Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!nessus
From: nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan)
Newsgroups: net.music,net.rumor
Subject: Re: Attention, Responsible Net Users!  (And K-Mart Shoppers!)
Message-ID: <4669@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 12-Jul-85 09:39:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.4669
Posted: Fri Jul 12 09:39:42 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 12:40:48 EDT
Distribution: net.music,net.rumor
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 60
Xref: watmath net.music:8252 net.rumor:986

["Let me see: four times five is twelve, and four times six is thirteen,
  and four times seven is -- oh dear!  I shall never go to twenty at
  that rate!"]

> From: Judd Rogers 

> Since no-one else seems to see these aleged forgeries why don't you ignore
> them?

> In anycase, don't tell us at net.rumor since it is not a rumor (a
> halucination but not a rumor)

It's kind of interesting that you should say that when the posting that
you are responding to is indeed a forgery!

Mit-Eddie doesn't receive these forgeries, so I may not have seen them
all.  I received the following posting via personal mail from my bestest
friend in the whole universe.  I did not post this -- it is the second
forgery that I know of:

> From nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP

> I hope none of you seriously believe that I would entertain such
> frivolous discussions on the merit of J.S. Bach's music.  I have
> admired many of JSB's works, and although you all know how I feel about
> Kate Bush's music, even to talk of such a comparison is obscene.

Clearly I don't really believe that such a comparison is obscene, for no
forger would flame as long as I have on the subject.

> Once again, it looks like this is the work of the fun-people
> eunuch-wizards.  It was slightly amusing the first time they forged
> news article by me but I am beginning to get annoyed.

Yup!

> I have attempted to contact David Dobkin, the site
> administrator-administrator at Princeton, in order to straighten
> things out.

I have no idea who David Dobkin is.

> Is there anyone out there that is as upset as I am?  If
> this keeps up the net will be in peril of losing its credibility.

Did it ever have any?

In the future, people might want to use this algorithm to determine if a
message is really from me: If you say to yourself "My goodness that was
a wonderful posting.  Doug Alan must be a real genius!" then assume it
is really from me.  If you say to yourself "My God what a stupid
article!  Doug Alan is a real asshole!" then assume it is a forgery.
This may not give you an accurate picture of the truth, but I don't
mind....

				What does 'I' mean?

				Doug Alan
				 nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)