manis@instr.camosun.bcc.cdn (Vincent Manis) (01/05/88)
Not reading any other Usenet group but soc.motss, I'm not cognisant of
(or interested in) the issues involved. However, I found the language
so offensive that I sent a message to postmaster@killer, requesting that
s/he explain something about netiquette to the poster. I agree with
Steve that there's no point in discussing the merits of the posting,
as we all learned in the Mading case.
I suspect that this would, in general, be a good way of handling
offensive posters. Simply send a copy of the posting to postmaster on
their system (s/he can see it anyway), with a request that they ask the
poster to cool it a bit. No reason to waste our bandwidth on soc.motss;
having 10 or 15 such requests arrive at a system is a very good way of
dealing with offensive posts from that system.
Please let's not get in another dispute about freedom of speech: neither
the U.S. Bill of Rights nor the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
protects other people's right to puke on my shoes.
Vincent Manis manis@instr.camosun.bcc.cdn
Camosun College ihnp4 |
3100 Foul Bay Road seismo |!ubc-vision!instr.camosun.bcc.cdn!manis
Victoria, BC V8P 4X8 uw-beaver |
(604) 592-1281 x480 manis%instr.camosun.bcc.cdn@ubc.csnet
manis%instr.camosun.bcc.cdn%ubc.csnet@relay.cs.net
"One Thing to name them all, One Thing to define them,
One Thing to place them in environments and bind them.
In the Lambda Order they are all first-class."
- G. L. Steele, with apologies to J. R. R. Tolkienera1987@violet.berkeley.edu (01/07/88)
In article <229*manis@instr.camosun.bcc.cdn> manis@instr.camosun.bcc.cdn (Vincent Manis) writes: >Not reading any other Usenet group but soc.motss, I'm not cognisant of >(or interested in) the issues involved. However, I found the language >so offensive that I sent a message to postmaster@killer.... >Please let's not get in another dispute about freedom of speech: neither >the U.S. Bill of Rights nor the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms >protects other people's right to puke on my shoes. Canada must be a very nice country, Vincent. Here's a ruling from Anthony "Tony" Kennedy, Reagan's nominee to the United States Supreme Court, in 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Case _Smith v Bowles_, Docket Number 83-2727: "The single utterance of a profanity is hardly the kind of act that can give rise to a suit for compensable injury in either federal or state court." In order to get rid of me, federal employees at a base where they lose millions of dollars in unaccounted for funds every year, not to mention overruns, waste, fraud and abuse, would simply attack me the same way this and other pseudos have done on the net. But since I needed the job, instead of quitting, I filed a lawsuit. The government removed the suit to federal court, insisting that telling me to eat fecal matter was an official federal duty. Judge Kennedy admitted that it was not an official federal duty, being against both Navy and civil service rules, but found that it had been properly removed on the basis stated above. He illegally ruled that the case was properly removed on grounds other than those used to remove it. You have to know federal law to understand the illegality of Judge Kennedy's act. The government can only remove a case to federal court, if the act is entitled to federal immunity. If the act is not entitled to federal immunity, the case should be remanded. It was up to a lower judge to decide if I sustained loss of livelihood from being talked to that way by coworkers. I don't know if the gov't. told Judge Kennedy that I was a homosexual or transexual (I'm not), or that I'm a Jew or a woman or emotionally disabled (I am), but whatever it was, Judge Kennedy found nothing wrong with federal coworkers telling me to eat fecal matter. But I've been noticing that quite a few people were upset about the recent posting by the pseudo. Is everybody emotionally disabled like me? Look at Colin Jenkins and Tom Mandel and Karl Denninger--they see nothing wrong with people telling me to eat fecal matter. Obviously this is the way to treat people who are different, this is the environment the disadvantaged must live and work in, and there is protection in our laws for property, for profits, and for profanity. There is no protection for people or for economic, human, and civil rights. There are laws, but Judge Kennedy, as the swing vote on the Supreme Court, will make sure they are not enforced. For example, suppose you are an employer, and the law forced you to hire a woman, a minority person, a disabled person, or a person with a different sexual preference. You simply tell them to eat fecal matter until they either quit, or they file a complaint. If they quit, you've won. If they need the job too badly, you just keep it up until they file a complaint, and then call them disruptive for filing the complaint and fire them. Judge Kennedy will take care of the legal matters, so you have nothing to worry about. Hire the disadvantaged, harass them intolerably, and then either they quit, or they complain and you can fire them. If they try to talk back, you can accuse them of attacking people or being disruptive, although why it is okay for others but not for them is not something the court will ever discuss. --Mark
weemba@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (01/07/88)
I have to admit, I have been among the staunchest and most vehement defenders of Mark Ethan Smith in the past, but after reading his most recent posting I have some reservations that should be expanded upon. In article <6466@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >Docket Number 83-2727: >"The single utterance of a profanity is hardly the kind of act >that can give rise to a suit for compensable injury in either >federal or state court." > >In order to get rid of me, federal employees at a base where they >lose millions of dollars in unaccounted for funds every year, not >to mention overruns, waste, fraud and abuse, would simply attack >me the same way this and other pseudos have done on the net. But >since I needed the job, instead of quitting, I filed a lawsuit. People called you names, so you filed a lawsuit, because their name calling was a violation of your civil rights. Hey, bitch@chinet, wherever you are, you got it all wrong. It isn't me and the brahms gang pulling off the hoax of pretending to be Mark Ethan Smith, it's our mutual friend Timmy! Who else would take the position that name calling is a violation of law, that people who call you names are part of a conspiracy against you? >The government removed the suit to federal court, insisting that >telling me to eat fecal matter was an official federal duty. In your case, perhaps it was. Here, all along, I thought the issue involved some act of real discrimination, such as sex-linked harrassment, calling you names based on your gender. But no, they told you to eat shit, and this is what got you all out of sorts. This lends a whole new perspective on the entire case. This is smelling fishier with each iteration. In what context did they tell you to eat shit? Did they tell other people to eat shit, too? You should have found out, maybe you could have initiated a class action suit against people who tell other people to eat shit. >You have to know federal law to understand the illegality of >Judge Kennedy's act. Which you clearly don't, meaning the conversation here should come to a halt pretty quickly, but alas, no such luck. > It was up to a lower judge to decide if I sustained >loss of livelihood from being talked to that way by coworkers. It's not necessary for any judge to go to the trouble of pondering and rendering a decision on so trivial and obvious a non-issue as this. The idea that people telling you to eat shit because they didn't like you (obviously as part of the vast conspiracy against you) resulted in a loss of livelihood is so stupid as to defy any attempt to rationalize it. >I don't know if the gov't. told Judge Kennedy that I was a >homosexual or transexual (I'm not), or that I'm a Jew or a woman >or emotionally disabled (I am), "but obviously they did and so this is all a plot against me." > but whatever it was, Judge Kennedy >found nothing wrong with federal coworkers telling me to eat fecal >matter. But I've been noticing that quite a few people were upset >about the recent posting by the pseudo. Is everybody emotionally >disabled like me? Look at Colin Jenkins and Tom Mandel and >Karl Denninger--they see nothing wrong with people telling me to >eat fecal matter. The illegality of calling you names isn't the issue here at all, mostly because it's such a stupid claim that it can be summarily ignored. The real issue is your inability to take what you dish out. Like our old friend Captain Carnage, you seem to think that you can stick your tongue out at other people and make noises, blame entire groups of people for your personal problems, then yell at the people who shout back at you, but when someone does the same to you, you run to mummy and daddy telling them to put a stop to their naughty behavior. There is such a thing as a Constitution, a Bill of Rights, a clause involving freedom of speech. Nowhere is anything mentioned about freedom from profanity. If your co-workers want to tell you to eat shit, they have every right to do so, you have no (legal) recourse to limit their freedom of speech. You should read the law some time, it might do you a load of good especially if you intend to spend the rest of your life in court fighting imaginary conspirators who tell you to eat shit. > Obviously this is the way to treat people who >are different, this is the environment the disadvantaged must live >and work in, and there is protection in our laws for property, for >profits, and for profanity. There is no protection for people or >for economic, human, and civil rights. Get it right, jerk. There is no protection from your being offended by what other people have to say, even if it is about you. If they tell lies about you that defame you and actually cause you to suffer this loss of livelihood, then that's another story. But telling you to eat shit doesn't cause you a loss of livelihood. No one is obliged to cater to other people's hypersensitivities. If you find yourself unable to work because people call you names, then you really are emotionally disabled and probably shouldn't have been working in the first place. But I notice that all the name calling you've been subjected to on the net hasn't disabled you from excessive posting. >For example, suppose you are an employer, and the law forced you to >hire a woman, a minority person, a disabled person, or a person >with a different sexual preference. You simply tell them to eat >fecal matter until they either quit, or they file a complaint. So, at last, the new law of the land goes into effect. If employers or fellow co-workers tell you to eat shit, persistently, they are undoubtedly out to persecute you. What a crybaby! (I'd tell you to take it like a man, but that would probably be most inappropriate and probably a little confusing.) You have the brains of Tim Maroney coupled with the hormone problems of Rhonda Scribner, whatever they may be. Am I persecuting you? Does anybody really care? Your litigiousness is probably keeping quite a few employees on the public payroll, to support an already overburdened legal system in order that it can deal with superfluous lawsuits by the likes of people who take offense at everything. Colin, if you're going to complain about waste of taxpayers' money, how about the extra workload imposed on the California court system to support crybaby litigation? ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 "We can pay farmers not to grow crops, but we cannot pay artists to stop making art. Yet something must be done." --Jacques Barzun
msmith@dasys1.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) (01/08/88)
In article <6466@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> era@killer.UUCP I wrote: >Hire the disadvantaged, harass them intolerably, and then >either they quit, or they complain and you can fire them. If they >try to talk back, you can accuse them of attacking people or >being disruptive, although why it is okay for others but not for >them is not something the court will ever discuss. I saw an excellent example of this on the Donahue show today, not that we don't see it in soc.women constantly. One of the guests was a black man who had been beaten at Howard Beach. Donahue asked him what happened and he said, "A white guy in a car said, 'F*** off, ni***rs,' so I said, 'F*** you, honky.'" A few minutes later a white man in the audience said, "Well, if you hadn't responded, there wouldn't have been a problem." The *problem* to racists, sexists and other asorted bigots, is when subhumans talk back to their superiors, get uppity , don't stay in their place or show proper respect. Denigrating human beings isn't a "problem," the "problem" only occurs when the people being denigrated don't quietly submit to it, ignore it, swallow it, lower their eyes and run away, pretend it never happened, etc. There is only a "problem" if the subhumans talk back to the ubermenchen as if they also had free speech and human rights. Then you have to teach them differently, to eliminate the "problem." --Mark -- Mark Ethan Smith {allegra,philabs,cmcl2}!phri\ Big Electric Cat Public Unix {bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!msmith New York, NY, USA {philabs}!tg/
era@killer.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) (01/12/88)
In article <8801071134.AA05730@garnet.berkeley.edu> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: > >People called you names, so you filed a lawsuit, because their name calling >was a violation of your civil rights. Hey, bitch@chinet, wherever you are, >you got it all wrong. It isn't me and the brahms gang pulling off the hoax >of pretending to be Mark Ethan Smith, it's our mutual friend Timmy! Who else >would take the position that name calling is a violation of law, that people >who call you names are part of a conspiracy against you? You were pretty indignant when I accused you of being the pseudo who told the pseudo about my being a pseudo. You were only using your pseudo to repeat what the pseudo told you about me. Now I accuse the pseudo of being you. If you tell us who the pseudo is who told you that you weren't the pseudo, we'll know the pseudo wasn't you. Until then, if you insist on lying by not telling the truth, we will know that you are the pseudo. If you repeat what you say as the pseudo and you don't use your real name, you are likely to be mistaken for him. There is no reason for anyone to believe it isn't either you or one of your close friends. >In what context >did they tell you to eat shit? Did they tell other people to eat shit, too? >You should have found out, maybe you could have initiated a class action suit >against people who tell other people to eat shit. The problem to the racists and bigots who use pseudos is when subhumans talk back instead of staying in their place and showing proper respect, when they don't quietly submit to it, ignore it, or swallow it, or lower their eyes and run away. When you and your ubermenchen harrass other people, you say that there would have been no problem if they just hadn't responded. If, for example, all the people you flamed at simply accepted what you said and showed their "proper" respect, there wouldn't have been a problem. >>You have to know federal law to understand the illegality of >>Judge Kennedy's act. > >Which you clearly don't, meaning the conversation here should come to a halt >pretty quickly, but alas, no such luck. Stick to your mathematics, Wiener. When you've spent as much time as I have in court, then and only then would you be qualified to make your fascist pronouncements. >> It was up to a lower judge to decide if I sustained >>loss of livelihood from being talked to that way by coworkers. > >It's not necessary for any judge to go to the trouble of pondering and >rendering a decision on so trivial and obvious a non-issue as this. The >idea that people telling you to eat shit because they didn't like you >(obviously as part of the vast conspiracy against you) resulted in a loss >of livelihood is so stupid as to defy any attempt to rationalize it. Leave it to a blowhard fascist to tell other people when they should or should not be offended by what someone else says to them. Since judges have ruled in my favor in several such cases, your opinion is worthless here. >If your co-workers want to tell you >to eat shit, they have every right to do so, you have no (legal) recourse to >limit their freedom of speech. Of course this would be the opinion of a Reaganite yuppie assimilated Jew who gets his kicks flaming people on the network. HIS freedom of speech, to tell people to eat fecal matter and to describe them in derogatory terms of his own invention, should go unquestioned, since he is a white adult male. Anyone else's freedom of speech is another story. >But telling you to eat shit doesn't >cause you a loss of livelihood. No one is obliged to cater to other people's >hypersensitivities. If you find yourself unable to work because people call >you names, then you really are emotionally disabled and probably shouldn't >have been working in the first place. But I notice that all the name calling >you've been subjected to on the net hasn't disabled you from excessive posting. This really says it all right here. "No one is obliged to cater to other people's hypersensitivities." Typical white male copout. If you don't go along with our way of thinking, if you are offended by the way we act, YOU are being "hypersensitive" and we have no obligation to deal with you or your "problem." The question is whether or not the welfare system is in trouble because it is being abused, or because people simply aren't given enough money to take care of their needs, which include human contact and social activity, which for some people consists only of phone calls. >Does anybody really care? Your litigiousness is probably keeping quite a >few employees on the public payroll, to support an already overburdened >legal system in order that it can deal with superfluous lawsuits by the >likes of people who take offense at everything. Colin, if you're going to >complain about waste of taxpayers' money, how about the extra workload >imposed on the California court system to support crybaby litigation? More of the usual complaints about anyone who takes offense at offensiveness being called a crybaby. That's not the way MEN do it, is it Matt? No, you "take it like a man" as you so elegantly put it in another of your vicious attacks. --Mark
chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg) (01/13/88)
Without making any comment on the semantic content of the Mark Ethan Smith vs. Matt Weiner flamefest, I would like to congratulate the two combatants on the high quality of their flames. For example, a recent MES posting... In article <3O31@killer.UUCP> era@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) writes: } }You were pretty indignant when I accused you of being the pseudo who told }the pseudo about my being a pseudo. You were only using your pseudo to }repeat what the pseudo told you about me. Now I accuse the pseudo of being }you. If you tell us who the pseudo is who told you that you weren't the }pseudo, we'll know the pseudo wasn't you. Until then, if you insist on }lying by not telling the truth, we will know that you are the pseudo. }If you repeat what you say as the pseudo and you don't use your real name, }you are likely to be mistaken for him. A masterpiece of confusion. Bravo! }Of course this would be the opinion of a Reaganite yuppie assimilated Jew }who gets his kicks flaming people on the network. I nominate Mark Ethan Smith for the Alt.Flame New Epithet of the Year Award for the heretofore unimagined "Reaganite yuppie assimilated Jew"! What's next, "Libertarian white-collar egghead WASP"? Keep those entries coming! -- Chip Salzenberg UUCP: "{codas,uunet}!ateng!chip" A T Engineering My employer's opinions are a trade secret. "Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't." -- me
era@killer.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) (01/13/88)
Article <3031@killer.UUCP> is a forgery, as anyone who knows me, or has been reading my articles for several years can tell. I've asked Charlie to see if the article actually originated here or not. I hadn't responded to the forged article purporting to be from weemba, so I believe we have here conclusive evidence that ignoring such things and refusing to respond, does not solve the problem. --Mark
Q2816@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Creative Business Decisions) (01/13/88)
In article <3O31@killer.UUCP>, era@killer.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) writes: >In article <8801071134.AA05730@garnet.berkeley.edu> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: >>If your co-workers want to tell you >>to eat shit, they have every right to do so, you have no (legal) recourse to >>limit their freedom of speech. >Of course this would be the opinion of a Reaganite yuppie assimilated Jew who >gets his kicks flaming people on the network. Which part don't you like, Mark? Assimilated, or Jew? Half of your article is an attack on Matt (or pseudo-Matt) for saying things that fit your stereotyped image of what he is or must be. The above line of yours is rapidly creating a stereotype of YOU that is not particularly complimentary. Please explain what you meant, or be prepared to be written off as one who hides behind the net to fling racial epithets. What separates you from Eric Mading, Mark? What makes you better than him? Roger Lustig (Q2816@PUCC.BITNET) I dreamt I saw Joe Hill last night, alive as you and me. "But Joe," I said, "you're ten years dead." "I never died," said he.
weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (01/13/88)
Apparently the first message didn't get through. In article <4007@ptsfa.UUCP>, seth@ptsfa (Seth Miller) writes: >In article <3O31@killer.UUCP> era@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) writes: >>In article <8801071134.AA05730@garnet.berkeley.edu> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: >> [Lots of garbage about each other that proves that both are assholes] >Hey, guys (or gals or its), would you please keep your garbage >out of soc.motss. We really don't care about you or your >trivial problems. I wish you would both grow up and stop >acting like a couple of 3 year olds. The article that began this was a forgery in my name. Mark's been having people break in to some of his accounts--I have no idea of the above was by Mark or not. There are some terminal cases of three-year-old-itis out there, but I'm not one of them. ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 "Heck, I didn't even know they had a university in Houghton Michigan."
seth@ptsfa.UUCP (Seth Miller) (01/13/88)
In article <3O31@killer.UUCP> era@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) writes: >In article <8801071134.AA05730@garnet.berkeley.edu> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: > > [Lots of garbage about each other that proves that both are assholes] > Hey, guys (or gals or its), would you please keep your garbage out of soc.motss. We really don't care about you or your trivial problems. I wish you would both grow up and stop acting like a couple of 3 year olds. Thank you. Seth Miller Pacific Bell Disclaimer: We don't care, we don't have to, we're the phone company.
era@killer.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) (01/13/88)
In article <22556@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: > >Mark's been having >people break in to some of his accounts--I have no idea of the above was >by Mark or not. Matthew hadn't read the article in question when he wrote this. Somebody apparently managed to get my password on killer, and I've changed it now, so it probably won't happen again. Nobody reading that article who has read my articles, would think I'd written it. The cracker's own cleverness gives him away. The point of that article was to mislead, bait, confuse and amuse. I have more serious purposes in posting, which probably explains why I've become the target of so many attacks. --Mark
mikep@ism780c.UUCP (Michael A. Petonic) (01/13/88)
In article <3O31@killer.UUCP> era@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) writes: [ remember the next line, we'll use it later in class] >The problem to the racists and bigots who use pseudos is when subhumans... ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ >...fascist pronouncements.... ^^^^^^^ >...Leave it to a blowhard fascist to tell other people when they should... ^^^^^^ >Of course this would be the opinion of a Reaganite yuppie assimilated Jew who ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^ >...invention, should go unquestioned, since he is a white adult male.... ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ >...people's hypersensitivities." Typical white male copout. If you don't... ^^^^^ ^^^^ >...being called a crybaby. That's not the way MEN do it, is it Matt? No,... ^^^ >"take it like a man" as you so elegantly put it in another of your ^^^ >--Mark Regarding the first line, I think the only one keying on or being racist is Mark. Also, sexist would be a good name to call, but I wouldn't want to start doing that, would I??? The reason I took selected excepts out of MES's flame is to show the net what made Mark great and so well loved. -MikeP
inna@daisy.UUCP (Inna Lauris) (01/14/88)
In article <3O31@killer.UUCP> era@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) writes: > >Of course this would be the opinion of a Reaganite yuppie assimilated Jew who >gets his kicks flaming people on the network. > I do not want to get involved in the dispute between you and Math Student; it is going to be a messy discussion. However, I resent you refering to him as "Reaganite yuppie assimilated Jew". I am a Jew myself, mostly assimilated and I happen to be a Reagan supporter. What bothered me about your posting was the tone of your reference. What bearing the fact of his being or not being an assimilated Jew has on your arguments? And the fact that you are Jewish yourself is no excuse in this matter. You should stick to the facts and ideas in your arguments and leave people nationality and religion alone. Inna -- ***************************************************************** All I ask is the chance to prove that money cannot make me happy nsc!daisy!inna
era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (01/14/88)
In article <796@daisy.UUCP> inna@daisy.UUCP (Inna Lauris) writes: >In article <3O31@killer.UUCP> era@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) writes: Look again, Inna. The article ID is 3O31, not 3031. The forger used the letter "O" and it would have had a numeral if it had been posted by me in the ordinary manner. I missed that also, and I want to thank the person who pointed it out to me. I'm Jewish, and though I have defended myself against attacks, I have never attacked anyone. I have responded to those who attacked me. There is a difference between an attack, and a response to an attack or a defense. I have never and would never make anti-Semitic statements or irrational postings like that, and I hope that in the future you'll check the article carefully to see if it is a forgery before assuming that I wrote it. Due to the recent rash of attacks on me and forgeries, I have devoted less of my time to soc.women and more time to the feminist mailing list. --Mark
era@killer.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) (01/14/88)
In article <22556@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: >The article that began this was a forgery in my name. Mark's been having >people break in to some of his accounts--I have no idea of the above was >by Mark or not. And you'd be the first to know all about this, wouldn't you? Since you have refused to admit to being the pseudo, it becomes apparent that either you or your close friends are working together as the pseudo. You broke into my accounts to crack my pseudo, and failing that, you obscured my plan file by trying to recreate the original account I had on chinet, disabling the paranoid person option I had elected as was my choice. You and your friends working together have tried to prevent me from posting many times in the past. Now that I have become adept at uncovering your plots to alter netnews software in an effort to silence me, you know you cannot get away with simple tricks. So you engage in this campaign of forgery, in an attempt to discredit me. Mr. Wiener, you will not get away with this charade. I will get you. --Mark
oleg@quad1.quad.com (Oleg Kiselev) (01/15/88)
In article <3O31@killer.UUCP> era@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) writes: >You were pretty indignant when I accused you of being the pseudo who told >the pseudo about my being a pseudo. You were only using your pseudo to >repeat what the pseudo told you about me. I finally figured out what it was about MES that *really* bothers me: the use of the word "pseudo". "Mark Ethan Smith" is "pseudo", "ere" and "reason" are "pseudos", EVERYTHING is a "pseudo" on some level or another. Does MES want to have a photo ID and Social Security number attached to every "pseudo"? Or maybe I got it all wrong and MES uses "pseudo" in the same sense as the rest of us use "poster" and "person"? -- Oleg Kiselev -- oleg@quad1.quad.com -- {...!psivax|seismo!gould}!quad1!oleg HASA, "A" Division DISCLAIMER: I don't speak for my employers.
barnett@vdsvax.steinmetz.ge.com (Bruce G. Barnett) (01/15/88)
In article <31O8@killer.UUCP> era@killer.UUCP (??Mark Ethan Smith??) writes:
^
This article also has a 'O' instead of an '0' in the message ID. I
think it too is a forgery. Someone is amusing him/herself by forging
articles and tricking people into a flame war.
--
Bruce G. Barnett <barnett@ge-crd.ARPA> <barnett@steinmetz.UUCP>
uunet!steinmetz!barnettrlw@philabs.Philips.Com (Richard Wexelblat) (01/16/88)
Oh, fuck off.
--
--Dick Wexelblat {uunet|ihnp4|decvax}!philabs!rlw
rlw@philabs.philips.comrobinson@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (Michael Robinson) (01/16/88)
In article <31O8@killer.UUCP> era@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) writes: >In article <22556@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: > >>The article that began this was a forgery in my name. Mark's been having >>people break in to some of his accounts--I have no idea of the above was >>by Mark or not. > >And you'd be the first to know all about this, wouldn't you? Since you have >refused to admit to being the pseudo, it becomes apparent that either you >or your close friends are working together as the pseudo. >[etc.] Now folks, before everyone gets all bent out of shape again, please note: >Message-ID: <31O8@killer.UUCP> That's 31O8 with a letter 'O', not the number '0'. Looks like someone needs a spanking and to be sent to bed without dinner. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Robinson USENET: ucbvax!ernie!robinson ARPA: robinson@ernie.berkeley.edu
jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (01/16/88)
In article <31O8@killer.UUCP> era@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) writes:
The article I'm following up to is a forgery. Note the Message-ID: it
has an O instead of a zero in the number. Using postnews or Pnews
(from rn) will never generate an article of this kind. Will whoever
is doing this please stop? It's not amusing any more.
--
- Joe Buck {uunet,ucbvax,sun,<smart-site>}!epimass.epi.com!jbuck
Old Internet mailers: jbuck%epimass.epi.com@uunet.uu.netera@killer.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) (01/16/88)
In article <1841@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >In article <31O8@killer.UUCP> era@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) writes: > >The article I'm following up to is a forgery. Note the Message-ID: it >has an O instead of a zero in the number. Using postnews or Pnews >(from rn) will never generate an article of this kind. Will whoever >is doing this please stop? It's not amusing any more. Thanks, Joe. It *is* sort of amusing to notice the people who don't bother to look at the header and assume that I might post something like those forgeries. They are *all*, without exception, people who have flamed me, attacked me, and made attacks on my humanity or denied me equal terms in the past. 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. I don't know how these forgeries are being done. I suspect that they have to access my account on killer to do it, so I've changed my password again. That may or may not help. Please read the article before responding. Check the header. If you have been reading my articles for several years, looking for evidence of the "paranoia," "psychosis," and tendency to "attack" people that flamers persistently attribute to me, without finding any such evidence, and are now happy to find such evidence in the forged articles, check your prejudgments before responding. If I actually were paranoid or psychotic, or actually attacked people who hadn't attacked me first, the cracker wouldn't have to go to such trouble to make it look as if I did. If you mailed a vote on soc.equal-rights andor comp.human-rights and it bounced, please post something and we'll try to get a mailpath. I've received very few votes, but the "no" votes are so emphatic and full of stuff like, "NO NO NO NO NO! The flames are the only fun in soc.women," that I believe there would be more such "no" votes if not for mailer problems. So far the "no" votes greatly outnumber the "yes" votes, but not by 90%, indicating that there might be a number of male posters who do not oppose equal rights, but haven't voted. --Mark
811318w@aucs.UUCP (Rob Wolfe) (01/17/88)
I have been reading the various scribblings of Mark and others re:Pseudos
and all sorts of other stuff and all I can think to say is:
come on people LIGHTEN UP
--
Rob Wolfe
UUCP: {uunet|watmath|utai|garfield|mnetor}!dalcs!aucs!811318w
normal mail: Jodrey School of Computer Science,
Acadia University,Wolfville,NS,Canada B0P 1X0840493n@aucs.UUCP (Bill Nickerson) (01/17/88)
I know this is an important topic, but could you bring it to a head and stop bitching at each other. Wear asbestos or something... Thanx. - Bill
840493n@aucs.UUCP (Bill Nickerson) (01/17/88)
Could someone tell me the original intent of this news group? I can't see through the flames.... (Incidentally, you guys may wish to send things via Snail and let the rest of us continue normally....) - Bill N.
pooh@oddjob.UChicago.EDU (soggy and hard to light) (01/17/88)
In article <2939@killer.UUCP> era@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) writes: >So far the "no" votes greatly outnumber >the "yes" votes, but not by 90%, indicating that there might be a >number of male posters who do not oppose equal rights, but haven't >voted. There is a logic flaw here. The people who voted AGAINST the groups might simply object to their creation as a separate group, or object to its moderation (as was specifically addressed by two followups that I've seen). It does NOT necessarily imply that they are against equal rights. Pooh pooh@oddjob.uchicago.edu Look for significance where there is none, and you will surely find it.
era@killer.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) (01/18/88)
Reply-To: era@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) Followup-To: alt.flame Distribution: Organization: The Unix(R) Connection BBS, Dallas, Tx In article <1439@uoregon.UUCP> dboyes@uoregon.UUCP (David Boyes) writes: >In some article in alt.flame.... The article ID was in your reference line. >Do you have console logs or records of login/logout times for the Do you have the ability to look at the article ID in your reference line? If so, you'd see it has a letter "O" instead of a number "0" and is a forgery. >Pardon me, but I think I'm going to go and be sick. Please do it elsewhere. --Mark
dboyes@uoregon.UUCP (David Boyes) (01/18/88)
Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.47.3 of Thu Oct 29 1987 on drizzle (berkeley-unix) In some article in alt.flame, MES says: > Since you have >refused to admit to being the pseudo, it becomes apparent that either you >or your close friends are working together as the pseudo. Huh? I refuse to admit to being the pseudonym you two are arguing about too. Does that necessarily make me the pseudonym? This makes NO sense at all, Mark. Do you have console logs or records of login/logout times for the accounts in question, Mark? Without such information, you're going to have a very difficult time proving any of the charges you made in the referenced article you posted. Also, be aware that the 'paranoid' option for finger is easily circumvented and sometimes the system does it for you. Our 4.3bsd system here regularly 'unparanoids' people on a completely random basis -- the best solution to that is simply not to have a .plan file (assuming that is possible -- I don't use any of the systems referenced; I dislike Unix and use it only because I don't have enough disk space on my 4341 to run news....sigh). What isn't there, can't be modified. >Mr. Wiener, you will not get away with this charade. I will get you. Come off it, Mark. Stop acting like a thwarted child and go on with your life. 'Getting' someone doesn't buy you anything except a lot of enemies. Take a bit of advice from Christ's speech to the disciples on evangelism: if they're not listening, knock the dust off your sandals and go elsewhere. Pardon me, but I think I'm going to go and be sick. -- 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?'
legare@ut-emx.UUCP (BoB teCh) (01/20/88)
In article <743@aucs.UUCP>, 811318w@aucs.UUCP (Rob Wolfe) writes: > > I have been reading the various scribblings of Mark and others re:Pseudos > and all sorts of other stuff and all I can think to say is: > > come on people LIGHTEN UP gosh how eloquent. sounds a lot like this guy's last poignent request, " come on people GET A LIFE" gosh, who could forget the depth of feeling and emotion from his classic " come one people GROW UP" ? i stand in awe. aaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwww.... BoB teCh but above all, I am *definately* a pseudo... hee hee hee hee hee hee hee
steve@crcmar.crc.uucp (Steve Ardron) (01/21/88)
In article <1841@epimass.EPI.COM>, jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: > In article <31O8@killer.UUCP> era@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) writes: > > The article I'm following up to is a forgery. Note the Message-ID: it > has an O instead of a zero in the number. It seems to me that some of these "forgeries" might not be forgeries. There have been enough postings pointing out the O as opposed to 0 errors that any forger would have to know about it, and yet they keep occuring. Also, it is significantly easier to type 0 than O so I find it hard to see the mistake being made in the first place. I am reluctant to get into this MES flame stuff as I don't know the background, but it looks to me as though he/she is using the "forgeries" to make postings without any blame being attached, especially since he/she was the first to bring it up about article numbers. Stevie. DISCLAIMER: My employers would shoot me if they knew I was writing this stuff.