gsmith@BOSCO.BERKELEY.EDU (09/13/87)
In article <1520@chinet.UUCP> rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) writes: >In article <8709070142.AA00636@ragu> ragu!gsmith (Gene Ward Smith) writes: >What peaks my curiosity about this article (and others like it in a large >number of newsgroups, to which I have submitted this article) is why they >were posted at all. I doubt this. They were posted because I was annoyed, and with good reason. And I suspect you know this, whether your curiosity is still "peaking" or has already attained its customary summit. >Yes, Tim has said some things bordering >on the ridiculous, the insulting, and the asinine all at the same time. >(His comments on the genocidal nature of the state of Israel, which may have >been part of what set Matthew off, are just one example.) Careful, you might get accused of an illegal campaign of harassment and kicked off the net if you insist on making such remarks. >But which of the >net mouthpieces has not done all of this at one time or another? Which of these clanging bells and roaring sirens of the net would have the sheer, brazen gall or the hypocrisy elevated to the degree of dementia to do such a thing as to try to get another account terminated? Perhaps Tim's should be, but only because he is trying to shut other people up. If he ceases to do I would certainly want him to keep posting. >And does >having done any of this, the hypocrisy or the hostility, prohibit him from >complaining when it is done excessively and abusively to him? Of course it does. He who lives by the flame shall die by the flame; and Tim wishes to be a violent flamer. He should take it in return like a human person, and not like a small rodent which squeaks its fear to the night. >Matthew Wiener apparently has a long history of being hostile and rude to >people for no good reason. He has a long history of being rude, period. He *always* has a reason in my experience. He was more rude to you than he needed to be. He also had an excellent reason, which you failed to see then and continue to fail to see. This seems to be the reason for your own venting of hostility now. So where does this leave you? >He and his friend Gene have been quoted as being >proud of being rude. Wrong. I am not proud of being rude, I just have a very short fuse and little ability to suffer fools gladly. (Even less ability to tolerate bigots of various stripes. Thus, my flames.) >The reason he and I were communicating >in private mail in the first place was because he went to great efforts to do >to me in "his" newsgroup (sci.philosophy.tech) what Berkeley administrators >have finally done to him. Untrue and unfair. If you can't see the difference, then you may continue to expect that intellectually intolerant persons of my stripe will continue to point out the painful but obvious truths about the shortcomings in your reasoning. Matthew NEVER NEVER NEVER tried to kick you off even a newsgroup, much less the entire net. He just pointed out that you didn't know what you were doing and suggested (rudely, no doubt) that you cease doing it. >He has continued to pester me in private mail since >then. So tell him to stop. >And plenty more examples. By way of clarification, many of these examples (and ALL of the ones I co-signed) were after Tim tried to shut us up. I was especially annoyed because he tried to get me in trouble when I wasn't even in his damn war. >But what Tim did was to complain about someone's rude and >obnoxious behavior. Wrong. What Tim did was to insist that Matthew Wiener be kicked off the net, to threaten lawsuits, and to drag me into it by writing lies about me to the Math department here. >The brahms >administrators apparently saw this as yet another in the series of complaints >they have received about Matthew and Gene, and decided that enough was enough. I never had any complaints that I know of before Tim Maroney complained that I was a part of an illegal campaign of harassment. >If the issue is >really free speech, what about Tim's free speech right to complain? If he wanted to bitch, he could bitch on the net or send nasty e-mail to us. Most people react that way. What about my free speech right to write letters to Tim Maroney's employers claiming he is a drug-crazed Communist-Satanist menace to the American Way of Life? Should I exercise that? >Gene has tried to make this into a political argument, claiming that the >issue is "libertarianism." I was trying to have an intelligent discussion about some issues that got raised by this over in talk.politics.theory. If you will do me the courtesy of making a special effort, you might try to understand what I am saying. This would place you in the position of being able to repond in kind, which would be nice. 'Still, if you were at Brahms and the room flashed as another idea was captured from the ebb and flow of that vast sea of cosmic intelligence, the idea might be considered to have been "created"' -- Paul M. Koloc ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) (09/14/87)
In article <8709130104.AA11330@ragu> ragu!gsmith (Gene Ward Smith) writes: >>What peaks my curiosity about this article (and others like it in a large >>number of newsgroups, to which I have submitted this article) is why they >>were posted at all. > > I doubt this. They were posted because I was annoyed, and with >good reason. And I suspect you know this, whether your curiosity >is still "peaking" or has already attained its customary summit. Clearly they were posted to sway public opinion in favor of the brahms gang by implying that Tim Maroney was trying to squelch the free speech of the brahms gang and by making it seem as though you two were martyrs to the cause of free speech. Other people have pointed out that when the "free speech" is nothing but abusive name calling, the "rights" associated with free specch don't necessarily apply. According to Laura, Matthew wanted nothing less than the RIGHT to flame Tim as much as and in any manner that he felt like. Also according to Laura, he was also convinced that Tim could flame back at his system administrators as much as he liked, believing that no one would ever delete the account of Matthew Wiener. I think it's a positive thing to see such conceit shattered. >>And does >>having done any of this, the hypocrisy or the hostility, prohibit him from >>complaining when it is done excessively and abusively to him? > > Of course it does. He who lives by the flame shall die by the >flame; and Tim wishes to be a violent flamer. He should take it >in return like a human person, and not like a small rodent which >squeaks its fear to the night. Truer words were never spoken. The same principle applies to you and Matthew, you know. Instead of taking it like human beings, you are now whining about someone complaining about your rudeness and obnoxiousness. For all Tim's hostility, he never stooped to your level of gratuitous insult, did he? (Who could?) >>Matthew Wiener apparently has a long history of being hostile and rude to >>people for no good reason. > > He has a long history of being rude, period. He *always* has a reason in >my experience. He was more rude to you than he needed to be. He also >had an excellent reason, which you failed to see then and continue to >fail to see. This seems to be the reason for your own venting of >hostility now. So where does this leave you? What I'm venting is my opinion, having been another victim of brahms gang rudeness and intimidation tactics. After reading your cloying pleas to newsgroups like soc.culture.jewish practically begging for people to see it your way, I was really offended, and I thought the other side, from the perspective of someone harrassed by the brahms gang, needed to be heard. It is only in the interest of presenting a balanced picture that I speak. As for Matthew's "excellent reason," I only failed to see it because Matthew failed to demonstrate it. But that is typical of brahms gang tactics: fail to demonstrate your position, then blame the other person for failing to see that position and call them rude names. I've been a victim of this game and I've seen others fall victim to it many times. I'm not surprised that you, Matthew's collaborator in rudeness, would have seen valid "reasons" for rudeness. > Wrong. I am not proud of being rude, I just have a very short fuse and >little ability to suffer fools gladly. (Even less ability to tolerate >bigots of various stripes. Thus, my flames.) I went through this same line with Matthew. It seems that people who tell us how they are unable to suffer the behavior of "fools" most often are really saying that they hate it when someone doesn't see things their way, and of course anyone who doesn't is a "fool." I'm not really sure whether or not anyone should care how well you feel you can suffer the behavior of fools, your lack of ability in that area doesn't absolve you of th social obligations to be reasonably courteous. Even when we fools fail to see what you fail to demonstrate. > If he wanted to bitch, he could bitch on the net or send nasty e-mail >to us. Most people react that way. What about my free speech right to >write letters to Tim Maroney's employers claiming he is a drug-crazed >Communist-Satanist menace to the American Way of Life? Should I exercise >that? Sure, if you want to. If you did you'd probably come off looking like an idiot. If his employers have a shred of common sense, they will laugh at you for being a lunatic making wild accusations. This is the reason I doubt that Tim's letter was anything but well documented. For a communication like that to be taken seriously by the reader, and not dismissed as the ravings of a whining complainer, it would have to have something behind it that the reader can see. This is why I believe your claim that Tim Maroney told "lies" is the real fabrication. He had plenty of real material to provide showing how obnoxious you two are. He didn't have to go to the trouble of making things up. >>Gene has tried to make this into a political argument, claiming that the >>issue is "libertarianism." > > I was trying to have an intelligent discussion about some >issues that got raised by this over in talk.politics.theory. Oh, fiddlesticks, Gene. Do you think you're kidding anybody with this "intelligent political discussion" fish story? Were you attempting to have a serious discussion about how Matthew's getting the boot was related to Judaism by posting to soc.culture.jewish? You were writing rhetorical articles in an effort to sway opinion in your and Matthew's favor, period. Any intelligent political discussion that resulted was incidental. --Rhonda
rancke@diku.UUCP (Hans Rancke-Madsen.) (09/14/87)
In article <8709130104.AA11330@ragu> gsmith@BOSCO.BERKELEY.EDU writes: [somebody else:] >>If the issue is >>really free speech, what about Tim's free speech right to complain? [gsmith:] > If he wanted to bitch, he could bitch on the net or send nasty e-mail >to us. Most people react that way. What about my free speech right to >write letters to Tim Maroney's employers claiming he is a drug-crazed >Communist-Satanist menace to the American Way of Life? Should I exercise >that? It seems to me that a lot of people thinks that "free speech" means that *they* can say whatever they want, while the laws of libel limits what other people can say (Please note that I'm not accusing you of this attitude; your remark in fact seems to indicate the opposite. It just made me want to make the following point). (In myy opinion) the right of free speech means that noone can prevent you from saying whatever you damn please - *in advance*; whatever laws exists in whatever country you're in (like laws of libel), might make you pay for it afterwards though. Hans Rancke, University of Copenhagen ..mcvax!diku!rancke --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- - I hate it when people call me paranoid. It makes me feel persecuted.
era@ddsw1.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) (09/15/87)
In article <1554@chinet.UUCP> rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) writes: >>>Gene has tried to make this into a political argument, claiming that the >>>issue is "libertarianism." > >Oh, fiddlesticks, Gene. Do you think you're kidding anybody with this >"intelligent political discussion" fish story? Were you attempting to have >a serious discussion about how Matthew's getting the boot was related to >Judaism by posting to soc.culture.jewish? You were writing rhetorical articles >in an effort to sway opinion in your and Matthew's favor, period. Any >intelligent political discussion that resulted was incidental. How interesting. It is totally irrelevant that the people who censored me and harassed me and eventually succeeded in getting my password pulled on the Well and on Chinet were mostly Libertarians and that I happen to be Jewish. It is only a coincidence that the only people who get their passwords pulled by usenet sites happen to be Jewish, and that the people who do it happen to be Libertarians who, except in the case of Jews, pretend to advocate "absolute free speech." I certainly wouldn't be paranoid enough to see any discrimination in this. Definitely a non-issue. But if you happen to be Jewish, I'd advise you to try to get accounts on machines that aren't owned or dominated by Libertarians--just to be on the safe side. ;-) --Mark -- Poster assumes all liability for contents of this article. Mark Ethan Smith ihnp4!ddsw1!era
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (09/17/87)
In article <341@ddsw1.UUCP> era@ddsw1.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) writes: >It is only a coincidence that the only people who get their passwords >pulled by usenet sites happen to be Jewish, and that the people who do it >happen to be Libertarians who, except in the case of Jews, pretend to >advocate "absolute free speech." I bet Tim Maroney will be real surprised when he finds out that he's Jewish. Followups to talk.loonie.fringe. -- David Canzi
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (09/17/87)
Will you people please take soc.net-people out of the newsgroups lines of
this thread? It's neither relevant nor appropriate to this group.
--
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@TTI.COM) Illegitimati Nil
Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483
Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax|trwrb}!ttidca!hollomberhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) (09/18/87)
In article <341@ddsw1.UUCP>, era@ddsw1.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) writes: >In article <1554@chinet.UUCP> rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) writes: >>Oh, fiddlesticks, Gene. Do you think you're kidding anybody with this >>"intelligent political discussion" fish story? Were you attempting to have >>a serious discussion about how Matthew's getting the boot was related to >>Judaism by posting to soc.culture.jewish? You were writing rhetorical articles >>in an effort to sway opinion in your and Matthew's favor, period. Any >>intelligent political discussion that resulted was incidental. > >It is totally irrelevant that the people who censored me and harassed >me and eventually succeeded in getting my password pulled on the Well >and on Chinet were mostly Libertarians and that I happen to be Jewish. Perhaps it is. I am on Chinet and I am Jewish, and no one has made any effort to pull my account (although I have gotten a few requests to clean out my mail file :-) ) despite my own involvement in a loud boisterous debate or two. In addition to being Jewish, you have been arrogant and hostile to a large number of people. I would say that might be another reason your account was pulled. Perhaps it might even be the real reason. When I was younger someone said to me that the worst anti-semites are often Jews or ex-Jews. Through your ravings that you are a victim of "prejudice" against women and Jews, you actually hurt those of us fighting real discrimination. The other thing is that Gene Ward Smith posted his article to soc.culture.jewish with no relevance to Jewish issues whatsoever. It was never even claimed that Matthew was getting the boot because he was Jewish. He was simply rallying readers against Tim Maroney on the basis that Matthew, a Jew, was kicked off of the net by Tim Maroney, a man who made anti-Israel statements. To my mind that is pandering of the lowest kind. >It is only a coincidence that the only people who get their passwords >pulled by usenet sites happen to be Jewish, and that the people who do it >happen to be Libertarians who, except in the case of Jews, pretend to >advocate "absolute free speech." The only people? Tim Maroney once got himself pulled, and we know he isn't Jewish. I am in awe of your ability to formulate wild generalizations at the drop of a hat the way you do, for example, in your Myopia articles and other articles in soc.women. Like I just said, your whining that you are a victim of anti-semitic anti-female discrimination when you are really the "victim" of the more justifiable anti-obnoxious discrimination seriously damages any efforts to fight real prejudice and discrimination. >I certainly wouldn't be paranoid enough to see any discrimination in this. Obviously that's not true. By the way, as long as you brought up the topic of Matthew Wiener, let me ask you something out of curiosity. The first of your Myopia series of articles in soc.women was posted from an account at violet.berkeley.edu, a machine known to be the last net outpost of Matthew Wiener. Gene Ward Smith mentioned in passing that Matthew went back east after his accounts were deleted (obviously an act of anti-semitism by libertarians). Sure enough, later articles in that series (postdating Matthew's departure) were posted from a UNIX site in New York City. (Big Electric Cat, dasys1) You wouldn't by any chance happen to BE Matthew Wiener, would you? --Rhonda
gsmith@BOSCO.BERKELEY.EDU.UUCP (09/18/87)
In article <341@ddsw1.UUCP> era@ddsw1.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) writes: >In article <1554@chinet.UUCP> rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) writes: >>>>Gene has tried to make this into a political argument, claiming that the >>>>issue is "libertarianism." >It is totally irrelevant that the people who censored me and harassed >me and eventually succeeded in getting my password pulled on the Well >and on Chinet were mostly Libertarians and that I happen to be Jewish. >It is only a coincidence that the only people who get their passwords >pulled by usenet sites happen to be Jewish, and that the people who do it >happen to be Libertarians who, except in the case of Jews, pretend to >advocate "absolute free speech." For the record and in the possibly mistaken belief that someone might be interested I should like to say: (1) Matthew Wiener's net-access problems have nothing to do with his ethnicity. (2) Rhonda to the contrary, I was not writing "diatribes" against Libertarianism, but asking certain questions relating to the nature of its commitment to liberty. (3) While I often disagree with what Mark Ethan Smith has to say, I think he should be allowed to continue saying it. If Libertarians kicked him off that would seem to add to my problems and questions about this philosophy. I hope my making this remark is not taken to be another "diatribe". "This paragraph is why I have felt free to insult you." -- Tim Maroney ucbvax!bosco!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
pab@cbterra.UUCP (09/19/87)
In article <8709180834.AA26333@ronzoni>, gsmith@BOSCO.BERKELEY.EDU writes: > >In article <1554@chinet.UUCP> rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) writes: > >>>>Gene has tried to make this into a political argument, claiming that the > >>>>issue is "libertarianism." > > For the record and in the possibly mistaken > belief that someone might be interested I should like to say: > > (2) Rhonda to the contrary, I was not writing "diatribes" against > Libertarianism, but asking certain questions relating to the > nature of its commitment to liberty. Why wasnt it posted to appropriate newsgroups then. Your "I'll take dame liberty for myself, thank you" was the most infantile saying i ever heard. It equally applies to the way conservatives view liberals and libertarians, how liberals view libertarians and conservatives, and how libertarians view liberals and conservatives. > Gene, when you first started the "portrait" series. You told a heart-wrenching story about how poor Matt had been canned because Tim complained to Matt's superiors at the university. Then about 3/4 the way into the article you start ranting about libertarians. Yes, somehow, the evil and twisted libertarians sprang from the rocks and bushwacked poor Matt. Tim isnt a libertarian, i dont know if the university oficials are, but what difference does political orientation make? I've been attacked by the "non-violent, nicey-nicey, holier-than-thou" liberals. Does that justify me making inflammatory remarks to discredit them? Your title speaks for itself. What did libertarian philosphy have to do with it? When did libertarian theory become your university's practice. > (3) While I often disagree with what Mark Ethan Smith has to say, > I think he should be allowed to continue saying it. If would you say the same about Tim Maroney? > Libertarians kicked him off that would seem to add to my problems > and questions about this philosophy. I hope my making Oh good grief! How does Mark even know the politics of the people who kicked him off? That has very little to do with it anyway. "Yep, them liberals tried to beat on me, only adds to my problems about their philosphy". > this remark is not taken to be another "diatribe". Again, your title was written as to slur libertarians. Whether it was intended that way or not. Your past postings make me suspect you of ill-intentions though. Gene, you and just about everyone on this net, obviously know nothing about libertarian philosphy. It seems all you have to go on are the lies and propaganda spread by ignorants. If ANYONE wants to know about libertarian philosphy or ANY ( liberal/conservative ) type of politics i suggest you mail it to the soc.politics moderator. Talk.politics.misc is also an option, though i doubt anything productive will come of it. It seems only 3 yr. olds post there. ex.- ( you're an idiot, no! you're pond scum. Yeah, well my mom can beat up your mom! nyaah! ) > > ucbvax!bosco!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 I'm sorry Matt's gone too, I liked most of his postings, hilarious! However, i disliked most of his political postings. They were most irrational and Matt seemed incapable of carrying on a discussion. mm
roger@celtics.UUCP (Roger B.A. Klorese) (09/23/87)
In article <3710@cbterra.ATT.COM> pab@cbterra.ATT.COM (Mannequin Man) writes:
]
]> Libertarians kicked him off that would seem to add to my problems
]> and questions about this philosophy. I hope my making
]
] Oh good grief! How does Mark even know the politics of the people
] who kicked him off?
Simple... we all know that The Well is the house toy of The Whole Earth
People... if the American Nazi Party kicked you off one of its systems,
wouldn't it be fair to assume it was done by Nazis?
--
///==\\ (Your message here...)
/// Roger B.A. Klorese, CELERITY (Northeast Area)
\\\ 40 Speen St., Framingham, MA 01701 +1 617 872-1552
\\\==// celtics!roger@seismo.CSS.GOV - seismo!celtics!roger