rcj@clyde.UUCP (05/28/87)
I hereby retract my statements regarding Mark Ethan Smith, as I have been informed by very reliable sources that: a) I missed the earlier discussion where it was mentioned that MES *is* her legal name, as changed by her, and b) Mark Ethan Smith is alive and well and a Real (tm) person; not someone else masquerading. The MAD Programmer -- 201-386-4295 (Cornet 232) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd allegra ]!moss!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua watmath ]!clyde!rcj Aside to Jef Pokanzer (sp?): Sometimes insinuations are more fun than the real thing. Sorry you didn't think so. As it was I generated the responses I needed to re-evaluate the whole situation without angering and possibly embarrassing an innocent person by naming them.
era1987@violet.berkeley.edu.UUCP (05/29/87)
In article <9729@clyde.ATT.COM> rcj@clyde.ATT.COM (Curtis Jackson) writes: >I hereby retract my statements regarding Mark Ethan Smith, as I >have been informed by very reliable sources that: > >a) I missed the earlier discussion where it was mentioned that MES >*is* her legal name, as changed by her, and > >b) Mark Ethan Smith is alive and well and a Real (tm) person; >not someone else masquerading. > >The MAD Programmer -- 201-386-4295 (Cornet 232) >alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd allegra ]!moss!rcj > ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua watmath ]!clyde!rcj > >Aside to Jef Pokanzer (sp?): Sometimes insinuations are more fun than >the real thing. Sorry you didn't think so. As it was I generated the >responses I needed to re-evaluate the whole situation without angering >and possibly embarrassing an innocent person by naming them. Well, if Curtis can have fun, there's no reason I can't have fun too, particularly if it won't anger or embarass her. I appreciate Curtis making her retractions, however she doesn't seem to understand that defamatory speculating about others is not an innocent pastime and can hurt people. I would assume that Curtis is her real legal name and I would see no reason to discuss or challenge that, however it is quite possible that she is a paranoid prude who simply wants to avoid sexual harassment and changed her name to conceal her female genitals. How would I know? While I would ordinarily not intrude on somebody's privacy, she seems to feel that it is innocent to speculate about my genital status. If she is not paranoid, why doesn't she tell people that despite having a name like Curtis, she really prefers female pronouns because without them she has difficulty attracting sexual harassment, obscene phone callers, hatemail, obscene death threats, etc? And if she is male, does that mean that she is too unintelligent to learn to respect other people's privacy? In this society, due to the prevalence of porn, is it a crime for a person to conceal their genitals? If private parts aren't private, what's private? Again, names and pronouns are not biological, genetic, or secondary sex characteristics. And if you only look between their legs, you'll never understand that all men are created equal. If it is innocent for Curtis to discuss my sex in news.misc, it must be equally innocent and appropriate for me to speculate about hers and to use pronouns to refer to my speculation about her genital organs rather than the ones usual to her name. Grow up and cut it out. There are hundreds of women in the phone book using initials rather than their names to avoid harassment. You cannot possibly expose them all, even if you devoted your life and wealth to it. When you respect others, they'll respect you. My sex isn't computeer related news. My name is indeed my true legal name and entitled to the same respet as her name, which I will, in the future be careful to accord her and anyone else who can't refer to me without sneaking in a blow below the belt. If Curtis wishes to retract her ungrammatical usage, I'll retract mine. If she believes that all computer-related postings must be made with specific regard to the genitals of the person posting, I feel sorry for her. When I use feminine or diminutive pronouns to refer to somebody who is accustomed to and normally accorded the same masculine or inclusive pronouns I am accustomed to, I don't do it based upon gender. I do it to keep us on equal terms. If they can't use masculine pronouns in their inclusive sense, I can certainly use feminine pronouns in their diminutive sense, to indicate that the person judges others by what's between their legs, rather than what they said, and is therefore a diminutive or lesser intelligence as far as I'm concerned. That wasn't a retraction she posted, it was a gender-based snipe, and she deserves the same in return without regard to her sex. If she accords terms of reference and respect based on gender, I accord them based on intelligence and respect for the rights and privacy of others. I don't know whose privacy she thinks she is protecting, but it certainly isn't mine. One of the people spreading defamatory allegations about me, perhaps? Defamation is not an innocent pastime and deserves no protection. As for Jef, he is one of the people who objected when the Well pulled my password. Jef doesn't agree with me on many topics, such as Affirmative Action, but he does believe in free speech and opposes censorship--not just for pornography and obscenity, but also for feminist views and other legal, if not strictly Libertarian, points of view. I have a lot of respect for Jef because even when he didn't agree with what I said, he attempted to defend my right to say it. --Mark
cetron@utah-cs.UUCP (Edward J Cetron) (05/29/87)
>[...] If they can't use masculine pronouns in their >inclusive sense, I can certainly use feminine pronouns in their diminutive ok, if i do as YOU say and use he/him/his inclusively - you won't flame me but all the rest of the other fanatic feminists (as opposed to non-fanatics who i approve of) will have me shot. if I use she for women, he for men, of s/he then you will flame me saying i'm only interested in genitals...... AND MORE IMPORTANT WHAT THE @(*#&$(*@#&$( IS THIS DOING IN NEWS.MISC... discuss just the removing of accounts and what justifies them here, move the rest to soc.women ONLY.....(followups there ONLY) -ed
maslak@sri-unix.ARPA (Valerie Maslak) (05/29/87)
I suggest that we all read this latest posting of Mark's very carefully. I felt a very strong reaction, in terms of attitude toward the person being discussed, through the use of the feminine pronoun. And, it wasn't the one I would have expected, given all the accusations of man-hater that are thrown at me here. Well done, Mark. I got a jolt, which is, I think, what you hoped to accomplish. Sexism is sometimes a very subtle and insidious phenomenon. Valerie Maslak
marv@vsedev.UUCP (05/30/87)
In article <3767@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu () writes: >Grow up and cut it out. There are hundreds of women in the phone book >using initials rather than their names to avoid harassment. You cannot >possibly expose them all, even if you devoted your life and wealth to it. Mark, There are millions of men, women, children, *people* who harrass on a sexual basis as well as other bases (e.g. financial) and you can't possibly expose them all, even if you devoted your life and wealth to it. I understand what you are saying...I do not necessarily agree with it but I completely respect and appreciate your feelings on the subject. Try to understand what I am saying: Surround yourself with *people* who understand and agree. Forget the rest...If you surround yourself with enough people, then *maybe* you can hope to change society as we understand it. Until then, you are fighting this war with a cap gun. -marvin Surround yourself with people who you *know* understand. Forget the rest you will find youself a much happier person... -- Marvin Raab Arlington, VA 22202 ...!seismo!vsedev!marv 703-521-5449 (h) ...!verdix!vrdxhq!vsedev!marv (formerly MFRQC@CUNYVM.BITNET)
phil@amdcad.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) (05/30/87)
So, Mark, could you supply more details on what happened at the Well,
why you think they turned off your account, and whether you think they
were justified? Keep in mind that the Well is not a Federally funded
operation in any sense of the word.
--
Phil Ngai, {ucbvax,decwrl,allegra}!amdcad!phil or amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.comera1987@violet.berkeley.edu (05/31/87)
In article <16895@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: > >So, Mark, could you supply more details on what happened at the Well, >why you think they turned off your account, and whether you think they >were justified? Keep in mind that the Well is not a Federally funded >operation in any sense of the word. I've reported what they told me. If you want further details, why not ask some of the people from the Well who have been making personal attacks on me here, to supply the details here instead? I'm interested to know why they would censor feminist or egalitarian views, but not censor porn, obscenity or swastikas. The Well got its hardware from tax exempt entities called NETI and Point Foundation. It got its software free on a beta test and probably got a free newsfeed. It resells the resources it got for free, and provides a service for Libertarians and those whose views agree with those of Well management. They refused to sell their services to me because my views differed from theirs. --Mark
phil@amdcad.UUCP (06/01/87)
In article <3788@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu () writes:
<I've reported what they told me. If you want further details, why not
<ask some of the people from the Well who have been making personal attacks
<on me here, to supply the details here instead? I'm interested to know
<why they would censor feminist or egalitarian views, but not censor porn,
<obscenity or swastikas.
I'm sorry, I came in in the middle. But it seems hard to believe anyone
would turn off an account just because it was being used by a feminist.
--
Bumper Snicker: If this car were a horse, it would have to be shot!
Phil Ngai, {ucbvax,decwrl,allegra}!amdcad!phil or amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.comems@apple.UUCP (Mike Smith) (06/01/87)
In article <3788@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes: > In article <16895@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: > > > >So, Mark, could you supply more details on what happened at the Well, > >why you think they turned off your account, and whether you think they > >were justified? Keep in mind that the Well is not a Federally funded > >operation in any sense of the word. > > I've reported what they told me. If you want further details, why not > ask some of the people from the Well who have been making personal attacks > on me here, to supply the details here instead? I'm interested to know > why they would censor feminist or egalitarian views, but not censor porn, > obscenity or swastikas. Well 'Well' ? Is this assertion true? Did you pull the account for the political views of the user? If so, I would expect it to be a moral injustus, but is it illegal? Is 'Well' a public company? And does it support 'porn, obscenity, or swastikas'? (I'm not sure how to post a swastika. I could make on on my Mac if I worked at it, but it aint in the ASCII set. I suppose one could paste it together out of dashes and pipes.) > The Well got its hardware from tax exempt entities called NETI and Point > Foundation. It got its software free on a beta test and probably got a > free newsfeed. It resells the resources it got for free, and provides > a service for Libertarians and those whose views agree with those of > Well management. They refused to sell their services to me because my > views differed from theirs. Did Well buy the hardware or was it donated? If bought, I see no importance to the legal nature of the source. Many beta test sites take software on a free or low payment basis in exchange for the burden of debugging. There are many other sites that pay full price for SW licences and take beta SW because it is {earlier dilivery, has a needed feature, more fun, etc.}. To the best of my knowledge, noone charges their neighbor for a newsfeed. Conclusion? To me, at least, the issue of free beta software and free newsfeed is not important. The issue of a tax exempt organization providing the HW is. If it was a donation, things could be sticky. If it was a purchase from NETI, then it is a non-issue. If well is a private business run as such it can (and must) set it's own guidlines for what is acceptable behaviour. Even if it sells time publicly, I would not expect it to be bound to provide survices to all comers. But if it recieves any public subsidy I think the rules change... Does anyone know the legal organization of the Well? What does it's charter say? A parallel - If I go down to the local Red Neck newspaper and try to buy ad copy space for a full page promotion of the local Comunist Party rally; I would expect to be denied on the grounds of editorial licence. Similarly, a KKK anouncement in the local Black Journal would also be denied. How is this different from a site, selling time, showing the same editorial control/oppression? -- E. Michael Smith ...!sun!apple!ems 'If you can dream it, you can do it' Walt Disney This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)
david@ukma.UUCP (06/02/87)
In article <890@apple.UUCP> ems@apple.UUCP (Mike Smith) writes: >In article <3788@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >> I'm interested to know >> why they would censor feminist or egalitarian views, but not censor porn, >> obscenity or swastikas. I think be may be referring to a couple of the more ... er ... controversial issues of CoEvolution Quarterly (now Whole Earth Review). Porn (very soft porn tho'), obscenity, and swastika's have all appeared in there. But feminist and egalitarian views have also appeared. They will publish just about anything... but they do have lean towards certain things... >> The Well got its hardware from tax exempt entities called NETI and Point >> Foundation. It got its software free on a beta test and probably got a >> free newsfeed. It resells the resources it got for free, and provides >> a service for Libertarians and those whose views agree with those of >> Well management. They refused to sell their services to me because my >> views differed from theirs. >Did Well buy the hardware or was it donated? If bought, I see no importance >to the legal nature of the source. Many beta test sites take software on >a free or low payment basis in exchange for the burden of debugging. There >are many other sites that pay full price for SW licences and take beta >SW because it is {earlier dilivery, has a needed feature, more fun, etc.}. I've researched this as best as I can. Unfortunately Stewart Brand wasn't very detailed about the funding or other aspects of the WELL when they first announced it. He was simply talking about regional computer networks and the neat things they could be. Anyway, he also talks as if they *own* the WELL, and he mentioned NETI as something like a sister organization. The last point is that another issue has a financial report from the WELL in the back. (CoEv and WER have always included financial reports in every issue; which, BTW, they usually show a loss; in the summer '86 issue the WELL showed a $14000 loss on $44000 in expenses). Also, the WELL's computer is physically located *in* their offices at 27 Gate Five road in Sausalito. At the time the WELL got started, Point was flush with money because they had just done the Whole Earth Software Catalog (v1.0 and v2.0). I'm sure they bought the hardware. As for my opinion on removing peoples' access? I kinda like the Golden Rule myself. ("Thems that gots the gold makes the rules"). Actually, I don't think I really like that rule, but I do live by it because the world lives by that rule. If my boss wanted me to cut off someones access then I would do so. -- ----- David Herron, cbosgd!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET, david@ms.uky.csnet ----- (also "postmaster", "news", and the Usenet map maintainer for Kentucky.) ----- bsmtp-users@ms.uky.csnet for bsmtp discussion ----- bsmtp-users-request@ms.uky.csnet for administrivia
bandy@amdcad.UUCP (06/03/87)
In article <3788@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu () writes: >I'm interested to know >why they would censor feminist or egalitarian views, but not censor porn, >obscenity or swastikas. [...] They refused to sell their services to me >because my views differed from theirs. Mark Smith was tossed off of the Well because of Mark's abuse of host account privs and for causing large amounts of disruption. There are plenty of feminists and egalitarians on the Well, as well as people whose views differ from the Well management's views. "Porn" and "obscenity" are in the eyes of the beholder. There are no swastikas on the Well. Mark, do you care to elaborate on the swastikas? If you are going to make such sensationalist claims, you should be backing them up with facts. >The Well got its hardware from tax exempt entities called NETI and Point >Foundation. The Well got its hardware and software from NETI, a for-profit corporation. They did this as an investment, as you may have expected. >[...] and probably got a free newsfeed. There are very few sites in the USA that have to pay their neighbour to give them a newsfeed, if any. [This is, of course, not counting phone bills] -- Andrew Scott Beals, {lll-crg,decwrl,allegra}!amdcad!bandy +1 408 749 3683 -- Andrew Scott Beals, {lll-crg,decwrl,allegra}!amdcad!bandy +1 408 749 3683
era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (06/03/87)
In article <16959@amdcad.AMD.COM> bandy@amdcad.AMD.COM (Andy Beals) writes: >In article <3788@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu () writes: >>I'm interested to know >>why they would censor feminist or egalitarian views, but not censor porn, >>obscenity or swastikas. [...] They refused to sell their services to me >>because my views differed from theirs. > >Mark Smith was tossed off of the Well because of Mark's abuse of host account >privs and for causing large amounts of disruption. There are plenty of Whoa! Nobody was tossed off for disruption. Hosts were given free time even if they spent more than 90% of it disrupting my conference and totally ignored their own--disruptiveness was protected under free speech. The Well admitted there were plenty of hosts more disruptive than I, particularly since, due to their attacks on me, I first stopped posting to any conference but my own, and then withdrew to a private conference when that didn't help. How can I be disrupting my own conference? Why weren't the hosts who disrupted my conference daily by making persistent ad hominem attacks on me considered disruptive? And the punishment for abusing host privileges, although I was not accused of that, and others were, is to have host status (free time) removed, not to have a password pulled. >feminists and egalitarians on the Well, as well as people whose views differ >from the Well management's views. > There was only one other feminist on the Well that I know of when I was tossed off. There had been three others, all paying users, not all female, but all feminists, who left the Well due to the attacks on me. The Well did not seem to mind the loss of income, but seemed to be happy that I would have less support. The Whole Earth Review had published articles opposing abortion and advocating sadomasochism, by women who may have called themselves feminists, but mainstream feminist thought prefers non-dominance relationships and supports free choice. >"Porn" and "obscenity" are in the eyes of the beholder. Porn is in the eyes of the beholder in that if it is specifically porn, rather than erotica, it is designed to appeal to only one sex, and may not be particularly appreciated by the other, exploited, sex. Obscenity is used freely on both the Well and in Whole Earth Review, and has never been seen as offensive enough to censor unless written by a woman. >There are no swastikas on the Well. > >Mark, do you care to elaborate on the swastikas? If you are going to make >such sensationalist claims, you should be backing them up with facts. > Yes, the Well and the Whole Earth Review are both edited by Kevin Kelly. In pulling my password for offensiveness, it was obvious that there were others more offensive than I who did not have their passwords pulled. But Kevin had published swastikas in the Whole Earth Review, and in an editorial, said that they did it to celebrate free speech--to show that they will even publish things that they might personally find offensive. My question is why Kevin finds swastikas less offensive, and therefore within the realm of free speech, than feminism or egalitarianism, which do not seem to meet Kevin's criteria. >>The Well got its hardware from tax exempt entities called NETI and Point >>Foundation. > >The Well got its hardware and software from NETI, a for-profit corporation. >They did this as an investment, as you may have expected. > And what is NETI'S connection with SEVA? Is the Point Foundation, which was said to own half the Well, also a for-profit? NETI, according to some financial statements in the Whole Earth Review, was pouring $30K-$90K per quarter into the Well, which was getting at least $10K/month in user fees and never showed a profit. Is NETI now prepared to write all that off? I heard that nobody working for at their Sausalito offices (Well, Whole Earth Review, Point Foundation) makes more than about $700/month. There don't seem to be any fees that weren't passed on to the customers. Would a management person with all three entities get three $700 salaries per month? >>[...] and probably got a free newsfeed. > >There are very few sites in the USA that have to pay their neighbour to give >them a newsfeed, if any. [This is, of course, not counting phone bills] Are you saying that the Well didn't pay anyone for their newsfeed? I can understand supplying a feed to somebody who isn't going to profit from it, and will help bear the expense, without asking anything in return, but if I knew it were going to somebody who intended to resell it at a profit, I might consider some consideration. >-- >Andrew Scott Beals, {lll-crg,decwrl,allegra}!amdcad!bandy +1 408 749 3683 > From original header: >Keywords: Mark Smith, People's Park, lies I haven't told any lies. Some people have been telling lies about me, that they claim to have learned on the Well in a private conference. I am still trying to find a way to resolve this without legal action. And what about People's Park? I was in Afghanistan when the People's Park riots occurred, not in Berkeley. Is that supposed to be some kind of smear, bandy? Due to the large number of rapists, convicted murderers, pimps, pornographers, and other exploitive sociopaths, I wouldn't set foot in People's Park. One of the former sysops (their term) was associated with the Free Speech movement in Berkeley, and quit the Well about the time they decided to abridge my freedom of speech on the Well, but I don't think that person has hung out in People's Park since the 60's, due to job and family obligations. What was the reference about, bandy? --Mark
mandel@well.UUCP (06/03/87)
M> <3788@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <16959@amdcad.AMD.COM> <3842@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> Sender: Reply-To: mandel@well.UUCP (Tom Mandel) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA Keywords: MES lives in her own lonely cloud Mark Ethan Smith's remarks about the Well are so distorted that they hardly deserve any attention, much less a response here. --Tom Mandel mandel@well.UUCP
abd@well.UUCP (06/04/87)
In article <3788@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu () writes: >In article <16895@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >> >>So, Mark, could you supply more details on what happened at the Well, >>why you think they turned off your account, and whether you think they >>were justified? Keep in mind that the Well is not a Federally funded >>operation in any sense of the word. > >I've reported what they told me. If you want further details, why not >ask some of the people from the Well who have been making personal attacks >on me here, to supply the details here instead? I'm interested to know >why they would censor feminist or egalitarian views, but not censor porn, >obscenity or swastikas. > >The Well got its hardware from tax exempt entities called NETI and Point >Foundation. It got its software free on a beta test and probably got a >free newsfeed. It resells the resources it got for free, and provides >a service for Libertarians and those whose views agree with those of >Well management. They refused to sell their services to me because my >views differed from theirs. > >--Mark The event which immediately preceded Mark's final eviction from the Well was her posting to the net soliciting assistance in legal action against the Well and its parent organizations NETI and Point Foundation. Nearly every statement made or implied by Mark above is false. It is Mark's ability to generate such shotgun arguments, which only occasionaly contain any seed of truth, yet are believable to many on first reading, which has led to all this uproar. If I simply describe what Mark did in the months during which she had a free account on the Well (and special privileges as a host), many will doubtlessly accuse me of flaming. I'll mention a few facts. Mark's postings to the Well were rarely censored. Yet postings in her conference, which she controlled (and therefore could censor) were heavily censored (by her), to the extent that the conference became unreadable. Bear in mind that, on the Well, any conference host can request any other user not to post in his or her conference, and it has never occurred to my knowledge that such a request has not been honored. Mark apparently has a great deal of time to devote to telecom. As of the last time that I had any information, her sole means of support was either welfare (SSI) or disability. Many times in correspondence or in her conference she explained that she could not work because all employers would expect a woman to be sexually available or to wear tokens of sexual inferiority or the like. [Mark raises genuine issues, but does so in such a way as to utterly obscure them.] She had a credit card, probably a relic of the days when she was employed as an electrician by the U.S. Navy. Apparently, she worked several years for the Navy, with her coworkers believing that she was a man. When the information was leaked that she was actually a woman, her position became untenable. She was (according to my memory, based on her accounts) terminated on the grounds that she was hostile and argumentative. She sued the Navy, charging breach of confidentiality [her true sex had been stated in her file] and sexual discrimination. Somehow the breach of confidentiality part of the suit got set aside, and, when I met her, she was facing a government motion for summary judgement on the sexual discrimination issue. Apparently, she had filed reams of accusations; the judge (a woman; I don't know if that is relevant....) asked her to state her case succinctly without arguments. At the suggestion of Donna Hall, her friend and an attorney, I helped her to understand what the judge was requesting and to prepare to file the papers. I do not know if they were ever filed. She apparently gave up. The "victory" she has mentioned is that the court referred to her using what she calls the inclusive pronon, and so did the defense, apparently on the judge's instruction. As some of us predicted months ago when Mark became active on the net, she is again generating megabytes of controversy which mostly does not go anywhere. What should be done about it? Nothing. Nothing should be done to prevent Mark from accessing the net through any site which wishes to provide her an account. Nor should anything be done to prevent those who know her history from recounting it. Nor should anything be done to protect us from Mark's verbal abuse or to protect Mark from verbal abuse. We can take care of ourselves. While the jury is still out, the best position to take is that the net is not responsible for content, for monitoring content is impractical. However, sites at which libelous material originates could under some circumstances be liable should an offended party wish to pursue the matter. But a party must suffer actual damage for a libel action to stand and such damage would be very difficult to prove on either side.... Meanwhile, Mark will doubtless continue to attract sympathy from those who think that she is espousing feminist causes. Mark once told me that she would work for the Nazis if they would give her a job without sexual harassment. She said that she never complained when she heard the men she worked with expressing sexist opinions; it might have rocked the boat. I suspect that she thinks all men, among themselves, think like those Navy electricians. By the way, I am using the feminine pronoun because it matches Mark's stated sex. Since it is quite likely that the issue will be raised, I use pronouns according to (1) known sex (2) stated sex (3) inferred sex, in that order of priority. Where sex cannot be inferred, I use gender-free or inclusive forms (like he/she). I believe that this practice matches that of most feminists. (And, incidentally, of Mark, when she is not guarding her words or attempting to insult someone by using a counter-sex pronoun.) In a subsequent message, Mark has replied to Andy Beale with more charges and speculations which are, basically, ridiculous if one knows the facts. But it would take much time to answer each point. I am, incidentally, the only possible person she could be referring to as the disruptive host. In discussions on the Well, when I referred to the conference as evidence that I had not disrupted it, she took the conference private so that it could not be read. As mentioned above, she could have prevented my posting at any time by merely requesting that I stop. However, her definition of my writing as disruptive was ex post facto, so to speak. It happened when I dared to disagree; she went back and censored *every* posting of mine on *every* subject, no matter how noncontroversial.... Believe it or not, that's what happened. If I wanted to flame about it, I could say a *lot* more....
bandy@amdcad.AMD.COM (Andy Beals) (06/04/87)
[Mark Smith, era1987@violet.berkeley.edu] >I haven't told any lies. Yes you have. You said that there were swastikas on the Well. There are none. When asked to back it up, you said that the Whole Earth Review published them as a freedom-of-speech issue. Since you knew all along that the swastikas were in the Whole Earth Review magazine and not on the Well, you have lied. Proof: [SMITH] >But Kevin had published swastikas in the Whole Earth Review, and in an >editorial, said that they did it to celebrate free speech--to show that >they will even publish things that they might personally find offensive. [SMITH] >I'm interested to know why they [the Well] would censor feminist or >egalitarian views, but not censor porn, obscenity or swastikas. -------- [BEALS] >Mark Smith was tossed off of the Well because of Mark's abuse of host >account privs and for causing large amounts of disruption. [SMITH] >Whoa! Nobody was tossed off for disruption. No, Nobody will help the poor. Nobody will stop the war. Nobody cares about anyone anymore. You, Mark Smith, were tossed off for disruption, and let's not forget threats of legal action on the usenet. [SMITH] >There was only one other feminist on the Well that I know of when I was >tossed off. There had been three others, all paying users, not all female, >but all feminists, who left the Well due to the attacks on me. Names, please. I do know of at least two other users who left the Well because Mark Smith was spreading hate directed towards them all over the conferences. At least one of them came back when told that Mark Smith no longer had a Well account. -------- [SMITH] >The Whole Earth Review had published articles opposing abortion and >advocating sadomasochism, The Well (Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link) is not the Whole Earth Review. Cliff Figallo is not Kevin Kelly, either. Please do not accuse the Well of things that the Whole Earth Review does. If you wish to complain to Kevin, you probably know his e-mail address. If you have forgotten, I will mail it to you upon request. [SMITH] >Yes, the Well and the Whole Earth Review are both edited by Kevin Kelly. The Well is not edited by Kevin Kelly. Kevin moderates some conferences but there is no editing of items, aside from outright censoring, which all are aware of when it happens. Censoring is not something that is done lightly, as you know, because people always wonder who censored whom. I have yet to see a host, aside from yourself, censor a user -- each instance of censoring I've seen has been self-censoring. Cliff Figallo is the director of the Well. The Whole Earth Review is not the Well. If you want to take Kevin to task for what the Whole Earth Review does, then write a letter to the editor and complain about it. Flaming to the usenet about the Well makes little sense when it is the Whole Earth Review that is doing things that you do not approve of. Also, flaming to the usenet is not likely to cause changes at the Well. -- Andrew Scott Beals, {lll-crg,decwrl,allegra}!amdcad!bandy +1 408 749 3683
dsp@ptsfa.UUCP (David St.Pierre) (06/04/87)
4 Jun 87 05:16:23 GMT Reply-To: dsp@ptsfa.UUCP (David St.Pierre) Followup-To: ba.test Distribution: ba Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA Lines: 20 In article <3842@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu () writes: >Are you saying that the Well didn't pay anyone for their newsfeed? As well's main feed, I can say "Yes, that's what he's saying". >I can understand supplying a feed to somebody who isn't going to profit >from it, and will help bear the expense, without asking anything in >return, but if I knew it were going to somebody who intended to resell it >at a profit, I might consider some consideration. Gee, if I did that, does *my* feed have the right to charge me? Because I feed a consultant who may get a job tip, should I charge him? Actually, I *have* profited from access to the net. I've gotten a lot of nice software, made a few friends and shared a few experiences. I think I'm profit a lot more if I didn't have to wade thru articles like these. -- David St. Pierre 415/823-6800 {ihnp4,lll-crg,ames,pyramid}!ptsfa!dsp It's not his bag of tea.
benson@alcatraz.UUCP (06/05/87)
Given how off the wall Well-person's comments about mark are (and I've gotten some of them in private mail. They are certainly libelous.) I would say that the Well is at worst reaping what it has sowed. Benson I. Margulies Kendall Square Research Corp. harvard!ksr!benson All comments the responsibility ksr!benson@harvard.harvard.edu of the author, if anyone.
sof@well.UUCP (Donna Hall) (06/09/87)
M> <3788@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <16959@amdcad.AMD.COM> <3842@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <3 217@well.UUCP> Sender: Reply-To: sof@well.UUCP (Donna Hall) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA Keywords: Stuart Brand, tax shelters, discrimination Dennis, (and all other netfolk) Sorry to enter this fray, but I couldn't be silent any longer. I won't go into specifics as I would like to spare the rest of the world such at the moment, but, emphatically, with respect to your most recent postings here about Mark E. Smith, B U L L S H I T! And I do with you'd stop displaying to the world that you and Mark have some 'bad blood' between you. You've been criticized on the Well for your sadistic attacks on Mark (since the criticism was in private conferences, no, I will not breach the privacy by posting here). There's no reason to make this an arena for such amusements. Frankly, although I respect abd's comments and opinions in many other topic areas, I am ashamed of him and of sharing a site with him when this topic comes up. Netfolks, believe me, not all from the well are as rabid as he has appeared. In fact, in other topics he isn't this rabid either. At the risk of repeating myself, with respect to his articles on Mark Smith, BULLSHIT. "Any opinions originating here do just that. I am currently only my own spokesperson." --donna
sof@well.UUCP (Donna Hall) (06/09/87)
M> <3788@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <16937@amdcad.AMD.COM> Sender: Reply-To: sof@well.UUCP (Donna Hall) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA Keywords: With respect to someone turning off an account because it is being used by a feminist, that would be hard to believe if the feminist were giving mainstream views in a mild manner, but where the feminist is giving and living more revolutionary viewpoints all sorts of unexpected things can happen. Fact is, folks usually don't like change and will react against it. I think we've seen ample evidence of that here, haven't we? --donna
mofo@well.UUCP (06/10/87)
<3258@well.UUCP>
Sender: Hank Roberts
Reply-To: hank@well.UUCP (hank)
Followup-To:3258@well.uucp
Distribution:
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Keywords:
I support Donna Hall's remarks.
To paraphrase Vonnegut: difficult neighbors are dancing lessons from God.
Mark's a neighbor of mine and I appreciate the lessons we learn; I've
learned, among other things, to ask after Mark's health and well-being
before letting strong words push my buttons. If you value the news you
can get from out near the edge, you learn to tolerate the people whose
paths take them to extremes. Mark scares the shit out of uptight people.
Not to say Mark should or shouldn't be on the net. But in our
home town, Mark's far from the oddest person around.oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicarious Oyster) (06/10/87)
In article <3266@well.UUCP> mofo@well.UUCP (MOFO) writes: > Not to say Mark should or shouldn't be on the net. But in our >home town, Mark's far from the oddest person around. Ever notice that most of the world's people don't live in your home town? Ever wonder why? :-) - Joel ({allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster)
abd@well.UUCP (06/10/87)
As I predicted, my posting recounting a factual history was interpreted as a flame.... This discussion is relevant to those concerned with the net as a whole because there are efforts being made to ban Mark from sites within the net. The response of the net to abusive and voluminous posters should be of concern to all, particularly if restrictions of access are involved. I posted some of Mark's history known to me because it places her behavior in context, and because it has been my observation that Mark disappears from arenas in which the truth is known about her. I will engage in no further consequential argument.