Xref: utzoo alt.flame:1475 soc.women:9003 misc.legal:3474
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!ptsfa!pyramid!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!pasteur!agate!violet.berkeley.edu!era1987
From: era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;KV41)
Newsgroups: alt.flame,soc.women,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Yet Another Forgery!
Summary: You are all Mark Ethan Smith.
Keywords: antifemophobialisexpicalidocious
Message-ID: <6706@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 25 Jan 88 12:31:24 GMT
References: <229*manis@instr.camosun.bcc.cdn> <6466@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <2939@killer.UUCP> <2623@dasys1.UUCP> <3089@killer.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: era1987@violet.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith)
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 68
Sender:

In article <3089@killer.UUCP> era@killer.UUCP (somebody) writes:

>Karen, the article you are responding to is a forgery!  

I see.  Now you are all me, instead of Rich Rosen, and I'm supposed
to guess who wrote which forgeries.  I think I'll start with this one,
since it seems to be the easiest.

I guess Mike Robinson wrote this particular forgery.

But first, here's what Mike has to say about
anonymous forgeries, <ported without permission from Earthmind
(415) 843-4234, Mike's BBS>:

emind>>>You don't have to be a Usenet administrator to post untraceable articles
emind>>>Anybody can do it just as well as the site administrator.  If only white
emind>>> males
emind>>>know how, it is only because only white males have bothered to read the
emind>>>news documentation (posted and publicly available).
emind>>>
emind>>>If women and minorities would bother to read the documentation, they
emind>>>could post libelous or defamatory anonymous postings on the net and not 
emind>>>be
emind>>>held responsible either.

Now back to the latest forgery:

>The opinions are
>not mine, the style is not mine, and the conclusion is not mine.  

Repetition for effect.  That's Mike alright.  Hi Mike! 

>I have
>many close ties to the lesbian and gay community in the Bay Area....

Ties to the gay community?  The only human who has stopped by in
the past 4 or 5 months was you, Mike.  And you told me you had a
girlfriend.  But if I'm supposed to have ties to these folks, and
you're the only person, net-setter or not, I've ftfed, you must be a
gay or lesbian.  Funny that it didn't occur to me.  :-)

>Yes, it is very refreshing to compare the attacks of the straight men in
>soc.women with the positive remarks of others like Mike Robinson and
>others who have worthwhile things to say.  

Pretty good, Mike.  But you cheated.  Coming by and talking me into
using your rhetoric gimmicks in an article once, was the only
thing you could do once you realized that you couldn't parody my
style effectively unless I included the gimmicks you use instead
of rhetoric.  And I've always been a sucker for a cute guy, so I
fell for it.

Hey, I'm only human--anybody can make a mistake.  :-)

>homophobic and femophobic tendencies 

Femophobic?????  Yeah, that's what hackers are.  Femophobes.  Thanks
for the word.  See, Karen?  Gays are no more femophobic than
SWM's.  Why would I want to develop close ties with communities
of femophobes?  

Here's how I see it.  Heterosexual males often prefer other males
for almost everything except sex.  Gay males prefer other males
for everything, including sex.  So gays are *more* sexist than hets.

How about comp.equal-rights with Michael Muller and Sherry Mann
as co-moderators?  

--Mark