Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdcad!decwrl!labrea!rutgers!noao!mcdsun!mcdchg!chinet!rhonda From: rhonda@chinet.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.flame Subject: There IS a hoax at UCB Message-ID: <1851@chinet.UUCP> Date: Tue, 17-Nov-87 21:31:11 EST Article-I.D.: chinet.1851 Posted: Tue Nov 17 21:31:11 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 21-Nov-87 16:17:20 EST References: <5909@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <1842@chinet.UUCP> <5944@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> Organization: Chinet, Chicago Ill. Lines: 134 Summary: and "skyler" and "robinson" are among its perpetrators This is actually a response to three different but equally interesting articles, so please bear with me. skyler says: >>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. Ok, just remember, you asked for this. I had said: >>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. skyler responded: >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. Oh, believe me, skyler, it WAS deliberate. You see, at the time, Matthew "weemba" Wiener had been persistently flaming me in private e-mail. Every time I sent a response to his noise back to him, he sent something back twice as long and half as intelligible as what came before it. This was a trap, deliberately set, and it worked. I said: >>Note also, that I got mail back from Mark Ethan Smith. Interesting, huh? to which skyler said: >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.) and robinson (almost simultaneously?) said: >Weemba probably noticed your fuckup and did you a favor. Some people >actually know how to read headers. and Roger Klorese, a supposedly uninvolved person who had sent me e-mail some time ago protesting the fact that I called Wiener and the Brahms Gang "obnoxious" (what a horrible thing to do!) said: >Only if it's inconceivable to you that someone would forward mail to >another in this situation. (As the "bcc" recipient, Matt would have known >who the "To" addressee was.) I know I would, if I noticed the "To" address >was incorrect. But, of course, those mean nasty Brahms subhumans wouldn't >stoop to displaying any human traits, would they, "Rhonda"? Well, Roger, Skyler, and Mike, that's the whole point. For Matthew to pass up an opportunity to send me a note calling me a "moron twit" (one of his favorite expressions) for messing up the e-mail header (hee hee) instead of just forwarding the mail over to era1987 is as likely as a monkey passing up bananas. Yet he did pass up this opportunity, and the reason he passed it up was because HE FOUND NOTHING UNUSUAL about seeing mail addressed to era1987 (Mark Ethan Smith) in his mailbox, so the response came back to me. Matthew Wiener was the center of the hoax (or at least he played a major part as some central repository for e-mail). Another thing is that while Matthew had been traveling around the country (according to Gene SMITH's report), Mark SMITH's postings seemed to come from those very parts of the country where Matthew had been traveling, from various public access UNIX machines. Coincidence? Not bloody likely. And why no response to all this from Wiener/Smith/Smith? (now the really serious stuff) then I said: >>(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.) to which skyler said: >Then give some evidence that Mark does not exist. Your bluff is being >called. Prove _you_ exist. I have met Mark. So has Mike. No, skyler, it's YOUR bluff that's being called. The information that Larry Lippman posted about the actual Mark Ethan Smith court case (the one about which you and "Mike" were so angry at Larry for posting) provided information that enabled people to contact the real Mark Ethan Smith described in that court docket. (Which is why you flamed so much about it!) Luckily, friends of mine managed to contact her. Guess what? She has NEVER heard of the net. She is not an "old Jewish woman on social security" (a cloying plea added to the hoax by its perpetrators). And she's NEVER heard of you or Mike Robinson! So, come off it, you lying sons of bitches. Remember you DEMANDED that I offer proof. Now you've got it. When the real Mark Ethan Smith confronts YOUR Mark Ethan Smith (whatever shill you come up with to play the part), your bullshit will be broken. You haven't met Mark Ethan Smith any more than I've met the pope. so Mike Robinson said (in response to the same paragraph): >Goons, are we? Mocking real women's rights problems are we? Just >having fun are we? Well, if you're right, then I guess we'll see you >in hell. Note that Mike will not come out and deny what I've said. With good reason it seems. Yes Mike, if I wind up in hell, I will be stuck with you for company I suppose. So I'd better do my best to stay out of there then. What shocks me is the audacity with which these folks demand documentation from ME! >>>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. >I think it might be possible to get Mark to agree to similar proposal, >provided, of course, you can find someone who he considers suitably >unbiased to show your ID to. I don't know, though. > >Maybe you could post your state of residence and driver's license number. >That might work, but I'll have to look into it. No, thanks, my private personal information IS private, thank you. But since you're so willing to demand this of someone else, would you be willing to do the same? I didn't think so. Next you'll be showing us Mark Ethan Smith's driver's license. Too bad you won't be able to provide a Mark Ethan Smith to go with it. Oddly enough, when demands JUST LIKE THESE were made to "Mark Ethan Smith," that "he"/"she" give this same type of information, these two (Mike and skyler) were in the forefront of it all arguing how nasty and vicious it was to make such demands. Now we know why. Hoaxsters and hypocrites to boot! I never said that Mike or skyler didn't actually exist, what I did say was Mike (and skyler) had some complicity in the Mark Ethan Smith hoax. My reasons for this are now made clear. They claimed to have "met" this Mark Ethan Smith when in reality they have not, and the REAL Mark Ethan Smith knows no more about the net than she does about nuclear physics. This has been one great big hoax on the net at everyone's expense except the practical jokesters at Berkeley who think this is humorous. After seeing their attitude towards chasing people around the net and harrassing them, rudely insulting anyone who disagrees with them and so on, this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. --Rhonda