Path: utzoo!hoptoad!ihnp4!chinet!rhonda
From: rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner)
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Re: The Difference It Makes . . .
Message-ID: <2184@chinet.UUCP>
Date: 1 Feb 88 18:16:54 GMT
References: <22620@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <2333@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <2142@chinet.UUCP> <22775@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner)
Organization: Chinet - Public Access Unix
Lines: 67

I have taken Mike's paternalistic suggestion that flames stay here in
alt.flame to heart, but the other part of my response to Mike, addressing
his pretentions to understanding "the difference between women and men", in
soc.women where it belongs.

In article <22775@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> robinson@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Michael Robinson) writes:
>In article <2142@chinet.UUCP> rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) writes:
>>excerpts attributed to Robinson quoted from his own BBS...show that whoever
>>he really
>>is, he is quite well-versed in the techniques of article forgery.)
>
>I own, operate, and administrate a Usenet site (the aformentioned BBS).  Of
>course I am well versed in the techniques of article forgery.  I have to make
>some effort to see that it doesn't happen on my machine.

Sure, Mike.  Look, "even" Mark Ethan Smith itself has accused you of being
behind these forgeries.  Now, this can mean any number of things, since
we know better than to take Mark Ethan Smith's word about anything at face
value.  It can mean that this is really true (stranger things have happened),
it can mean that Mark is just as confused and paranoid as ever and has taken
to accusing even her supposed friends of acts against her (not that
surprising). Or it could mean that, having seen things get a little too close
for comfort, with more people than just this mere "Rhonda manifestation"
acknowledging suspicions about you, your motives, and your actions, you're
running scared, and this charade about a "spat" between you and Mark is just
showcasing to convince people that there is a difference between the person
who posts under the name of Mike Robinson and the person who posts under the
name of Mark Ethan Smith.  The whole affair smells very funny, and given your
track record I see no reason to believe you for one minute.

>>The dead giveaway for Robinson was during his campaign to "prove" that I
>>was a pseudo like his pal Mark Ethan Smith.
>
>I did not "prove," nor did I attempt to "prove," any such thing.  I listed 
>the evidence upon which I had formed my opinion.  In the absence of any 
>objective evidence to the contrary, I don't see that it is such an
>unreasonable opinion to hold.

(Notice that he doesn't deny that Mark Ethan Smith is a pseudo anymore.  Where
I said he was trying to prove I was a pseudo LIKE HIS PAL MARK, he doesn't
make any mention that "Mark is not a pseudo!" as we would expect.  Why not?)

Let's be clear about this.  There was NO evidence.  The basis for the opinion
was nothing more than the fact that I got into a heated debate turned flame
war with your alter ego Mark Ethan Smith and you didn't like this, so in
standard MES fashion you perpetuated the original accusation made by MES that
I was really a man using a pseudo.  And that's really funny, because that just
happens to be exactly what you've been doing pretending to be Mark Ethan
Smith, isn't it?  No wonder you got that great idea for an insult to throw at
someone, you just happened to be doing it yourself.  But I still love your
reasoning process: you have no "objective evidence" that your opinion that
I'm really a man using a pseudo is false, so lacking any such "objective
evidence" you just continue to hold the opinion you arbitrarily came up with
to suit your own prejudices.  Amusing, Mike.  That's the way they teach you
to think at Berkeley?  Come up with your own personal explanation of things
based on your personal prejudices, and lacking any objective evidence to
DISPROVE it, hold to it steadfastly?  The Berkeley left-wing stereotype
incarnate!  

>The remainder of your article is largely self-refuting, so I won't bother.

That's a good one.  Self-refuting.  I think the real reason you won't
bother is because you have nothing to say in your own defense.  Don't you
have any "objective evidence" to counter my opinion about you, Mike, to
convince me to change my mind?  If you respond that you don't care what
opinion I have of you, realize that the feeling is mutual.
								--Rhonda