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
mhnadel@gryphon.CTS.COM (Miriam Nadel) (01/29/88)
Now I get it! Mike Robinson is Mark Ethan Smith and Matt Weiner is both of
them and Matt Weiner is really the entire population of Berkeley and Rhonda is
getting awfully boring.
BTW, the cost of long distance computer access is a silly argument. Given a
cheap used Commodore 64 (one time expense - maybe a gift from someone?)
the telephone cost would be merely $25 a month for unlimited service. The
cost for accounts on the machines Mark uses is nominal (I don't recall exact
figures but surely under $100 a year for each account. Berkeley charges
nonstudents considerably more than that to use their systems so it would
make sense for Mark to use the machines he does.)
I'm going to log off and watch the dust collect on my sofa - bound to be
more interesting than this nondiscussion.
Miriam Nadel
--
"You're right - never quote. And if you must quote, certainly not from Macbeth"
-Ngaio Marsh
mhnadel@gryphon.CTS.COM {cadovax,crash}!gryphon!mhnadel 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