I'll quote without comment an article from the alt.cypherpunks newsgroup. ]Path: ...!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!sethf ]From: sethf@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) ]Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship,alt.cypherpunks ]Subject: The flames from the (gG)raves ]Date: 22 Mar 1997 03:12:09 GMT ]Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology ]Lines: 269 ]Distribution: inet ]Message-ID: <5gvim9$9d8@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> ]References: <5gkfag$36o@quixote.stanford.edu> <5gmnuj$1ha@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <m0w7HEz-00022AC@quixote.stanford.edu> <5gqfpk$ate@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <5gv2kg$lc5@quixote.stanford.edu> ]Reply-To: sethf@mit.edu ]NNTP-Posting-Host: frumious-bandersnatch.mit.edu ] ] ]In article <5gv2kg$lc5@quixote.stanford.edu>, Rich Graves <rcgraves@disposable.com> ]>Warning: The Happynet Unofficial Anti-Censorship Committee has determined ]>the following post to be inappropriate for children and fight-censorship ]>subscribers. Only Seth Finkelstein has been empowered to speak the whole ]>truth by the anti-censorship review board. Please enter the following into ]>your killfile: ] ] Rich is getting nuttier and nuttier. This is not ]unexpected. His pattern is to get more and more slimy as you argue ]with him. Note that the fact that he argues with people who are ]themselves very vile people, Holocaust-deniers, does not change the ]demonstrated truth of this statement. This is again why many people ]end up just ignoring him completely and not wanting to read anything ]from him. ] ]>Seth is nothing if not a reasonable unbiased observer. Trust him. Please. ] ] And I've noted many a time, my qualification is I-was-there. ]I have, however, repeatedly tried to resolve this dispute and read all ]your articles (aggravating though it is almost all of the time). That ]should be worth something. ] ]>No, I mean it. From articles <5ghg1t$7j4$5@nntp2.ba.best.com> and ]><5ghg1n$7j4$4@nntp2.ba.best.com>, just to be sure I guess: ]> ]>|Rich, have you ever wondered why so many diverse people, with wildly ]>|diverse political views, have accused you of being a left or center ]>|fascist or a commie sympathiser. ]>| ]>|And no, the, fact that you have been accused of being a commie symp is ]>|not evidence that those who called you a fascist were wrong, and vice ]>|versa. The various political positions you have been accused of, tend ]>|to be hard to distinguish in practice. ] ] I suspect this is some sort of a trap, but, noting that I am ]walking into this with my eyes open and aware of it: Rich has lied ]here, and in all the referenced quotes below. They are not from me, ]but someone else. By this tactic, he hopes to imply that if I call him ]a liar, and someone else (say a Holocaust-denier) does the same thing, ]both are equally valid. It is exactly the trick I just detailed a ]posting or two ago, imposing moral equivalence on his critics. ] But note, he did not have to lie in the above to do this ]rhetorical tactic. He could have tried to pull it off by contrasting ]similar-sounding, but correctly-attributed, quotes. But he did not, he ]lied repeatedly. There is no way this sort of thing can be explained ]by benefit of the doubt or a human error or believing separate ]reports. It is a malicious and knowing fabrication. By the standards ]Rich espouses (for other people ...) this should condemn him for all ]eternity. ] ]>And article <5gi741$cbp$1@nntp2.ba.best.com>: ]> ]>|Another example of your disturbing affection for state informers and ]>|government goons with guns. ]>[...] ]>|I have no idea what these claims are, but I confidently believe a ]>|couple of things about you that you have forcefully denied. ] ] Didn't write that. I don't care what Rich thinks about guns, ]though I wonder if he should be in one of the groups which should ]certainly be denied them (... history of mental illness). ] ]>And article <5gmff0$109$4@nntp2.ba.best.com>: ]> ]>|You are a habitual liar, an apologist for state repression, and a ]>|loon. ] ] Didn't write that. I don't know about "habitual", but I suppose ]it's arguable. I don't care about Rich's politics. Loon, DEFINITELY! ] ]>And <5gqbd5$rkm$2@nntp2.ba.best.com>: ]> ]>|You piously declare you are on the side of the angels, while ]>|systematically circulating lies that hurt us and benefit the enemy. ] ] Didn't write it, but I could have :-). But the trick there is ]that "the enemy" could mean in the writer's mind "The Jewish Conspiracy", ]but in my mind "Sensation-Mongering Journalists". The two statements ]then may *sound* alike, but actually be completely different. ] ]>And <5gu8v6$nf$2@nntp2.ba.best.com>: ]> ]>|Rich regularly circulates "facts" that are systematically off base in ]>|ways that legitimize and justify the lawless acts of governments and ]>|which denigrate peoples rights. ] ] Didn't write it, again, I very rarely deal with Rich's ]general beliefs about government. I get far too much of him as it is. ] ]>|When called on these he then piously whines how much in favor of ]>|liberty he is. ]>| ]>|He is damned statist liar. ] ] Didn't write it, wouldn't say "statist liar". Of course, this ]repeated tactic of misattribution and the broader trick will speak for itself. ] ]>And <5gu8i6$nf$1@nntp2.ba.best.com>: ]> ]>|Oh aren't you wonderful ]>| ]>|You talk the talk but you do not walk the walk. ]>| ]>|You are not on Phil Zimmerman's side. You are on the side of the ]>|feds. ] ] Nowadays, I don't think Rich has any side except his own. He ]strikes me as dangerously unstable. Luckily, he only explodes in whining ]rants - so far. ] ]>Please read no further. This is your last warning. ]> ]>OK, I lied. I do that habitually, don't you know. THIS is your last ]>warning. ] ] Doesn't make it right. Most of the time, you slant and ignore ]contrary evidence. That hasn't worked for you in this thread, so now ]you've escalated. One might also point to the absurdity of posting ]long vitriolic articles and saying "don't read this". It's part of a ]pattern of doing something nasty and vicious and vile, and then ]denying that you're actually doing it. ] ] ]>In article <5gqfpk$ate@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, ]>Seth Finkelstein <sethf@mit.edu> wrote: ]>> This is so ironic given your venom-filled postings. Yes, I am ]>>flaming you back. It's not nearly as fun when the target is defending ]>>themselves, is it? You just can't get away with the mud without consequences. ]> ]>Seth, you weren't the target, though for what you've done with your ]>miscarried "Justice on Campus," you should be. Since you insist, I'll ]>remedy that lack below. ] ] Umm, you've flamed a lot of people in this thread. And Justice ]on Campus has a lot of contributors, I can't take all credit or blame ]for every part it. I've had a heavy role in some parts of it, and ]deferred in other pieces. ] ]>>>Seth, go to www.dejanews.com. Note that a thread under this title began on ]>>>March 1st. Note that it was a reasonable and civil reply to John Wallace's ]>>>reasonable and civil reply to me. Note that there were several reasonable ]>>>and civil followups. Note that the current topic of this thread did not ]>>>start until March 13th. Note when you arrived, when the content-free ]>>>flames started, and how I broke off a more reasonable subthread to get ]>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ]>> ]>> Wrong. Note that you smeared everyone around in article ]>>id <5g9sin$g5p@quixote.stanford.edu>, that's what started the flame war. ]> ]>Yes, the date on that article is March 13th. There were nine articles in ]>the thread prior to that one. The first post to the thread was March 1st, ]>following up to John Wallace's citation of my name on the so-called ]>fight-censorship list in late February. I was unable to respond to the ]>invocation of my name on the fight-censorship list, so I posted the ]>article here, on March 1st. ] ] Consider the phrase "Note when you arrived, when the ]content-free flames started ...". I arrived *after* you started the ]flamewar, and your mudfest is what began it. You spit in the thread, ]don't complain it now tastes bad. ] ]>> This is the sort of rewriting of history Rich does. He posts some ]>>nasty, provocative flames. When people flame him back, he acts so hurt, ]>>and edits out his part in his retelling, playing the wounded innocent. ]> ]>This is, of course, the unalloyed truth. ] ] We see it demonstrated over and over again. Look at your rewriting ]above. ] ]>>>> Donna Riley and Jean DeCamp shouldn't be touched with a ]>>>>10-foot polemic. I met Jean once. The woman couldn't stop berating me ]>>> ]>>>She should have, with the smear campaign you continue to run against her, ]>> ]>> Her own words condemn her. She'd like to run away from them, ]>>but she can't. ]> ]>I see. How good of you to post selected quotes prominently on the web for ]>more than two years, especially the ones that explicitly read "This is ]>private email" and "Please consider this paragraph confidential." ]>http://joc.mit.edu/footnotes/c3-ljc.txt ] ] Wrong. All the material is there, has been from early on. Read ]the whole thing, http://joc.mit.edu/charges.html#3 , especially ]http://joc.mit.edu/docs/camp.brief.txt . ] In fact, I think my first tussle with her was explaining why ]she was utterly wrong to allege "libelous" in that case, a mistake you ]repeated, but you should know better. ] ]>Justice on Campus. ] ] Take your complaint to all the papers and magazines printing ]Timothy McVay's "confession?" now. ] ]>>>But she didn't take a swing at you, did she? I can only think of one ]>>>person mentioned in this thread who was arrested and convicted for taking ]>>>swings at someone he was living with. "Justice on Campus" they call the ]>> ]>> Actually, said person was falsely and maliciously accused by ]>>the ex- who has a history of making far-out accusation, on the eve of ]>>their relationship breakup, and couldn't afford to fight it all the ]>>way through (for years?). But talk about one-sided, Rich wouldn't tell ]>>you any of that. ]> ]>Right. I haven't posted the URL for the police report, which mentions ]>third parties Yang and Gardy calling the police when they heard the ] ] Nor have you mentioned it's hosted by the same person who made ]bogus harassment charges against JOC and me, which where completely ]false and malicious, and has an amazing history of prevarication. ] ]>some concern for personal privacy. I will merely say that in my personal ]>opinion, you are a disgusting individual for allowing yourself to be so used. ] ] I love you too. ] ]>If you don't think a reasonable and prudent person would read the ]>police report or judgement this way, then by all means, post the URL on ]>"Justice" on Campus. You consider it your duty to post selected personal ]>email between third parties; why not public record? ] ] I personally believe there's something wrong with it, because ]it's hosted by the very same guy who tried to get JOC and me in trouble ]with manufactured malicious charges. See http://joc.mit.edu/attack.html ] If I were dealing with it, I'd put *everything* up in defense, ]but again, I understand at a human level the reaction not to wallow ]though the mud of an angry ex-'s accusations. ] ]>> You're very mixed up. Bogus harassment charges were filed ]>>against *me*, and it gave me a very good view of CMU-style politics. ]>>They use harassment charges and threats as standard weapons down there. ]> ]>I see. Again, this is the unalloyed truth. "Justice on Campus." ] ] Rich, exactly what part do you doubt? That charges were made? ]That's never been denied by anyone involved. That they were phony? ]Well, given that I was hundreds of miles away, and I don't think I ]ever sent the guy e-mail, it's hard to make an argument (unless you ]consider Usenet flaming to be sufficient, which I would really advise ]you not to do). So yes, that's the unalloyed truth. ] ]>>>Yes. Two simple wording changes. Please change the name of the list to ]>>>"fight" and change the word "unmoderated" to "moderated." ]>> ]>> In other words, *SNEER*. It's not about the wording, it's ]>>about your whining, nothing would make you happy, you just want an ]>>issue to cry about. ]> ]>Two simple changes to the wording, in the interest of accuracy. That's all. ] ] "Lightly moderated with regard to participants" seems very non-sneery, ]but I doubt it'll make you happy. ] ]>> Explain to me how importing this flame war onto the mailing ]>>list is going to help anything at all. It seems to me it'd just make ]>>things worse. ]> ]>Well, there we disagree. Convene the Happynet Unofficial Anti-Censorship ]>Committee and mull it over at your leisure. I'm in no hurry. ] ] So tell me how it's going to help anything. At this point, I ]think you're beyond help. ] ]-- ]Seth Finkelstein sethf@mit.edu ]Disclaimer : I am not the Lorax. I speak only for myself. ](and certainly not for Project Athena, MIT, or anyone else). ] --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps