Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdcad!decwrl!labrea!husc6!bloom-beacon!ucbvax!jade!violet.berkeley.edu!skyler
From: skyler@violet.berkeley.edu.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Rhonda got confused (Was Re: Rhonda Says)
Message-ID: <5944@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Tue, 17-Nov-87 02:13:10 EST
Article-I.D.: jade.5944
Posted: Tue Nov 17 02:13:10 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Nov-87 04:39:30 EST
References: <5909@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <1842@chinet.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@jade.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: skyler@violet.berkeley.edu.UUCP ()
Lines: 62
Keywords: there's a hoax at UCB

In article <1842@chinet.UUCP> rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) writes:
>In article <5909@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, skyler@violet.berkeley.edu writes:
>>We'll make this very simple.  Rhonda has suggested that Michael
>>Robinson is part of a "hoax" at UCB.  If she picks some third party
>>whom she trusts (how about Marie des Jardins?) then Michael will go
>>to that person with ID in hand to prove that he exists, etc., etc.
>>But, Rhonda has to pick some third party where she is and go to that
>>person with ID in hand to prove that she exists, etc., etc., or else
>>Rhonda should CAN THE INSINUATIONS.

Perhaps Rhonda should learn to read headers.  Mike did not post this.  I
did.  I will make the same offer that Mike did.  Mark and I will both swear
that we have met Mark Ethan Smith and Mike has seen ID (I haven't.)  If
you want to know if Mark will go to a third party, email him.  (Depending
upon the third party, he probably will.)

Note, however, that Rhonda evades the question.  Do you want to do it?

>I find it very weird that you see fit to post the content of private e-mail
>to the net.  

It wasn't the content.  It was a public accusation, made via public funds
and public routes.  It was also in an atmosphere in which (unlike some people)
I did not want to make a challenge of this sort.  Hence, I (not Mike) posted
a summary of your accusation.  Hardly weird.

>But I have another question.  The hoax I made reference to was
>the Mark Ethan Smith hoax that the Berkeley Political Correctness Police
>cooked up.  

This amounts to slander.  Prove it or retract it.  

>I will say this.  Some months ago, I sent mail to the following address:
>To: era1987@violet.berkley.edu
>Bcc: weemba@violet.berkeley.edu
>
>Note that I deliberately spelled the first one wrong.

That made me laugh.  Reminds me of that signature that someone has in
which he says all of his spelling errors are part of a test.

>Note also, that I got mail back from Mark Ethan Smith.  Interesting, huh?
>Now what were skyler and Mike insinuating?

I am saying that you should either prove you exist, or CAN THE INSINUATIONS.
Given your competence at reading the header of this article, I am not
surprised that mail got to Mark when you didn't intend it to.  It is
also possible that someone forwarded it on.  (I have had mail forwarded
to me by Eric Fair--does that mean that he and I are one.)

>(I think the Berkeley goons just got a hold of this local news story about
>a real Mark Ethan Smith, and decided to make her into a net character for
>fun, in a mockery of real women's rights problems that (sadly) many women
>took seriously.)

Then give some evidence that Mark does not exist.  Your bluff is being
called.  Prove _you_ exist.  I have met Mark.  So has Mike.

-skyler

usenet  ucbvax!jade!violet!skyler   
arpa    skyler@violet.berkeley.edu