rcj@clyde.UUCP (05/27/87)
Damn, people! Almost every legal contract I have ever seen in the US requires a notarized signature. Mark Ethan Smith, by sheer virtue of the fact that she got accounts on BBS and USENET systems by claiming she was Mark Ethan Smith (which she has admitted she ain't), has shown enough breach of faith to be kicked off of any system. There are many sysops (myself included) who are very active in the women's movement but who wouldn't ever give an account to someone who masqueraded as the opposite sex. This isn't discrimination against women; it's discrimination against assholes trying to stir up trouble. How many of you would have given an account to Foothead if you'd known ahead of time what she/he/it was going to do? Let this idiot either buy a system of her own (*shudder*) or find a sysop sympathetic to her net.needs and net.wants HONESTLY AND OPENLY; until then can we try to talk about something useful here? I unsubscribed to soc.women lately for a reason, and that reason was not to have soc.women discussions moved to this newsgroup!! The following paragraph has nothing to do with my opinions above, except that thinking about it helped me to get the impetus to post this article: A colleague of mine recently mailed me a suspicion as to the real identity of Mark, and what he suggested made a lot of sense, would explain a lot of things (would explain her writing style *perfectly*, for instance), and would make me even more convinced from long experience that this person is nothing but a deliberate trouble-maker and attention hound. Long-time net.women readers, think about it. The MAD Programmer -- 201-386-4295 (Cornet 232) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd allegra ]!moss!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua watmath ]!clyde!rcj
jef@unisoft.UUCP (05/28/87)
In the referenced article, rcj@moss.ATT.COM (Curtis Jackson) wrote: > Mark Ethan Smith, by sheer virtue of the fact that she got accounts >on BBS and USENET systems by claiming she was Mark Ethan Smith (which she has >admitted she ain't), has shown enough breach of faith to be kicked off of any >system. Curtis you ignorant slut. Mark has never ever claimed to be anything other than the woman he is. Mark Ethan Smith is his full legal name and has been for years. If you can't understand this, it only shows how small *your* mind is. >A colleague of mine recently mailed me a suspicion as to the real identity >of Mark, and what he suggested made a lot of sense, would explain a lot of >things (would explain her writing style *perfectly*, for instance), and would >make me even more convinced from long experience that this person is nothing >but a deliberate trouble-maker and attention hound. Long-time net.women >readers, think about it. If you have something to say, say it. The above insinuation is revolting. --- Jef Jef Poskanzer unisoft!jef@ucbvax.Berkeley.Edu ...ucbvax!unisoft!jef "...but no sooner does he take a pen in his hand than it becomes a torpedo to him, and benumbs all his faculties." -- Samuel Johnson
benson@alcatraz.UUCP (05/28/87)
In article <9692@clyde.ATT.COM> rcj@moss.ATT.COM (Curtis Jackson) writes: >Damn, people! >Almost every legal contract I have ever seen in the US requires a notarized >signature. Mark Ethan Smith, by sheer virtue of the fact that she got accounts >on BBS and USENET systems by claiming she was Mark Ethan Smith (which she has >admitted she ain't), has shown enough breach of faith to be kicked off of any >system. > Well, if anyone out there thought that the anti-mark position (in general, not necessarily the actions of greg@gryphon) had a shred of rationality to its credit, this should cure them of the idea. Why should I, or anyone else, believe this flaming, foaming, attempt to deny mark's legal right to the name? It it were possible to write someting with even less credibility than some of the wilder posts attributed to, and perhaps, but only perhaps, actually written by, mark, here we have it. If the net is in danger of having the feds pull the plug, its ~libel (approximate libel) like this that will do it, not mark ragging people about pronouns. >Let this idiot Ah yes, reasoned argument. Beware of tossing mud, sometimes some of it stays around. > >A colleague of mine recently mailed me a suspicion as to the real identity >of Mark, And here we are, in the wonderful world of inuendo. Don't say anything specfic, for fear of having to defend your point. Just hope that you can conjure up the nastiest possibility out of everyone's personal mind. Judging from the content of the post, what you are afraid of is Andrea Dworkin armed with a rusty spoon and accompanied by a troup of very muscular rugby players. I'd say you have good reason to be afraid, were I not in doubt of your having anything to remove with the spoon. Now, how does it feel to catch a few insults yourself? Benson I. Margulies Kendall Square Research Corp. harvard!ksr!benson All comments the responsibility ksr!benson@harvard.harvard.edu of the author, if anyone.