From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 05:48:34 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Cocksucker John Gilmore and his mouthpiece Rich Graves exposed as liars
Message-ID: <g8B14D17w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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