Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdcad!decwrl!ucbvax!rutgers!noao!mcdsun!mcdchg!chinet!rhonda
From: rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner)
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: They're at it again in Berkeley
Message-ID: <1959@chinet.UUCP>
Date: 10 Dec 87 13:12:53 GMT
References: <5909@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <1842@chinet.UUCP> <5944@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <1851@chinet.UUCP> <5980@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <1875@chinet.UUCP> <6021@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX, Chicago
Lines: 65

In article <6021@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, skyler@violet.berkeley.edu.UUCP () writes:
> 1)  Mark Ethan Smith once said that Rhonda was a hoax, that Rhonda was a man
> claiming to be a woman.  
> 
> 2)  Rhonda has said that this accusation was a lie, but Rhonda has never
> provided any counter-evidence.
> 
> 3)  Rhonda has said that Mark Ethan Smith is a hoax.  S/he has ONE and
> only ONE piece of evidence for this assertion.  Rhonda has said that s/he
> contacted someone who contacted someone at an old address and that person
> did not know Mike Robinson or me.  This is Rhonda's only evidence
> but Rhonda did not make clear that the person living at the address has
> the name of Mark Ethan Smith.  (Perhaps Mark has moved.)

Skyler, you and Robinson both have made this claim about the nature of my
evidence.  Let me make it as clear as I can.  The "old address" given in
Larry's information simply provided a pointer to the area where Mark Ethan
Smith lives.  The phone book provided more up-to-date information.  If you
are seriously trying to imply that perhaps the person at this old address
was contacted and asked all the appropriate questions without bothering to
ask if it was Mark Ethan Smith, you are being incredulously ridiculous.
I will make it clear:  Mark Ethan Smith was called, she spoke, she was asked
if she was the Mark Ethan Smith involved in the lawsuit, she said yes, she
was asked if she had heard of Usenet, she said no.

>     a)  Rhonda has said that people who are obnoxious and engage in name-
> calling should be censored from the net.  S/he has called me a lying
> son of a bitch.  That is name calling and it is also completely unfounded
> because Rhonda has refused to let me and Mike and Mark prove that there
> is not a hoax while Rhonda has refused to prove s/he is not a hoax.

The bottom line:  *I* am obliged to prove my assertions that Mark Ethan Smith
is a hoax (a reasonable demand), but not only are Skyler and Robinson NOT
obliged to do the same, *I* am suddenly required by default to DISPROVE
their claims!  So I am saddled with the burden of proof both to prove
my claims (reasonable) and to disprove their unproven claims (ridiculous).
The sad thing is that this is hardly atypical of the doctrinaire types who
talk about "politically correct" stands that people should be taking on
certain issues.  Yes, Skyler, you have made things much clearer now.  Thanks.

> Rhonda has accused me, Mike, and Mark of lying and pretending.  Rhonda
> has been accused of the same.  We have attempted to make assurances.
> They have not worked.  Our right to perform the speech act has been called
> into question.  What we have to do is to assume responsibilities which
> are part of speaking.  Habermas identifies those as demonstrating one
> has those rights and/or providing evidence to support one's claims.
> Mike, Mark, and I claim to exist and claim not to be part of a hoax.

To avoid getting caught in lies, notice that Skyler is careful to note,
not that they all exist and are not part of a hoax, but that they all CLAIM
to exist and CLAIM not to be part of a hoax.  That's all it takes for them
to fulfill their obligations.  Isn't that odd?  A truly balanced approach
to burden of proof and the right to free speech, right?

> And none of us had anything to do with the bitch@chinet hoax.

Funny you should mention that.  I never accused either you or Mike or Mark
of having any part in the bitch@chinet hoax.  Nice of you to make sure to
publicly deny that you had any part in it, though.  I had thought about who
might have been responsible, and I had actually discounted the Berkeley
hoaxsters, since they had been so diligent and proficient in their execution
of the Smith hoax and since the bitch@chinet hoax was so very sloppy.  Now
that Skyler has taken the precaution of denying complicity in something
before she was even accused of it, I have to wonder.
								--Rhonda