Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdcad!decwrl!ucbvax!rutgers!noao!mcdsun!mcdchg!chinet!rhonda
From: rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner)
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Theories and hoaxes
Message-ID: <1960@chinet.UUCP>
Date: 10 Dec 87 13:13:20 GMT
References: <5909@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <1842@chinet.UUCP>
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX, Chicago
Lines: 60

<5944@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <1851@chinet.UUCP> <1311@aurora.UUCP> <1876@chinet.UUCP> <21891@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>

In article <21891@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, robinson@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Michael Robinson) writes:
> >about Mark being a poor homeless person was part of the tipoff.  A homeless
> >person, who supposedly is having a difficult time just surviving, has enough
> >time, energy and resources to post to the net?  Is Berkeley that gracious in
> >giving out accounts AND terminal access?  And what about the long distance
> >calls to public access machines in Chicago and New York, machines which "she"
> 
> >A woman on "social
> >security" can afford those kinds of phone bills, even with PC Pursuit or
> >Telenet access?
> 
> And why not?  You wouldn't happen to have a cost analysis breakdown to 
> support your incredulity, would you?  The average amount of disability
> payments, and PC Pursuit rates are both public information.  Do some 
> research.

It's nice to know our public assistance money, intended to help people who
cannot otherwise help themselves, is being used by one such person to make
long distance calls to post to the net!  It restores my faith in America,
the free enterprise system, and our government agencies, knowing the money
is going to the right places in the right amounts.  To think, there are
people who are REALLY suffering who could use the money Mark spends on the
"necessity" called netnews.  I thought public assistance was supposed to
provide the NEEDY, the TRULY NEEDY, with sustenance, not provide luxuries
to those who can work (obviously Mark is a skilled writer and not an
incompetent).  It is an affront to every working person, especially to
working women, to hear about this abuse of public assistance.

> >and robinson flamed Larry hotly for having the "audacity" to post this
> >information (publicly available) to the net.
> 
> I did no such thing.  I flamed Larry for doing sloppy homework.  I didn't
> even mention the fact that he posted the address.  The record will show
> that.  It was a non-issue, because the information was dated.  Since I
> am the only one, to my knowledge, who has been to Mark's current residence,
> I was also the only one, besides Mark, who knew that the address was 
> bogus.

But the locale wasn't, and that made it all the easier to track things down.

> >That information helped break
> >the truth about the hoax.
> 
> You still claim there is a "real" Mark Ethan Smith living at the address
> Larry gave.  Some job of breaking the truth you've done.

I never made such a claim.  It seems that you are reduced to making up stories
about what I said to discredit my evidence.  You're not doing a very good job,
but that's to be expected, I suppose.  The information Larry provided was just
a pointer to an area.  The phone book provided the rest of the necessary
up-to-date data.

> So, just out of curiousity, why didn't *you* take
> the trouble to contact the "real" MES? 

I notice that even you refer to "the real MES" with the word "real" in quotes. 
Freudian slip?  
								--Rhonda