Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdcad!decwrl!ucbvax!jade!violet.berkeley.edu!skyler From: skyler@violet.berkeley.edu.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.flame Subject: Rhonda's accusations and evasions. Message-ID: <6022@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: Sat, 21-Nov-87 17:56:07 EST Article-I.D.: jade.6022 Posted: Sat Nov 21 17:56:07 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 25-Nov-87 07:21:46 EST References: <5909@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <1842@chinet.UUCP> <5944@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <1851@chinet.UUCP> <1311@aurora.UUCP> <1876@chinet.UUCP> Sender: usenet@jade.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: skyler@violet.berkeley.edu.UUCP () Lines: 98 To summarize (for those of you who don't want to read all of this) this article, I point out that Rhonda's "evidence" is non-existent and, most important, that Mike, Mark, and I are willing to prove our identities at any point but Rhonda continues to evade that request. Rhonda claims to have evidence, but we are willing to provide irrefutable evidence, if Rhonda is willing to do the same. Rhonda is afraid to. In article <1876@chinet.UUCP> rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) writes: >But given the fact >that there IS a real Mark Ethan Smith who doesn't know anything about this >net at all Did you see the driver's license of that person? What proof do you have that that person was Mark Ethan Smith other than that she lived at an address Larry Lippman gave from a court case that was several years old? Kenn Barry asks if anyone has met Rhonda and Rhonda evades the question. Rhonda asks rhetorically: >What was the outcry from people like skyler and robinson? [when MES was thrown off chinet] Rhonda, learn something about time. You have accused me and Mike of being involved in a conspiracy that, if it existed, would have started before either of us even had accounts, before Mike was in Berkeley, and before I know how to use a terminal. We were not on chinet, so we could not have objected and if there were not people on chinet at the time who did object, then there were not people like me and Mike. >> Rhonda seems to enjoy throwing around accusations. Well, it's a >>principle in American justice that one gets to confront one's accusers. >You might remember that the first accusations came from skyler and robinson >(and "Mark" of course) accusing me of not really being a woman because I >disagreed with "Mark" and "her" postings. And we are more than happy to confront you. If you would like to come out to California, I would be very happy to meet you in person. I am certain that Mike would, but cannot speak for Mark. If you cannot come in person, then tell these "friends" of yours who contacted someone in Berkeley, and I will go see them. YOU CAN CONFRONT US ANY TIME YOU WANT. ALL WE ASK IS THAT YOU GO TO SOME THIRD PARTY WITH ID IN HAND AND PROVE YOU ARE WHO YOU SAY YOU ARE. We are willing to do precisely what we are asking you to do. >The charade >about Mark being a poor homeless person was part of the tipoff. Learn to read. Mark has been homeless. The past tense indicates that something happened in the past--it doesn't necessarily indicate that it is going on right now. >A homeless >person, who supposedly is having a difficult time just surviving, has enough >time, energy and resources to post to the net? Is Berkeley that gracious in >giving out accounts AND terminal access? And what about the long distance >calls to public access machines in Chicago and New York, machines which "she" >was posting from SIMULTANEOUSLY with her Berkeley login? A woman on "social >security" can afford those kinds of phone bills, even with PC Pursuit or >Telenet access? Yes, Berkeley is very gracious about giving out accounts if you pay for them. And yes, SSI is enough that, if you live frugally and make your calls very late at night and only post to one or two newsgroups, you could pay for all the necessary costs. >Now there was, and for this skyler >and robinson flamed Larry hotly for having the "audacity" to post this >information (publicly available) to the net. Find one posting in which Mike flamed Larry for this. He did not, because he knew it was an old address of Mark's and Mark wasn't living there any more. Is that clear, Rhonda? That is not Mark's present address. Your friends did not talk to Mark Ethan Smith. That is why the person living there didn't know about me, Mike, or the net. Did your friends have enough neurons firing to ask the name of the person to whom they were speaking? Did they ask to see id? Mark will prove his existence--that is not at issue. What is at issue is why you are continuing this accusation and continuing to evade the question of _your_ meeting some third party. Rhonda, answer this question: WHY ARE YOU AFRAID TO PROVE YOUR EXISTENCE? >That should clear it up for you once and for all. > --Rhonda What will clear it up once and for all is for all of us to go trouping to third parties proving our various identities. We are willing to do it and you are afraid to. That indicates you are hiding something. -skyler usenet ucbvax!jade!violet!skyler arpa skyler@violet.berkeley.edu