max@arches.uucp (Max Hauser) (01/24/88)
I'd like it explicitly understood that I think forging people's signatures is despicable and intolerable, and I don't condone it. Now, then: in article <3089@killer.UUCP>, era@killer.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) (or a reasonable facsimile) writes: > In article <2623@dasys1.UUCP>, kjohanns@dasys1.UUCP (Karen Johanns) writes: > >In article <2939@killer.UUCP>, era@killer.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) writes: > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ NO!!!!!!!! > [Forged article, and reactions to it, deleted] > > Karen, the article you are responding to is a forgery! > ... the style is not mine ... --------------------- This refrain from MES, as if to say that no reader who has followed her writing could be misled by the forgeries, is wasted on those of us who have indeed followed MES for a long time and cannot help but note the parallels to her most prominent verbal devices, like exotic conclusions presented without support; calumniation; and the need to blame someone whenever things go wrong. MES obligingly demonstrates these yet again, later in the same article, as though writing a continuing handbook for prospective MES-pretenders. Perhaps if we could all read minds, as MES herself tacitly but incessantly claims to do when glibly declaring the motivations of her critics and indeed anyone else she perceives as a nuisance (witness the next paragraph), it would then be obvious to all of us who is the real MES and who the fake. Otherwise, we are obliged to go by strong cues like tone, which, for the current forger, is not that far off the mark (so to speak). > ... 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. Here's a fine example. All is conclusion, without any facts. For all that I know, this assertion is absolutely accurate; but then I don't know, do I, from the information that MES has stated; and neither, from her statement, does she. Such an allegation will do little to convince any innocently skeptical reader; that some people will accept all assertions like this as gospel, too, reflects eloquently on them. >... The agenda of the straight man in soc.women is oppressing women ... This is sure to win over any new curious male readers in soc.women, isn't it? And when they respond, hurt or defensive, it will only "prove" MES's point. Nevertheless it is a litany sadly familiar to the many quiet male readers of soc.women, as is the parallel, if less frequent, assertion that women who disagree with MES are actually men with pseudonyms. I will not even dwell on the sexism explicit in the broad-brush quote above. And MES wonders that she is easy to imitate.
daveb@geac.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) (01/25/88)
In article <331@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> max@arches.UUCP (Max Hauser) writes: >> >In article <2939@killer.UUCP>, era@killer.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) writes: >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ NO!!!!!!!! >> [Forged article, and reactions to it, deleted] >> >> Karen, the article you are responding to is a forgery! >> ... the style is not mine ... > --------------------- >This refrain from MES, as if to say that no reader who has followed >her writing could be misled by the forgeries, is wasted on those of >us who have indeed followed MES for a long time and cannot help but >note the parallels to her most prominent verbal devices, like exotic >conclusions presented without support; calumniation; and the need >to blame someone whenever things go wrong. But Max, __emotion clouds judgement__. If you don't wish to agree with someone's arguments, you often denigrate them. If you then find the person's arguments have degraded to pure drivel, you will see no difference. (source: paraphrased monograph on textual criticism) Therefor, to recognize a forgery, you either have to agree with someone or be neutral to what they are saying. (I'm _trying_ for neutral...) > MES obligingly demonstrates >these yet again, later in the same article, as though writing a >continuing handbook for prospective MES-pretenders. [...] >Here's a fine example. All is conclusion, without any facts. Ok, let me restate it: thesis: "The netnews administrators have ignored this forgery problem in their typical nonchalant fashion" [mark] evidence: silence from the various sys/mail admins [me] conclusion: "They are uninterested in determining the cause of the problem or preventing it from reoccuring." [mark] thesis: "They are also peculiarly hostile to any effort to find the culprit." [mark] evidence: none stated [me] I will argue that the first conclusion is probably true, and that the reason is at least one of {disinterest | inability | malice}. I personally believe the first two are sufficient (by occam's razor). Mark has some reason (experience) to lead him to suspect the last. If the second quoted thesis follows from evidence, he is justified in the conclusion that malice exists. I hope it doesn't... --dave (ain't life fun?) c-b -- David Collier-Brown. {mnetor yetti utgpu}!geac!daveb Geac Computers International Inc., | Computer Science loses its 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | memory (if not its mind) CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months.