era@killer.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) (01/22/88)
In article <2623@dasys1.UUCP>, kjohanns@dasys1.UUCP (Karen Johanns) writes: >In article <2939@killer.UUCP>, era@killer.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) writes: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ NO!!!!!!!! >> >> To those in soc.motss who are so irate about this material being >> posted to their group, the original "8th Wonder" article was posted >> to soc.motss. Can you think why an article attacking somebody for >> being "dickless" might be posted to a group that judges people by >> whether or not they have a dick? Are you sure the person who wanted >> to show you his contempt for women isn't one of yours? I've noticed >> that overt contempt for women has become less overt among gays since >> AIDS, but I rather doubt that it has disappeared completely. Certainly >> nobody from your group has protested the "dickless" attack as being >> inappropriate. > >There are few things more irritating to me than women being rendered >invisible by another feminist. > >Mark, I don't possess, nor have I ever possessed, a dick. However, >I am a subscriber and a regular contributor to the soc.motss >newsgroup. It is NOT an all-male forum; there are Lesbians there >and even a couple of straight women occasionally. As I also recall, Karen, the article you are responding to is a forgery! The opinions are not mine, the style is not mine, and the conclusion is not mine. I have many close ties to the lesbian and gay community in the Bay Area and would never make statements like these. When those statements were made, the farthest thing from my mind was to attribute them to a member of the lesbian and gay community. I hope you can appreciate my horror at seeing these statements appear with my name associated with them. Since I have withdrawn from the public net for the most part, I was unware of this latest forgery until today. The netnews administrators have ignored this forgery problem in their typical nonchalant fashion. They are uninterested in determining the cause of the problem or preventing it from reoccuring. They are also peculiarly hostile to any effort to find the culprit. >As far as the sexism issue that you raised, I don't find the gay >men in soc.motss, or gay men in general, any more or less sexist >and anti-feminist than straight men, and certainly since I've >nbegun reading soc.women the attacks on feminism have been >led quite regularly by men who do not participate in soc.motss. >(I'm not going to speculate on anyones' sexual orientation here). Yes, it is very refreshing to compare the attacks of the straight men in soc.women with the positive remarks of others like Mike Robinson and others who have worthwhile things to say. The agenda of the straight man in soc.women is oppressing women, continuing male-dominated political charades to keep us where we are, and impishly asking "What's wrong" as if everyhting was fine and dandy. The remarks of the pseudo here that derides gays shows his own homophobic and femophobic tendencies draw from the same place. Typical of the fascist strategy to set oppressed groups against each other. --Mark
dboyes@uoregon.UUCP (David Boyes) (01/25/88)
//SYSIN DD * In some article in alt.flame, Mark Ethan Smith writes: >... the style is not mine Hmph. I respectfully beg to differ. >The netnews administrators have ignored this forgery problem >in their typical nonchalant fashion. They are uninterested in determining >the cause of the problem or preventing it from reoccuring. They are also >peculiarly hostile to any effort to find the culprit. Perhaps they have more important things to do than play Mike Hammer, detective, for someone who shows no sign of being appreciative of any of their efforts? Perhaps they have significant gainful work assigned to them by their employers that they must do in order to keep their jobs? Perhaps they consider the problems of a public-access system to be less important than the systems they are paid to maintain? Mark, in the past when people have gone out of their way to assist and/or aid you in investigating your claims, you've simply turned around a few months later and posted articles like the one referenced in this article. Speaking for myself only, putting in a lot of time for no returns at all is a pretty silly thing to do. I'm certainly not going to go out of my way to help someone who places epsilon value on my help and proceeds to denigrate it in a public forum in the manner quoted above. >Yes, it is very refreshing to compare the attacks of the straight men in >soc.women with the positive remarks of others like Mike Robinson and >others who have worthwhile things to say. Worthwhile on whose scale? Are they worthwhile simply because they happen to fit your personal Weltanshauung? Their opinions are just as valid as yours -- as is their privilege to post them to the newsgroups that they see as appropriate (provided, of course, that their choice of newsgourps is at least marginally appropriate). >The agenda of the straight >man in soc.women is oppressing women, continuing male-dominated political >charades to keep us where we are, and impishly asking "What's wrong" as if >everyhting was fine and dandy. //FLAME EXEC PGM=HIGH Funny you should say that, Mark. Read the above again. Do you believe it? If you do, you are one of the most audacious hypocrites I have ever had the misfortune to speak to. You claim that stereotypes are evil and promote the status quo. Pardon me, but just what do *you* call the above paragraph? I don't see any qualifiers -- no 'some', no 'many' there. Some of us *are* trying to understand your position -- IF YOU GIVE US A CHANCE, OK? Stuff like that paragraph is just as evil as the stereotypes you whine and complain about in most of the rest of your articles. //FLMETERM EXEC PGM=QUENCH >... shows his own homophobic and femophobic tendencies ... ^^^ Bit of a big assumption, don't you think, Mark? Especially since you don't know who 'forged' those articles in your name? Or have you forgotten about your crusade for non-gender specific pronouns? >Typical of the fascist strategy to set oppressed groups against each >other. >--Mark No comment. Just no comment. Just say 'No.' /* /& -- David Boyes | ARPA: 556%OREGON1.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU Systems Division | BITNET: 556@OREGON1 UO Computing Center | UUCP: dboyes@uoregon.UUCP 'How long d'ya think it'll be before just us oldtimers remember WISCVM?'
era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;KV41) (01/25/88)
In article <3089@killer.UUCP> era@killer.UUCP (somebody) writes: >Karen, the article you are responding to is a forgery! I see. Now you are all me, instead of Rich Rosen, and I'm supposed to guess who wrote which forgeries. I think I'll start with this one, since it seems to be the easiest. I guess Mike Robinson wrote this particular forgery. But first, here's what Mike has to say about anonymous forgeries, <ported without permission from Earthmind (415) 843-4234, Mike's BBS>: emind>>>You don't have to be a Usenet administrator to post untraceable articles emind>>>Anybody can do it just as well as the site administrator. If only white emind>>> males emind>>>know how, it is only because only white males have bothered to read the emind>>>news documentation (posted and publicly available). emind>>> emind>>>If women and minorities would bother to read the documentation, they emind>>>could post libelous or defamatory anonymous postings on the net and not emind>>>be emind>>>held responsible either. Now back to the latest forgery: >The opinions are >not mine, the style is not mine, and the conclusion is not mine. Repetition for effect. That's Mike alright. Hi Mike! >I have >many close ties to the lesbian and gay community in the Bay Area.... Ties to the gay community? The only human who has stopped by in the past 4 or 5 months was you, Mike. And you told me you had a girlfriend. But if I'm supposed to have ties to these folks, and you're the only person, net-setter or not, I've ftfed, you must be a gay or lesbian. Funny that it didn't occur to me. :-) >Yes, it is very refreshing to compare the attacks of the straight men in >soc.women with the positive remarks of others like Mike Robinson and >others who have worthwhile things to say. Pretty good, Mike. But you cheated. Coming by and talking me into using your rhetoric gimmicks in an article once, was the only thing you could do once you realized that you couldn't parody my style effectively unless I included the gimmicks you use instead of rhetoric. And I've always been a sucker for a cute guy, so I fell for it. Hey, I'm only human--anybody can make a mistake. :-) >homophobic and femophobic tendencies Femophobic????? Yeah, that's what hackers are. Femophobes. Thanks for the word. See, Karen? Gays are no more femophobic than SWM's. Why would I want to develop close ties with communities of femophobes? Here's how I see it. Heterosexual males often prefer other males for almost everything except sex. Gay males prefer other males for everything, including sex. So gays are *more* sexist than hets. How about comp.equal-rights with Michael Muller and Sherry Mann as co-moderators? --Mark
robinson@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (Michael Robinson) (01/26/88)
In article <6706@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) writes: >[all sorts of unpleasant things about me] I apologize for the dirty laundry. Mark and I have had something of a spat, and I regret that it was dragged out into the street (so to speak) like this. I would, though, like to put the following in context: emind>You don't have to be a Usenet administrator to post untraceable articles emind>Anybody can do it just as well as the site administrator. If only white emind>males emind>know how, it is only because only white males have bothered to read the emind>news documentation (posted and publicly available). emind> emind>If women and minorities would bother to read the documentation, they emind>could post libelous or defamatory anonymous postings on the net and not emind>be emind>held responsible either. This was in response to the following, written by Mark: emind>Those with the knowledge and power to make untraceable attacks on others emind>are all white males, and their victims are not. The net is 90% white emind>male because it is the one place that nobody can be held responsible emind>for what they say. Shortly after I posted the above cited text, a user remarked that it sounded racist and sexist (that it suggested that women and minorities were lazy), and, not actually believing me to be so, asked me to clarify my statements. My response (which Mark omitted) was as follows: emind>Implied in Mark's accusations was the suggestion that white males had emind>conspired to deliberately discourage women and minorities from using the emind>net. I found this reasoning distasteful, and my statements were intended emind>to show that the exact same evidence could just as easily be used to emind>reach a conclusion which Mark would find equally distasteful. emind> emind>Both conclusions are absurd. The situation on the net reflects the emind>racial and gender bias and attitudes prevalent in techological fields. emind>No more, no less. Like I've said, no conspiracies required. And, as there undoubtably will be those who will point it out if I don't go on record, I deny forging any articles at all, and certainly not any from Mark. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Robinson USENET: ucbvax!ernie!robinson ARPA: robinson@ernie.berkeley.edu
era@killer.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) (01/26/88)
In <6706@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, robinson@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Michael Robinson or a forger) writes: >I apologize for the dirty laundry. Mark and I have had something of a >spat, and I regret that it was dragged out into the street (so to speak) >like this. A "spat?" You mean like a lovers' quarrel or a disagreement between friends? I've never been over to your place. You came over here a few times. We have a difference in basic values. I have some, you don't seem to. >I would, though, like to put the following in context: emind>You don't have to be a Usenet administrator to post untraceable emind>articles. Anybody can do it just as well as the site administrator. emind>If only white males emind>know how, it is only because only white males have bothered to emind>read the news documentation (posted and publicly available). emind> emind>If women and minorities would bother to read the documentation, emind>they could post libelous or defamatory anonymous postings on the emind>net and not be emind>held responsible either. >Shortly after I posted the above cited text, a user remarked that it >sounded racist and sexist (that it suggested that women and minorities were >lazy), and, not actually believing me to be so, asked me to clarify my >statements. Apart from being sexist and racist, your statement was of the "Do what thou wilt," variety, failing to note or care that defamation is not a victimless crime. You seem to feel that there is no such thing as right and wrong, from the standpoint of hurting others, and you appear to be suggesting that two wrongs would or could make a right. You also said, "Anarchy is anarchy. Fascism and anarchy are mutually exclusive." You seem to be unaware that fascism has been known to present itself as Satanism or anarchy. A youngster given total freedom to persecute and kill Jews with impunity, can be so excited over that "freedom," that he may not notice that he has only the freedom to hurt others, not the freedom to help or spare them. If he tried, he would become a victim himself. Fascism often looks like anarchy to those doing the persecuting, but it is obviously fascism to the victims. >My response (which Mark omitted) was as follows: emind>Implied in Mark's accusations was the suggestion that white males Says who? Where is it "implied?" I did not suggest or imply any conspiracy. I simply pointed out the prevalent sexism you admit exists. I don't like people putting words in my mouth, saying my statement implies something it does not, and then arguing with their own distortions. Didn't they teach you not to do that in Rhetoric 101, Mike? emind>had conspired to deliberately discourage women and minorities from emind>using the net. Again, the reasoning that is distasteful is your own. I pointed out that the prevalent sexism discourages some, and it does. No conspiracy needed or implied. An atmosphere that is sexist will discourage those who are harmed by sexism. But it is incredible to me that you could suggest two wrongs could make a right. If somebody stole your wallet, I wouldn't say, "Well, if you bothered to put in the time and effort, you could learn to steal wallets also." Stealing is a crime, it can hurt people. If somebody steals from you, I would not suggest you steal from others. Defamation is a crime. You suggest that the answer to defamation is more defamation. I disagree. emind>Both conclusions are absurd. The situation on the emind>net reflects the racial and gender bias and attitudes prevalent in emind>techological fields. No more, no less. Like I've said, >no conspiracies required. And none were "implied." >And, as there undoubtably will be those who will point it out if I don't >go on record, I deny forging any articles at all, and certainly not any >from Mark. Maybe you didn't forge any defamatory articles. But you see nothing wrong with it. You evensuggest that anyone harmed by it could learn to do the same to others. But not to the ones who harmed *them*, Mike, since the perpetrators are anonymous. They'd have to defame people stupid enough to use their real names, making themselves easy targets for anonymous criminals. I don't like anarchy, Mike. I prefer a social contract, where people can be held liable for their actions, and the rights of the vulnerable can be protected. So we have some very basic differences, not just a "spat." I have values that mean so much to me, I'd rather die than abandon them. The first rule for physicians is, "Do no harm." Not, "Do what thou wilt," but "Do no harm." It is stupid of me, as a person with values, to participate in a system that prides itself on being an anarchy, and I'm paying the price for my stupidity. I'm meeting stupid people. But I've also met some very intelligent people, and I sincerely wish there was a way intelligent people could hold discussions without being constantly disrupted with anonymous defamation and juvenile, pointless obscenity. Use of strong language to emphasize a point is one thing--postings that consist solely of obscene personal attacks contribute nothing to discussion, disrupt and prevent discussion, and the "anarchy" that defends such postings as "free speech," the very thing they are intended to suppress, is not so much anarchy as idiocy. --Mark
oleg@quad1.quad.com (Oleg Kiselev) (01/28/88)
So what IS going on here? In article <6706@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) writes: >I guess Mike Robinson wrote this particular forgery. Yes, I can see the logic -- "I hate Mike Robinson and I know that Mike Robinson is capable of posting fake articles, therefore he posted this particular fake." >emind>You don't have to be a Usenet administrator to post untraceable articles >emind>Anybody can do it just as well as the site administrator. If only white >emind>males >emind>know how, it is only because only white males have bothered to read the >emind>news documentation (posted and publicly available). >emind>If women and minorities would bother to read the documentation, they >emind>could post libelous or defamatory anonymous postings on the net and not >emind>be held responsible either. So? Is the concept of "SARCASM" alien to MES? And yes, as many of us know, it is laughably trivial to post an "untraceable" forgery. Technically, every article I posted beween 1986 and early 1987 was a "forgery" because they alleged to be posted from a machine that never had a USENET connection. So if MES needs another reason to be paranoid, she can now put me on the list of nasty nasty white males who disagree with her and can post forgeries. I hope she loses some sleep over it, too. -- Oleg Kiselev -- oleg@quad1.quad.com -- {...!psivax|seismo!gould}!quad1!oleg HASA, "A" Division DISCLAIMER: I don't speak for my employers.