Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!hoptoad!uunet!labrea!aurora!jade!ucbvax!dewey.soe.berkeley.edu!robinson From: robinson@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.flame Subject: Re: There IS a hoax at UCB Message-ID: <21845@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: Wed, 18-Nov-87 21:27:39 EST Article-I.D.: ucbvax.21845 Posted: Wed Nov 18 21:27:39 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 21-Nov-87 16:24:30 EST References: <5909@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <1842@chinet.UUCP> <5944@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <1851@chinet.UUCP> Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: robinson@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Michael Robinson) Organization: School of Education, UC-Berkeley Lines: 136 Summary: We are all Rich Ethan Weiner. In article <1851@chinet.UUCP> rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) writes: >skyler says: >>This amounts to slander. Prove it or retract it. > >Ok, just remember, you asked for this. Proof? Feh. >(now the really serious stuff) then I said: >>>[local news story conspiracy theory] >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. Gotta hand it to Rhonda--this certainly is getting interesting. I hate to be a party-pooper, but where's this proof? We only have your word, and that's what's in question in the first place. >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. Say hi to his Holiness for me, will you? >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! Well, I really didn't take you seriously. But now that you've gotten your undies in a bundle over this whole affair, I'll give you some peace of mind. I deny it. I deny perpetrating any hoax of any description, or abetting the perpetration thereof. There, does that make you feel any better? Does that convince you? Would you have believed it if I had denied it earlier? Does my denial make the slightest whit of difference to your twisted little mind? I didn't think so. So why bother, I asked myself. >>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. Private? Personal? It goes on the back of every check you write. It's a matter of public record. J. Random Anybody can look up that information. Assuming, of course, it exists. And I'm not even threatening to sue you or anything like that. As a matter of fact, I am not even asserting that you don't exist. You have simply convinced me, by your own actions, that you are not who you say you are, and until such time as I have evidence more substantial than my own analysis of your behavior, I (myself, me) will continue to believe that you are not who you say you are. I leave it to others to decide for themselves. >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. I don't have a driver's license. Like I said before, though, I'm more than willing to drop by Lea's or Marie's or Jim's or whoever's office with passport in hand. >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! Mark has said he would love to meet Lea or Marie. So would I, as a matter of fact. Probably skyler, as well. I was thinking all of us untrustworthy Berkeley types could throw a "We Are All Rich Rosen" party. Sit around, eat good food, listen to good music, get drunk, and play "pin the asshole on Larry and Rhonda." You could help by donating a 24"x48" full-length portrait of yourself. Otherwise we'd have to use our imagination, and that might be unflattering. >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. Don't forget felonious conspiracy to be implicated in a conspiracy of implication. >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. Not to be overly skeptical, but exactly how much does the "real" Mark Ethan Smith know about nuclear physics? Does the "real" Mark Ethan Smith prefer inclusive or exclusive pronouns? You've been using exclusive pronouns, but the one that worked at the Navy (your supposed "lead") preferred inclusive pronouns. So, which is it? >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. Now, this is really interesting. I've been perpetuating a Usenet hoax at Berkeley for longer than I've been a student here--since before I had my first Unix account. Good trick, that. I also liked the bit about Mark following Mathew Wiener all around the country. Just out of curiosity, did you remember to check out the Fish and Game department for hoaxters? You can never be too sure. It's getting so that you can't smell something fishy through all the red herrings. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Robinson USENET: ucbvax!ernie!robinson ARPA: robinson@ernie.berkeley.edu