Xref: utzoo alt.flame:1498 soc.women:9013 misc.legal:3526
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!cpsc6a!codas!killer!era
From: era@killer.UUCP (Mark E. Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.flame,soc.women,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Yet Another Forgery!
Message-ID: <3071@killer.UUCP>
Date: 26 Jan 88 14:22:12 GMT
References: <3089@killer.UUCP> <6706@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: era@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith)
Distribution: na
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection BBS, Dallas, Tx
Lines: 112


In <6706@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, robinson@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Michael Robinson or a forger) writes:

>I apologize for the dirty laundry.  Mark and I have had something of a
>spat, and I regret that it was dragged out into the street (so to speak) 
>like this.

A "spat?"  You mean like a lovers' quarrel or a disagreement between
friends?  I've never been over to your place.  You came over here a
few times.  We have a difference in basic values.  I have some, you
don't seem to.

>I would, though, like to put the following in context:

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

>Shortly after I posted the above cited text, a user remarked that it 
>sounded racist and sexist (that it suggested that women and minorities were 
>lazy), and, not actually believing me to be so, asked me to clarify my 
>statements.

Apart from being sexist and racist, your statement was of the "Do
what thou wilt," variety, failing to note or care that defamation is
not a victimless crime.  You seem to feel that there is no such thing
as right and wrong, from the standpoint of hurting others, and you
appear to be suggesting that two wrongs would or could make a right.

You also said, "Anarchy is anarchy.  Fascism and anarchy are 
mutually exclusive."

You seem to be unaware that fascism has been known to present
itself as Satanism or anarchy.  A youngster given total freedom to
persecute and kill Jews with impunity, can be so excited over that
"freedom," that he may not notice that he has only the freedom to
hurt others, not the freedom to help or spare them.  If he tried, he
would become a victim himself.  Fascism often looks like anarchy to
those doing the persecuting, but it is obviously fascism to the victims.

>My response (which Mark omitted) was as follows:

emind>Implied in Mark's accusations was the suggestion that white males 

Says who?  Where is it "implied?"  I did not suggest or imply any
conspiracy.  I simply pointed out the prevalent sexism you admit exists.
I don't like people putting words in my mouth, saying my statement
implies something it does not, and then arguing with their own
distortions.  Didn't they teach you not to do that in Rhetoric 101, Mike?

emind>had conspired to deliberately discourage women and minorities from 
emind>using the net.  

Again, the reasoning that is distasteful is your own.  I pointed
out that the prevalent sexism discourages some, and it does.  No
conspiracy needed or implied.  An atmosphere that is sexist will
discourage those who are harmed by sexism.  

But it is incredible to me that you could suggest two wrongs could
make a right.  If somebody stole your wallet, I wouldn't say, "Well,
if you bothered to put in the time and effort, you could learn to steal
wallets also."  Stealing is a crime, it can hurt people.  If
somebody steals from you, I would not suggest you steal from others.
Defamation is a crime.  You suggest that the answer to defamation is
more defamation.

I disagree.


emind>Both conclusions are absurd.  The situation on the
emind>net reflects the racial and gender bias and attitudes prevalent in 
emind>techological fields.  No more, no less.  Like I've said, 
>no conspiracies required.

And none were "implied."

>And, as there undoubtably will be those who will point it out if I don't
>go on record, I deny forging any articles at all, and certainly not any
>from Mark.

Maybe you didn't forge any defamatory articles.  But you see
nothing wrong with it.  You evensuggest that anyone harmed by it
could learn to do the same to others.  But not to the ones who
harmed *them*, Mike, since the perpetrators are anonymous.  They'd
have to defame people stupid enough to use their real names, making
themselves easy targets for anonymous criminals.  I don't like
anarchy, Mike.  I prefer a social contract, where people can be
held liable for their actions, and the rights of the vulnerable can
be protected.  So we have some very basic differences, not just
a "spat."  I have values that mean so much to me, I'd rather die than
abandon them. The first rule for physicians is, "Do no harm."  
Not, "Do what thou wilt," but "Do no harm."  It is stupid of me,
as a person with values, to participate in a system that prides
itself on being an anarchy, and I'm paying the price for my stupidity.
I'm meeting stupid people.  But I've also met some very intelligent
people, and I sincerely wish there was a way intelligent people could
hold discussions without being constantly disrupted with
anonymous defamation and juvenile, pointless obscenity.  Use
of strong language to emphasize a point is one thing--postings
that consist solely of obscene personal attacks contribute nothing
to discussion, disrupt and prevent discussion, and the "anarchy" 
that defends such postings as "free speech," the very thing they
are intended to suppress, is not so much anarchy as idiocy.

--Mark