era@killer.UUCP (12/01/87)
In <296@galaxy>marco@andromeda.rutgers.edu (the wharf rat) writes: >> [ Story of the infamous .plan debacle deleted ] > >And as to that "hostile pseudo" you keep talking about, all that guy did >was dare to disagree with you in soc.women Awww. The poor li'l innocent. Just one of the hundreds of poor li'l innocent men who dared to disagree IN SOC.WOMEN with anything women might say, be, do, or concern themselves with. Until most women abandoned the group and left it to the poor li'l innocent men who feel it is their right and duty to their sex to tell women what they may or may not say and how they may or may not say it. >about your (I'll be polite) You'll be polite? Is that a promise? Seeing as you don't know how, I won't hold my breath. >*unusual* ideas concerning women's clothing. My apologies, Sir. Obviously you are more qualified to talk about women's clothing than women. After all, it is designed to attract YOU, not for the comfort or dignity of women. And where more appropriate for you to tell women what they may or may not wear than in soc.women? Excuse me for having butted into your group, where you were merely doing your duty in telling all women what you will or will not let them wear. >When it got obvious that >soc.women wasn't interested in the discussion, he attempted to move it >to e-mail. Ah! He was obviously wronged. MEN decide what women want to discuss, and if for some reason I didn't want to let him tell me what clothing women should wear in soc.women, he was merely going to do me a favor and tell me what to do in email. I see. Again, my apologies for wounding him deeply by not letting him tell me what to do, even in email. How touching that he would show such consideration for my feelings that if I didn't want to discuss something with him in soc.women, he would permit me to do so privately. Of course it would be unthinkable that I not be required to discuss with him anything he decided I should discuss. I must have severe adjustment problems, and I'll certainly seek help in adapting to any future demands from him that I discuss what he wishes when and where he wishes. Of couse such specialized therapy may be hard to find, so don't hold your breath either. >*You* responded by posting mega-hundred-line stream-of- >conciousness >ramblings accusing him of everything from sending you obscene && >threatening >mail to trying to "force" you to correspond to (get this, folks) tying >women to sewer pipes, killing them, and grinding them up for dog food. >(These >are actual quotes, by the way. I saved some of these on hardcopy) No need. The case where the guy had women chained and killed them and ground them up for dogfood was in all the newspapers and you can get hardcopies in any library. I was merely using it as an example of why I feel that women should not have to correspond with anyone they do not wish to, particularly males who are hostile and who use pseudonyms. While 99 out of 100 may be sweet decent guys who think that being hostile behind a pseudo is a good way to attract women, it only takes one mass murderer to ruin a woman's whole day. >And (of course) you cross-posted all of this junk to every newsgroup you > could think of. In those days I only posted to and was only subscribed to one newsgroup, soc.women. Occasionally, when responding to an ad hominem attack, I would forget to change the groups line to eliminate other groups the attacker had crossposted to, but I was not subscribed to, did not read, and did not post to other groups at that time. Actually, I subscribed to and read three groups, but the other two, soc.politics.arms-d and comp.risks, were moderated. >Amused by all this, and noting a distinct resemblance between >Mark V. Chaney && Mark E. Smith, he posted a one-liner questioning >wether you were an AI, like the other Mark. A likely story. I'm sure 90% of the people on usenet will pretend to believe it. That 90% represents the MCP males and the anti-feminist women. There are several women on the net who feel that women who aren't here to turn dates should say so, so as not to interfere with other women's business, that women should be more supportive of the seven billion dollar a year pornography industry that is primarily designed to entertain men, that women should never criticize sadomasochism because criticism denies the rights of those women who like to be degraded and the rights of those who like to degrade other women, and interferes with the ability of "dominant" women to earn a living by being paid to act out male stereotypical fantasies, and that women should avoid anything that sounds egalitarian, nontraditional, or liberating because such things are male and should remain restricted only to males. So you'll have lots of defenders, and onlya small handful feminist men and women might be skeptical, but being so greatly outnumbered, we can ignore them entirely when not making ad hominem attacks on them from behind pseudos, or telling them what to do, what to wear, what to say, and how to say it. >*THAT* one-line posting is the sum total of the discussion that the >"hostile >pseudo" posted. It ended up in soc.singles because the article he was >responding to was in soc.singles, where you CROSS POSTED it. Wrong. By the time somebody told me that someone was calling me an AI in soc.singles, there were an entired series of articles, most posted by the same guy. Unable to draw me into further flamefests in soc.women, or email, he kept posting over and over until several people responded by posted everything they had lever heard, read, or imagined about me. Nice folks. But their excuse was that they meant no harm, they were merely trying to prove to the pseudo calling me an AI, that I wasn't. So their intentions were good. And, hopefully, will lead them to the usual destination. But the guy hasn't given up. Obssessive sexual harassers never give up. He's still posting 100-liners and still trying to draw me into flamefests. It's a compulsion he can't control. He's not alone, of course. And I probably shouldn't respond, but it might interest those who were here at the time to recall the actual sequence and see how it is continuing. >So it *wasn't* maliciousness >that led him to post there, was it ? Not in HIS mind. Men are always well-intentioned, never mean any harm, it was always either an attempt to "help," or at worst a harmless joke, and anyway, nobody can ever prove or pin anything on them, so what does it matter. If women don't like being hassled, that's too damned bad now, isn't it? It just happens to be every man's right to hassle any woman he wants to any time, way and place he wants to and those frigid manhating feminists who seem to want respect or some such silly thing, just don't realize that being a real woman involves relinquishing all aspirations to dignity and devoting yourself to doing whatever men want at all times. No harm in that is there? >And he never sent you threatening, >obscene or any mail at all except for the one attempt to move an >inapropriate line of discussion to email. And the disgusting "mail" you >forwarded to hoxna!root with all that stupid talk about lawsuits was an >utter forgery, wasn't it ? Quite possibly. Although many people have suggested sending email to SA's when being harassed, I've alwasy assumed the harasser *is* the SA, so it never seemed worthwhile to me to waste my time. >"Incessant, uncontrolable harrasement" my ASS! > Let's leave your thinking apparatus out of it, since you don't seem to use it except to flame. >And how do I know this ?? Because *I* was that "hostile pseudo", you >shmuck !! Yes, some people told me the pseudo was probably Lou Marco, but, of course, there was no way to prove it, since he only uses his real name on postings he isn't ashamed of, and his attacks on me apparently didn't come under that category. Also, when he posts to soc.women, he uses the pseudo. You know, soc.women-- sort of like a cathouse where you prefer to use a pseudo anyway if you're going to associate with inferior beings. Of course you're only there to tell them what to wear and what to do and to have them please you, but it still seems like something better done under a pseudo. Your original problem with me was something I said about the space shuttle, Lou. Check out this month's Reader's Digest. :-) --Mark
wes@ukecc.UUCP (12/02/87)
In article <2270@killer.UUCP>, era@killer.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) writes: > In <296@galaxy>marco@andromeda.rutgers.edu (the wharf rat) writes: > > [massive amounts of flaming by both sides deleted to save space, time > and my lunch] WHOA! Nice shootin', Tex! While I love to see quality flaming as much as the next guy, this is not the place. This is talk.bizarre, and flaming is the ad hoc standard for the net. Since it's the standard, we certainly don't want it here!!! By the way.... 8^> Wes -- Wes Morgan UUCP: !{rutgers, rayssd, uunet, cbosgd}!ukma!ukecc!wes NISP ARPANET: wes@engr.uky.edu BITNET: wes%ukecc.uucp@ukma CSNET: wes@engr.uky.csnet "Yoikes, and awaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy<THUD!>"