Xref: utzoo news.admin:3065 misc.legal:5328 soc.women:12029 alt.flame:2214 Path: utzoo!hoptoad!ihnp4!att!chinet!tarkus!ddsw1!igloo!learn From: learn@igloo.UUCP (william vajk) Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal,soc.women,alt.flame Subject: Re: Proposed lawsuit Summary: this isn't the end Message-ID: <807@igloo.UUCP> Date: 20 Jul 88 05:40:52 GMT References: <12165@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> Organization: igloo, Northbrook, IL Lines: 68 In <12165@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> Mark Ethan Smith wrote: > I will also seek to have all sites not subject to EEO/AA laws, > dropped from Usenet unless they sign a nondiscrimination pledge, > so that other sites cannot be liable for discrimination by people > at sites that do not require verification and do not recognize > antidiscrimination laws. > I will also seek to ensure that no site subject to EEO/AA laws > devotes any resources whatsoever to Usenet while it remains a > discriminatory activity. That means not one second of computer time, > not one moment of phone time, and not one minute of paid employee time. > If you feel that violates your rights, you might have spoken up when > my rights were being violated. Turn about is fair play. I've endured > as much as any human could be expected to, and it is time for the payback. There was a time when I too took Mark seriously. None of what she says makes a lot of sense, though from time to time some principle she advocates does have merit, but I digress, that's the unusual and nobody can be wrong all the time. What Mark is playing here is the usual mexican standoff game. This person thrives on confrontation and she's sure got a lot of folks going this time. What better way to get a lot of people upset (maximizing the mileage) than to threaten to send everyone to bed without usenet. It has not escaped Mark, you may be certain, that if usenet is damaged, so is her favorite toy. Why there are supposed to be 250,000 or so people associated with this network. How many can she reach without usenet, or with a much smaller rendition ? If one stops reading the exact content of Mark's postings for a while, and looks at the patterns of the content and responses the answer to the puzzle becomes obvious. Note that even the title of the posting is "Proposed Lawsuit." She never said she's going to do it, just that she's perhaps thinking about it. Then she's going to dictate how usenet will be run, because she's a female and feels discriminated against. Being a member of a _protected class_ only gives limited advantage under the law, not the unlimited power that Mark is trying to have us believe is available to her. She's also going to claim pauper status and represent herself at no expense. Golly. Might take a lifetime for her to do all this stuff single handed. Takes a LOT of hours to prepare a brief, file everything, investigate the particulars of the statuates she claims were violated, and all the associated bureaucratic stuff that usually gets in one's way. Even an efficient attorney's office would take many months to do what she claims she *might* undertake. Imagine the time it will take a person without any professional qualifications to accomplish these goals. Literally years. So sue ME Mark, cause I'm ready for you. Question is, are you really ready for anything other than harassing the entire usenet population. Heh heh, I thought so. I feel another flame and more threats coming. So why doesen't she file a single suit ? Well, to claim pauper status you must file documentation (under penalty of perjury) regarding your income. While I agree that the defined poverty level is too low, if Mark were to claim her real income, someone might find other income which is unreported and she might be caught between two federal agencies. See, when someone is a liar, they really can't trust anyone, not even themselves. Pauper status is out for Mark, and she cannot afford to pay. In this case, I believe justice is well served by not servicing. Bill Vajk learn@igloo