gorge, that is of no concern.  The right wing will 
praise his skill at obtaining more bread than any other.  Should the children
of others be stunted that his may grow to be leaders of men, it still matters
not.

To divide--rich from poor, schooled from ignorant, successful from struggling,
white from colored--that is the end of the Republican means.  It is implicit
in the conservative doctrine that there are those who deserve to be have's and
there are those who deserve to be have not's, and the sooner the division is
accomplished to the satisfaction of the have's, the happier everyone will be.
The criteria for dividing the have's from the have not's may look palatable on
paper, and may have a pretty glitter, but the real criteria lurking in
inner-city housing projects and lurking in luxury penthouses are morally,
ethically, and intellectually bankrupt.

The only real criterion which defines the elite is the power to successfully 
define who is and who isn't among the elite.  The elite are elite.  They want
to keep it that way, and will even join the Republican party to do so.  They
have the power and the money, and they don't mind using it to keep it.

>>There are so many conservative postings from athena, I guess your
>>true login scrooge@athena was already allocated.
>
>II. Perhaps the reason there are so many conservatives on Athena is
>that we are (virtually) all MIT undergraduates. Being much more
>intelligent than Berkeley people we are naturally much more
>conservative.

There is nothing about being a conservative that requires any intelligence.
Even the magpie will steal what does not belong to it.  Even the crow will 
horde shiny things for which it has no use.  Even the cuckoo will starve 
the offspring of other birds for the benefit of its children and for its own
convenience.

To realize that one's fellow humans have rights, deserve respect, and need
compassion--that is what requires intelligence.  To understand that, but for
the grace of God, you go there as well--that requires understanding.  To see
the hidden rewards of giving without reward--that requires insight.

It requires no intelligence to horde, only greed.  It requires no intelligence
to oppress, only arrogance.  It requires no intelligence to ignore suffering,
only callousness.

If these are the qualities you claim for you and your peers, so be it.

>III. I will add that we aren't all rabid right-wingers. Check out Seth
>Gordon's postings. He also posts from Athena, and is a personal
>friend. Unfortuantely he is distressingly left wing. As he is also, in
>my opinion, extremely smart, I am sure he will see the light some time
>in the next few years.

Separate the have's from the have not's, and the sooner the better.  Divide
those who can help from those who need it.  Define the elite and make the
definition stick.  By these things might one tell a conservative.

One expects one of the successful elite to espouse an ideology and patronize
a party which will protect their property and status.  On the other hand,
it is a sign of character and enlightenment for one of the fully enfranchised to
support the welfare of those less fortunate.  Your friend's philosophy may
distress you, but that you would have him reject it distresses me even more.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Robinson                              USENET:  ucbvax!ernie!robinson
                                              ARPA: robinson@ernie.berkeley.edu

lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) (01/18/88)

Michael Robinson's flame is tough to respond to because all he does is
attack. Like anything else, my vision of how to run society is not
perfect. Utopias cannot exist in a real world. My only claim is that
in the long run my vision of society is better than any other.

I agree that society as I would like it to be would have problems.
There would still be the dirt poor and the filthy rich. The poor still
would not be as comfortable or live as long or have as much power as
the rich. The children of the poor would still not have as good a
chance as the children of the rich. 

If Mr. Robinson posts his version of what our government should do I
will respond by trying to explain why my version is better. Until then
I will ignore him.


One final note. Anyone who assumes that people who disagree with him
are automatically evil is either paranoid or an idiot. They may be
stupid, they may be intelligent but wrong, or, just possibly, they may
be right. My comment about MIT people was a bit out of line, but I was
rather annoyed by Andrew Lazarus.



These are the official opinions			Mike Friedman
of my organization. So, TOUGH!!

robinson@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (Michael Robinson) (01/18/88)

In article <2333@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes:
>Michael Robinson's flame is tough to respond to because all he does is
>attack.

I don't seem to recall much constructive content in yours either, and I didn't 
find it all that hard to respond to.

>Like anything else, my vision of how to run society is not
>perfect. Utopias cannot exist in a real world. My only claim is that
>in the long run my vision of society is better than any other.

Not bad for an undergraduate.  Maybe you'll walk on water for your Ph.D.

>I agree that society as I would like it to be would have problems.
>There would still be the dirt poor and the filthy rich. The poor still
>would not be as comfortable or live as long or have as much power as
>the rich. The children of the poor would still not have as good a
>chance as the children of the rich. 

Society as you would like it to be would have intrinsic problems.  Your life
as you would like it to be would have no problems.  Not very sporting, are you?

>If Mr. Robinson posts his version of what our government should do I
>will respond by trying to explain why my version is better. Until then
>I will ignore him.

Me?  I would like to see a decentralized, non-industrial, high-technology,
highly integrated, self-sustaining, neo-tribal society, the details of which
would take many, many articles to describe, and the justifications for which
would take far more than that. 

I'm not willing to put that kind of effort into alt.flame (or
talk.politics.misc, which seems to have a lower idea density).

If there is interest, I may write the articles for my BBS and post copies here.

>One final note. Anyone who assumes that people who disagree with him
>are automatically evil is either paranoid or an idiot. They may be
>stupid, they may be intelligent but wrong, or, just possibly, they may
>be right.

There's hope yet.

>My comment about MIT people was a bit out of line, but I was
>rather annoyed by Andrew Lazarus.

Apology accepted.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Robinson                              USENET:  ucbvax!ernie!robinson
                                              ARPA: robinson@ernie.berkeley.edu

rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) (01/28/88)

In article <2333@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes:
>Michael Robinson's flame is tough to respond to because all he does is
>attack.
>
>If Mr. Robinson posts his version of what our government should do I
>will respond by trying to explain why my version is better. Until then
>I will ignore him.
>
>One final note. Anyone who assumes that people who disagree with him
>are automatically evil is either paranoid or an idiot. They may be
>stupid, they may be intelligent but wrong, or, just possibly, they may
>be right.

Michael, I think you may be missing Robinson's "point" here.  (The MES/Robinson
"spat" articles may have served to obscure things even more, but STella seemed
to notice what was going on in her "Michael Ethan Robinson" article, so please
let me clarify.)  If anything, Robinson is a parody character, much like the
other "pseudos" built by the Brahms Gang.  Their raison d'etre: to poke fun at
points of view their creators don't like by making ridiculous but sincere
statements and keeping track of the "morons" (at least by their reckoning)
who chime in in agreement.  For Smith, this is obvious, though the intense
"sincerity" of her complaints and the "documentation" (citing court cases that
don't exist) tend to obscure that from people's view.  Smith "exists" to
RIDICULE women's problems, not to document or substantiate them.  By presenting
a character who bemoans every action by another human being as part of a plot
against her, the perpetrators make a mockery of the real discrimination
problems facing women today.  The clincher was the "eat fecal matter" affair. 
Here they make the Smith character look even more completely ridiculous by
proposing that she sued the Navy because someone told her to "eat fecal
matter."  What disheartens me most of all is not their act of fraud against
the readers of the net, not their ridiculous attempt at parody.  No, what
disheartens me most is the fact that people took this seriously and continue
to do so.  The real Mark Ethan Smith probably has real grounds for a real
lawsuit against these jerks.

Robinson's agenda has a similar root.  Robinson is an attempt to ridicule the
"feminist male."  Now I have known many men who were feminists, many who were
quite sincere about it, and many who took their "feminism" to extremes of
self-deprecation and grand apologetics for the male sex of the form "yes, we
men are to blame for all the problems you women have, we have this problem
in our chromosomes that leads us to do this, we're horrible, we have to
be fixed to be better companions to you women."  Without exception, ALL of
these men have been at the root insincere, cloyingly playing up to us to get
on our good side (or get into bed with us).  One good look at Mike's postings
for some time now show this motivation.  If a woman were to say analogous
things, things like "we women are the cause of all the problems in male-female
relations" etc., she would either get a whole bunch of supportive help from
other women hoping to fix that self-deprecating misconception she has, or else
(if she got dogmatic about her position) she would be vilified for tearing
down women in general.  But when a man offers up similar apologetics for his
sex, unfortunately some of us find this appealing, and accept it without
question, almost to the point where it would confirm the shill's beliefs
about female gullibility.  This is of course not just true for women, many
minorities and other groups have fallen for the lines from people like this,
people who have overapologized to people of color for being white, people who
have said "some of my best friends are Jews or blacks or women..."  The
excerpts attributed to Robinson quoted from his own BBS by whoever wrote the
spat articles show his true agenda.  (They also show that whoever he really
is, he is quite well-versed in the techniques of article forgery.)  Robinson
has admirers among women in soc.women, but many of them seem to forget that
some people see through him and don't buy into his line.

The dead giveaway for Robinson was during his campaign to "prove" that I
was a pseudo like his pal Mark Ethan Smith.  During that debacle, he
announced that he had "studied" the differences between men and women,
and that he "knew" I wasn't a woman from the way I wrote and argued.
Let's ignore for the moment the fact that many women (myself included) have
often been faced with the Scylla and Charybdis of being told that we have to
behave "like men" to compete and coexist with men in business while at the
same time we get torn down for being too masculine, unfeminine, overaggressive,
or bitchy when we do so.  This is experience that Mike cannot speak to,
although he does seem to think he can.  The summary conclusion of Mike's
statement is that there are innate differences between the way women and men
think, act, and write, and that he in his wisdom can figure out whether
something was said or done by a woman or a man through his analytic technique.
Of course this is nothing but stupid pigheaded sexism of the worst kind.
Unfortunately, because so many people seem to be enamored of Mike's fairweather
feminism, this slipped by a lot of people.  I found it to be one of the
most sexist statements ever made by anyone in soc.women, especially since it
disguised itself as being pro-feminist.

Having proudly and pompously announced his departure from soc.women in the
grandest Brahms Gang tradition, Robinson now stalks new territory, and in
the article that Michael Friedman responds to, Robinson stakes out the
prototypical liberal position.  Michael (Friedman, that is), you have read
Robinson right on the nose.  What he was saying was nothing more than a
parody of modern liberal politics, blaming Republicans and the rich for
everything, denouncing anyone holding contrary views, claiming that he and
everyone is ENTITLED to a proper life as given to him by the government.
There are obviously people who would love to think that this is the standard
liberal position on today's issues.  It would make their lives a whole lot
simpler, they wouldn't have to counterdebate the serious issues and positions
that run contrary to mainstream conservative thought about trickle down
economics, government efforts to control individual behavior, and human rights.
No, with this shadow parody of "liberal" views on things, they can just point
a finger and laugh and return to their agenda.  Mike Robinson plays his part
in this charade.

There can only be one other explanation for why the crew of Berkeley goons
seem to speak in virtual unison (timewise and contentwise) every time one of
them is trashed.  It would have to be that every single person in Berkeley,
California is totally hopelessly brainwashed to hold specific indoctrinated
politically correct positions on these moral issues by some great liberal
left-wing conspiracy to cloud the minds of everyone within reach.  With
everyone believing that the government is evil and out to get them, that
they are entitled to whatever they want from that government (including
restraining orders preventing people from telling them not to eat fecal
matter), and automatically denouncing anyone who disagrees as part of the
conspiracy.  Unlike many people from that part of the country I don't
believe conspiracy theories, I'm just amused by them.  So discounting this
as an explanation, we are left with the core FACT of the matter that these
accounts are the tools of a sick mind seeking to poke fun at people he
finds stupid because they disagree with him.  That sick mind belongs to one
Matthew Wiener, with the inevitable assistance of his cohorts the Brahms Gang.

Matthew's geographic whereabouts coincided much too closely with the sites
from which the alleged "Mark Ethan Smith" was posting, and only once this was
pointed out did the randomization of MES article site origins begin.  You have
to wonder why "Smith" would even WANT to make these long distance calls in
the first place if she had an account on one of Matthew Wiener's home machines,
namely violet, presumably a local call for her.  (Never mind the whole issue
of how a person on public assistance can afford such a luxury as computer
access to far off machines.  But remember who it was that responded immediately
to this issue by asking who among us had done a breakdown of MES's life
expenses vs. her public assistance allotment:  the Robinson/Skyler combine.)

But let's focus on the letter I sent to "era1987@violet.berkley.edu" with
berkley deliberately misspelled so that it would bounce, and with a
blind-carbon-copy to weemba@violet.berkeley.edu.  This meant Mark Ethan Smith
would NOT get this letter but Matthew Wiener would.  I got a response to
this letter from none other than the "genuine" Mark Ethan Smith.  Sure, the
scenario that Matthew forwarded the letter to Mark is within the realm of
possibility, if you stretch things enough.  But why did the response come so
quickly without incident?  Why didn't the ever abusive Matthew Wiener send me
yet another of his insult filled tomes telling me what an idiot I was? 
(Especially me, whom he seemed to have taken particular interest in flaming.) 
Why would Wiener ever pass up an opportunity to insult someone?  If Mark Ethan
Smith and Matthew Wiener really were two separate people, here was his perfect
opportunity: I would have PROVEN myself to be an idiot if Mark and Matthew
really were not the same person.  But Matthew never picked up on this, in
fact he never noticed it at all.  Why?  Because Mark Ethan Smith and Matthew
Wiener ARE AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN the same person!  Receiving mail in his
mailbox that was intended for Mark Ethan Smith was not an unusual event,
so he took no notice of it, responding to it as he had done to many other
letters addressed to Mark Ethan Smith.

The pattern is similar with Wiener and Robinson's intertwining.  And now we
see the articles (forgeries?) describing a "spat" between Mike Robinson and
Mark Ethan Smith.  We can conjecture with high confidence that, judging from
the content and tone and the sloppiness of these articles reminiscent of the
bitch@chinet articles, this was nothing but a desperate effort by the now
desperate forgers to convince us that Mark Ethan Smith and Mike Robinson
really are two separate people, even though this is not the case.  And who is
responsible for all this chicanery?  Who else but the annoying children who
call themselves the Brahms Gang?  Joe Buck's suggestions for ridding the net
of forgers apply with double force to them.
								--Rhonda

robinson@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (Michael Robinson) (01/29/88)

In article <2142@chinet.UUCP> rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) writes:
>
>The
>excerpts attributed to Robinson quoted from his own BBS...show that whoever
>he really
>is, he is quite well-versed in the techniques of article forgery.)

I own, operate, and administrate a Usenet site (the aformentioned BBS).  Of
course I am well versed in the techniques of article forgery.  I have to make
some effort to see that it doesn't happen on my machine.

>Robinson
>has admirers among women in soc.women, but many of them seem to forget that
>some people see through him and don't buy into his line.

Damn.

>The dead giveaway for Robinson was during his campaign to "prove" that I
>was a pseudo like his pal Mark Ethan Smith.

I did not "prove," nor did I attempt to "prove," any such thing.  I listed 
the evidence upon which I had formed my opinion.  In the absence of any 
objective evidence to the contrary, I don't see that it is such an
unreasonable opinion to hold.

>During that debacle, he
>announced that he had "studied" the differences between men and women,
>and that he "knew" I wasn't a woman from the way I wrote and argued.

I do not, and have never, claimed to "know" the relative authenticity of
the Rhonda Manifestation.  I have an opinion, and I have publically stated
my reasoning behind that opinion.

As for your incredulity that I would "study" the manner in which people write
and argue, I would point out that I am a Rhetoric major.  What else would 
you expect me to study?  Pre-Columbian art?

>The summary conclusion of Mike's
>statement is that there are innate differences between the way women and men
>think, act, and write, and that he in his wisdom can figure out whether
>something was said or done by a woman or a man through his analytic technique.

You get partial credit for coming up with something recognizably similar to 
my actual position, namely that men and women in this culture are treated in
profoundly different ways from the moment of birth (unfortunate, but still
true), and that this difference in treatment throughout life produces
identifiable and characteristic differences in the way members of the two
genders communicate.  Now, it is entirely possible that you have been treated
as a man from the moment of birth.  It is entirely possible I am completely
mistaken.  However, in the absence of any objective evidence to the contrary,
I see no compelling reason to change my mind.

The remainder of your article is largely self-refuting, so I won't bother.
I would like to point out the following, though, for amusement value:

>Unlike many people from that part of the country I don't
>believe conspiracy theories, I'm just amused by them.

Followed by:

>The pattern is similar with Wiener and Robinson's intertwining.  And now we
>see the articles (forgeries?) describing a "spat" between Mike Robinson and
>Mark Ethan Smith.  We can conjecture with high confidence that, judging from
>the content and tone and the sloppiness of these articles reminiscent of the
>bitch@chinet articles, this was nothing but a desperate effort by the now
>desperate forgers to convince us that Mark Ethan Smith and Mike Robinson
>really are two separate people, even though this is not the case.  And who is
>responsible for all this chicanery?  Who else but the annoying children who
>call themselves the Brahms Gang?  Joe Buck's suggestions for ridding the net
>of forgers apply with double force to them.

Followups to alt.flame, if anyone cares to continue this.  I'm sure the
subscribers of talk.politics.misc and soc.women have better things to read.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Robinson                              USENET:  ucbvax!ernie!robinson
                                              ARPA: robinson@ernie.berkeley.edu

gsmith@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene W. Smith) (02/08/88)

  The factors in the summary line authenticate that this is from
the same "Gene W. Smith" (accept no substitutes!) who posted the
authentication scheme article. I don't propose to do this as a
general rule, now that you see it demonstrated. I will
authenticate disclaimers of any further forgeries, at least.

In article <2142@chinet.UUCP> rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) writes:
>In article <2333@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes:

>If anything, Robinson is a parody character, much like the
>other "pseudos" built by the Brahms Gang.

  Once again, the attribution of these forgeries to the Brahms
Gang is a lie. 

>Having proudly and pompously announced his departure from soc.women in the
>grandest Brahms Gang tradition,

  Evidence for this alleged "tradition"?

>Unlike many people from that part of the country I don't
>believe conspiracy theories, I'm just amused by them.

  Following this, the Rhonda Conspiracy:

>So discounting this
>as an explanation, we are left with the core FACT of the matter that these
>accounts are the tools of a sick mind seeking to poke fun at people he
>finds stupid because they disagree with him.  That sick mind belongs to one
>Matthew Wiener, with the inevitable assistance of his cohorts the Brahms Gang.

  Don't you mean cohorts *in* the Brahms Gang? In any case, the
only sick mind which has so far resisted all requests for an
identity check is the Rhonda Manifestation. I also find it
curious that the Rhonda Manifestation, which was defending
Maroney's right to sue people for name-calling, does not hesitate
to publish lies about Matthew Wiener and myself. This, of course,
would make a better basis for a lawsuit by an ill-disposed
netter. I suggest by way of compromise that the Rhonda
Manifestation (or should that be Infestation?) only libel people
in alt.flame, where we roast weenies for fun. (Is this
"paternalistic?" Tough noogies.)

>Why didn't the ever abusive Matthew Wiener send me
>yet another of his insult filled tomes telling me what an idiot I was? 

  If you want to be insulted wear a "kick me" sign or take up
S&M. Sheesh!
 
>I would have PROVEN myself to be an idiot if Mark and Matthew
>really were not the same person.

  Quod erat demonstrandum.

  And more Rhonda:

]I love this.  Mike literally boasts here about his part in building an
]atmosphere in which people are obligated to PROVE who they are. 
 
  You tell false and malicious lies and then complain about other
people "building an atmosphere"? The "atmosphere" comes from all
the petards (in the original sense, I mean) you have been
hoisting yourself by.

]Who's calling who the big liar here?  What I have been saying about would
]only be "big lies" if they just happen not to be true.  You haven't shown
]them not to be true, by the very same standards by which you are judging me.

  In other words, you feel free to tell any lies you like about
anybody as long as you don't think anyone can prove them false?
Do you care about the question of truth at all in here?

]I have to, the intensity of the real big lies, the ones coming from you,
]telling lies about me, were believed by a number of people and accepted as
]truth.

  If you don't like lies being told about you, why do you tell
them about other people? Have I lied about you? If so, where and
what?

"This paragraph is why I have felt free to insult you."  -- Tim Maroney
  ucbvax!garnet!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720