Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!cpsc6a!codas!killer!era
From: era@killer.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Re: MESmith, Larry Lippman and sanity
Message-ID: <2237@killer.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 28-Nov-87 04:44:09 EST
Article-I.D.: killer.2237
Posted: Sat Nov 28 04:44:09 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 1-Dec-87 03:36:34 EST
References: <288@snark.UUCP>
Reply-To: era@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith)
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: The Unix(tm) Connection BBS, Dallas, Tx
Lines: 93
Summary: Why Eric can't apologize

In article <288@snark.UUCP> eric@snark.UUCP (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
>I have now been attacked three separate times for stating my opinion that

Was your opinion about an issue, or was it an ad hominem attack?
If the latter, you can expect some attacks in return, since
you started it, asshole.

>1. I do not claim to have medical authority nor an MD's training; my
>   statements are therefore to be considered opinions, at best informed
>   opinions.

So why did you lay out your credentials as a lay therapist and
use psycho-babble terms to state your "opinion?"  But go ahead,
weasel out of it, slime.

>2. I do not think MESmith is evil, wrotten, wrong, stupid or a no-good-shit.

And I don't think you're a slobbering, child-molesting, toad.

But I could be wrong.

>   I *do* think he is a person who, under great stress, has substantially
>   lost contact with consensus reality.

And you've apparently lost your ability to use a dictionary, if you
ever had it.  Try getting somebody who knows how to tell you what
the word "consensus" means.  Or are you so delusional that you think the
people you claim are "attacking" you, really agree with what you say?

>MESmith's defenders really amuse me. They rake me over the coals for
>making "strong statements about a person I've never even met" while implicitly
>defending his right to scoriate entire *classes* of victims that have never
>even heard of him -- most libertarians, most USENET sysops, most males.

Entire classes, or only "most?"  Believe it or not, there's really
a difference.  I called the Libertarians (actually Propertarians)
on the Well who first expressed their belief in "ABSOLUTE free
speech," and then censored me and pressured to have my password
pulled on the grounds that it was a privately owned system and had
no obligation to permit opposing views or views that differed from
those of management, hypocrites.  That's what they are.  As for
USENET sysops, one successful businessman went out of his way to meet
me because he couldn't understand why I was brought up as a topic
at UNIX conventions and conferences, and people discussed their
hatred of me and how to get rid of me.  Those were usenet sysops,
or SA's as they prefer to be called.  As for most men, males who 
can treat women as equals are few and far between--most won't even
grant women equal terms of address, no less equal pay and equal rights.

>You know, I think I have more respect for MESmith than they do -- *I'm* willing
>to treat him as though he's responsible for his behavior.

Maybe because I am.  I stand by what I say--I even think before I
say it.  Try it sometime.

>Finally, I promise that I will issue a public retraction of my expressed
>belief that MESmith is a delusional paranoid when he retracts his
>reiterated claim that he has been deliberately victimized by a nationwide
>conspiracy of sysops intent on suppressing his freedom of expression.

That your religious belief, asshole, or more thinly disguised libel?
You can believe in God, or in Satan, but to believe in your right
to make psychiatric diagnoses of somebody you've never met, without
even having a license to practice, is going to get you in big
trouble some day.  But don't give up hope.  A few more courses
in lay therapy and you might even find out why you can't get laid.

>P.S.: My use of male gender pronouns for MESmith is intended to respect "his"
expressed wishes, but should not be taken as an endorsement of "his"
>socio-semantic theories.]

Gee, maybe we need a new pronoun for those who deny any possibility
of equal and inclusive terms.  Nah.  If I want to indicate your
gender, I don't need a pronoun, prick. 

That's right.  If you can believe, in your considered opinion,
that I'm a delusional paranoid, I can believe, in my own considered
opinion, that you're an asshole and a prick.  You need a license
to diagnose delusions or paranoia, but you don't need a license
to observe that some spoiled brat is acting like a prick and an asshole.
Maybe you ought to contact Larry Lippman.  If you and he can provide
my former employer, the federal government, with any evidence
that I'm delusional or paranoid, they'll be extremely grateful, as
they paid close to $2,000 to four (4) licensed doctors of their choice
who examined me extensively and were unable to find any such thing.

Care to explain why you crossposted to talk.politics.misc?  Is that where
you always post libel, ad hominem attacks, pseudo-psychiatric diagnoses,
flames, and critiques of socio-semantic theories, or do you
just happen to have a political agenda that involves attempting
to discredit anyone with feminist or egalitarian views?  :-)

--Mark