Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!mcdchg!chinet!rhonda
From: rhonda@chinet.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.flame,soc.women,alt.drugs,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Who is Rhonda Schribner?
Message-ID: <1874@chinet.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Nov-87 15:09:18 EST
Article-I.D.: chinet.1874
Posted: Fri Nov 20 15:09:18 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Nov-87 12:23:32 EST
References: <1868@chinet.UUCP> <1870@chinet.UUCP>
Reply-To: rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner)
Organization: Chinet - Public Access Unix
Lines: 35
Xref: utgpu alt.flame:572 soc.women:8149 junk:6443 talk.bizarre:5534
Summary: this time it's really me posting, at least I hope so

In article <1870@chinet.UUCP> meg@chinet.UUCP (Meg Geddes) writes:
>>
>>  (article from "Sender: bitch@chinet.UUCP" excised)
>>
>
>I certainly hope no one is taking this stuff seriously.  As far as I can tell,
>this 'bitch@chinet' person has logged on here trying to persuade certain
>people here including myself that it is Rhonda Scribner, and attempting to
>gain entry to her account through me and/or through Randy Suess.  I don't even
>know where "it" is posting from, since "it" has no news privileges on Chinet.
>(I say "it" because bitch@chinet told me in !write this evening that she was
>really a man trying to either get into Rhonda's account or get me to admit that
>Rhonda wasn't real, and not having followed this silliness from the beginning,
>I have no idea who is who at the moment.)  

Me neither.  Thanks, Meg and Randy, for your part in catching this person,
whoever it is.  

>But what I *DO* care about are maladjusted little twonks who attempt
>to use ME to carry out their personal vendettas by making fraudulent claims to
>another person's identity in order to gain my assistance to whatever purpose
>they have in mind.  "bitch@chinet" - wherever you really are - you are NOT
>going to persuade anyone here that you are 'rhonda' so as to gain access to
>her account.

This makes me sick, too, Meg.  Apparently I hit a nerve with somebody to set
them off like this, leading to an attempt to break into my account and forge
articles with my name.  (Fortunately they didn't do a very good job.)
I just hope this "bitch@chinet" person doesn't show its ugly face here
again.  I have enough problems defending the articles I DO write, imagine if
I had to defend articles I didn't write?  (Maybe that was the whole idea,
but I think "it" had something more in mind.)

Thanks again, Meg.
								--Rhonda