Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!boulder!sunybcs!kitty!larry
From: larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman)
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Responsibility for postings.
Message-ID: <2140@kitty.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 21-Oct-87 20:28:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: kitty.2140
Posted: Wed Oct 21 20:28:52 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Oct-87 08:18:36 EDT
References: <4611@videovax.Tek.COM> <2294@umn-cs.UUCP> <1606@dasys1.UUCP> <8499@sri-unix.ARPA>
Organization: Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, NY
Lines: 101
Summary: "Skilled Debating" on the Net...
Xref: mnetor news.admin:1218 misc.legal:3228


	I believe that I have demonstrated some possible hazards, and put
the "Smith" matter in perspective in a recent article that I posted to this
newsgroup and misc.legal.  Again, I hope to extricate myself from discussions
at this point.
	However, there is one bit of unfinished business, necessitated by
Ms. Maslak's recent article (she apparently could not leave well enough
alone), which I present below:

In article <8499@sri-unix.ARPA>, maslak@sri-unix.ARPA (Valerie Maslak) writes:
> Not so long ago, I was the voice that proposed a soc.men group,
> solicited and gathered votes for it, hoping that it would once again
> make soc.women a place where reasonable discussion could take place.

	The quotations at the end of this article apparently reflect
Ms. Maslak's definition of "reasonable discussion".

> He disregarded the "rules of etiquette"
> in the group and generally made a nuisance of himself.

	The quotations at the end of this article apparently reflect
Ms. Maslak's definition of "rules of etiquette".

> Anyone who took the trouble to look into soc.women below the surface
> of the last week would know that Larry's tactics have not been
> appreciated by most of the regular posters there, men and women
> alike.

	The quotations at the end of this article apparently reflect
Ms. Maslak's definition of "acceptable tactics".

> Mr. Lippmann, and Mr. Uhrig, may have enough tunnel vision that they
> don't realize that their attitude and behavior has been at least as
> objectionable to some of us, to whom soc.women was an important
> resource, as Mark's has been to them. 

	The quotations at the end of this article apparently reflect
Ms. Maslak's definition of "non-objectionable attitude and behavior".

> Mark is a skillful debater, and
> pulls no punches. His articles are often painful to read. But the
> pain is from seeing the truth, naked, held up like a mirror.

	And best of all, the quotations at the end of this article apparently
reflect Ms. Maslak's definition of "skillful debating" and "truth".

	I now present to you the person so WORSHIPPED by Ms. Maslak,
Ms. Minerva and others, the one and only alleged "Mark Ethan Smith":

In article <5420@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes:
$$> The reason scientists were more than 99% male for thousands of years,
$$> is because they did science with the thing between their legs, having
$$> little or nothing between their ears.

In article <1827@killer.UUCP>, era@killer.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) writes:
$$> Or just to gratify the egos of a bunch of brainless pricks?
$$> For thousands of years, it was necessary to have a penis in order
$$> to do science.  Do you believe it is necessary to have a penis to
$$> do science?  Do you think people who believed that were really
$$> scientists?

In article <1691@dasys1.UUCP>, msmith@dasys1.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) writes:
$$> As for the obssessed
$$> murderer, I have some of his letters detailing his obsession
$$> explicitly.  Had I not been homeless, I believe I could have stayed
$$> in this country without too many problems with him, but to be homeless
$$> and have a murderer obsessed with you is much too vulnerable a position
$$> for anyone to have to endure.  Most of the people who attacked me
$$> on the Well, m-net, and chinet, were indeed Libertarians.  Some were
$$> anti-Semitic, some were only anti-anybody-in-touch-with-reality. 

In article <1704@dasys1.UUCP>, msmith@dasys1.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) writes:
$$> As to the theory that things have changed, I wrote almost a hundred
$$> lines responding to you, and got nuked off and the article was
$$> lost.  I will try to recreate it, but my tone will not be as calm
$$> and happy as it was before the fascist pig nuked me offline.  I have
$$> asked the SA to check the activity files.  And no, it was not a problem
$$> at my end or with line noise.  
$$> ...
$$> But this *is* a fascist country, and I
$$> rarely manage to get through an article without being nuked off
$$> two or three times, no matter what system I'm on, since I use
$$> public access systems and the fascists have access to them also.
$$> ...
$$> Oh yes, I'm sure that the fascists who make every attempt to interfere
$$> with my postings, will now say that I'm paranoid again

	I apologize for having to subject the readers of these newgroups
to the vile ravings contained in these quotations.  But, perhaps NOW you
will understand the issue: do the above articles represent a reasonable
use of the Net, is it ABuse of the Net?
	For any system administrators of sites which continue to allow
"Smith" to post, are you PROUD to have this person speak in behalf of
your organization?  Are you SO PROUD that you will even endure the
continual accusa