Crazed hate-filled homophobe Dan Hartung (spit) apparently thinks I'm gay :-)

Question:

The s.c.p "proponants" seem to be engaged in a contest – how many lies can a wannabe newsgroup moderator fit in a single paragraph. For example, No, Dimitri, you are trying to blatantly vote monger, Ill concieved group well, that is your opinion not mine.

Yes – the newsgroup would be a cesspool of lies and flames, posted by the proposed moderators, confident that their victims can’t respond. What you are complainging about is that you tried MailBombing, False Vote Submissions and other tactics that are contrary to the rules in a CFV, and Dan Hartung quite properly caught you, and delaired your ballots, and all those fake accounts on dm.com to be invalid.

1. I’ve never mailbombed anyone. You’re lying. 2. I voted exactly once on s.c.p. You’re lying. 3. The homophobic "vote thief" Dan "Eichmann" Hartung (spit) did not allege that there was anything wrong with my ballot. He wrote he refused to count it to get back at me because I helped expose another crooked votetaker, Jan Isley (spit) as a net-abuser and a forger, eventually causing Jan to lose net-access. Folks, Read the Proposal, Read all about the issues, and then Vote as you see fit, any one calling for a "Yes" or "No" vote is trying to violate the rules of Usnet by Vote Mongering –Uncle Wolf –Proponant soc.religion.paganism

The wannabe moderator can’t even spell "proponent" in his signature. Please vote NO now. See other articles in this thread for a ballot.

Response:

First of all, can anyone, but preferably Dimitri, explain to all of us *why* this has been posted to atl.general, chi.general, and soc.culture.russian? I see no relevance whatsoever to those newsgroups. Followups have been fixed. <snip Dan "Eichmann" Hartung is a hate-crazed homophobe. His hate-filled homophobic rants are so outlandish that many people mistakenly think he is jesting. No, Dan is not joking. He meant exactly what he said.

The only example you posted showed only an abysmal lack of understanding on Dimitri’s part of Usenet quoting. Hey, you folks on alt.politics.homosexuality, has Dr. D. ever shown up there, to champion gays? Has he *ever* shown up there? <snip mark

Response:

He’s already displayed a 2-week record of anti-rational activity right here. Let’s propose a new alt. group just for him: alt.fan.vilius-idiot.die.die.die Gosh, why do I feel so /dirty/ after typing his name? — See us at http://www.3rdplanet.com/~starship Support at http://www.3rdplanet.com/~starship/atari.htm | Opinions expressed herein are those of the writer and | | probably diametrically opposed to those of his employer. | Do NOT add my address to any mailing list without my express permission. Unsolicited commerical email will be proofread at my usual consulting rate: $90/hour, 4 hour minimum. Failure to pay will be reported to your local credit agency.

Response:

Let’s propose a new alt. group just for him: alt.fan.vilius-idiot.die.die.die Gosh, why do I feel so /dirty/ after typing his name?

Gee… Wouldn’t it be amusing if the PTB push the proceedings along and the aforementioned alt. group gets approved before the much less controversial group Herr Doktor With the Saliva Problem after Names has a prob with? That would be ironic, eh? PS- You got my yes vote for the alt.fan.vilius-idiot.die.die.die group… You’re right… It does leave a bad taste on the keyboard… — WOMBAT! ** Visit the Stellar Operations Command Homepage *** "Ooooo! I’ve got** * http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/4162 <* to Potty!!!" * **Find out more about Interactive Fiction Writing*** -Wakko Warner**

Response:

-My advice to you is to vote NO now on this ill-conceived proposal, then hold -another vote on an *unmoderated* s.c.p. I promise to vote YES on that one. Translation: "I can’t post reams of garbage to a moderated group so I don’t like it". — Harrisburg, Pa. Email to this account may be posted to the net Unsolicited email advertisments will be returned to sender x 10 or better.

Response:

Dan Hartung is not a homophobe. He is a hard-working volunteer, donating his time to improve Usenet, and the victim of Vulis’ vendetta against all UVV’s. His article referenced by "Dr." Vulis is clearly a parody.

Dan "Eichmann" Hartung is a hate-crazed homophobe. His hate-filled homophobic rants are so outlandish that many people mistakenly think he is jesting. No, Dan is not joking. He meant exactly what he said. One day Dan will come out of the closet and will be very ashamed of his past Usenet articles. Vulis has deliberately misquoted others in the past, such as his statement that Emory university called Jan Isely’s actions "reprehensible" – but in the original quote, before his editing, it was clear that they called Vulis’ own forgeries "reprehensible".

This is a lie. Emory University’s announcement said: "We find [Jan Isley's] forgeries repugnant… We have asked Jan Isley to vacate his account". Don’t try to pin Jan Isley’s net-abuse (vote fraud, Usenet forgeries, threats of mailbombing, etc) on others – it already got his plug pulled.

Response:

= = *low whistle* sarcasm is obvious LOST on some people. = = and this, kiddies, is why we should never assume that our readers have an = IQ higher than, say, peach fuzz. = That’s an insult to peach fuzz. By the way, *Mr.* "Vulis", I’m aliasing out dm.com. I’m not going to allow your tripe to use up my disk space. — Christopher M. Conway Systems and Network Administrator We must all hang together, or, most assuredly, we will all hang separately. I’ll be post-feminist in the post-patriarchy.

Response:

If you can call him Eichmann, can I call you Goebbels? You certainly seem to try and be adept at the Big Lie, if nothing else. One day Dan will come out of the closet and will be very ashamed of his past Usenet articles.

Now, now… I’ve specifically not been trying to bait you with taunts like: Are you so focussed on homophobia because you’re in the closet yourself? I mean, you *really* make it hard for me to keep rational, intelligent discourse going here. But flaming, alas, is at best momentary pleasure. This is a lie. Emory University’s announcement said: "We find [Jan Isley's] forgeries repugnant… We have asked Jan Isley to vacate his account".

Really? And could you point me to verifiable third-party evidence of this remark? Because from all other third-party accounts, it was you and your two buddies of the anti-cabal cabal who got him tossed off, after you personally invited everyone on Usenet to pester his annoyers. I mean, every other time we ask you for verifiable third-party evidence, you get… strangely quiet. The Big Lie doesn’t work where information is so easily available to the contrary… and you and I are aswim in a sea of data. That will really get the pagans in your pocket, Vulis. Oh, yes. Why don’t you tell them about all the times you posted people’s home addresses and phone numbers? Or the addresses and phone numbers of key people to contact at their school or employer? Yeah, people who still remember fun ol’ times like the various INquisitions will just eat that right up. Don’t try to pin Jan Isley’s net-abuse (vote fraud, Usenet forgeries, threats of mailbombing, etc) on others – it already got his plug pulled.

No, your net-abuse of Jan Isley got his plug pulled. Or do you want me to dredge DejaNews for when you specifically asked Usenet to pester Emory for you. What, were you too lazy to harass the university yourself? Followups reset, but a fine PhD like Vulis should have no problem ranting on anyway. — Lorrie — Proponent/proposed moderator, soc.religion.paganism — Babylon 5 fan CDA Protest: Fuck Senator Exon and the dead gay horse he rode in on.

Response:

: I said, I wanted to vote NO on s.c.p because I object to its moderation policy. : Look at the lies being posted by your proponents/moderators: one of them just : accused me of mailbombing a votetaker (a lie), another claims that I don’t have : a Ph.D. (a lie), and many other bizarre lies. Do you really want these proven : liars to decide for you what you can and can’t read in your newsgroup? Why do you object to moderation? What school is your Ph.D. from, and what is it in?

: ] The Subject says it all. Usenet votes are supposed to be reader interest : ] polls. Who cares about the opinions of someone who’s going to die from AIDS : ] in a month, and won’t be rrading Usenet anyway? Their votes shouldn’t count. : ] : ]Absolutely. I couldn’t agree more. But we have to have a litmus test, : ]a means for determining precisely who is homosexual. I know! We’ll : ]just assume anyone who conceals their identity is homosexual. : ]Daniel A. Hartung | I believe we can fly : Why should someone so bigoted and malicious be allowed to conduct Usenet votes? You bonehead. Go get a dictionary and look up the word ‘irony’. You may find this enlightening. Are you *sure* you have a Ph.D.? Joe

Response:

If someone wiull clue me in to where this thread is SUPPOSED to be, I’mm trim the groups list (if I ever feel silly enough to participate again)… ]– ]Daniel A. Hartung | I believe we can fly ]www.mcs.net/~dhartung/ | — Melissa Etheridge

OK, let’s see, Dan had gotten Icarus invloved via Melissa, as quoted by Wombat… As my two cents to this udderly ridiculous discussion… I would like to point out one little fact to Herr Doktor…

And Wombat is bringing cows into the picture (I suppose it could be goats, they have udders, too, don’t they?). If Mister Hartung were really such a rabid homophobe, as you have

And Vil-whatsit apparently is invoking canines, or at least furry mammals, since that’s the abode of the Rabies virus… I guess this thread is somehow related to Earthworm Jim, what with flying cows, puppies, and whatnot. … without skewing the content or relevency of said quote…

How do you expect to keep a good flame war going if you’re not going to skew content or relevancy? — See us at http://www.3rdplanet.com/~starship Support at http://www.3rdplanet.com/~starship/atari.htm | Opinions expressed herein are those of the writer and | | probably diametrically opposed to those of his employer. | Do NOT add my address to any mailing list without my express permission. Unsolicited commerical email will be proofread at my usual consulting rate: $90/hour, 4 hour minimum. Failure to pay will be reported to your local credit agency.

Response:

I say we vote YES on soc.religion.paganism just because I’m tired of seeing Vilius campaigning against this group in the name of gay rights. It’s a disservice to the Internet and to the Gay Rights Movement. I would be interested to see if Vilius had a record of antipagan activity. Blessed Be, Mike Smith "Rise, hold fast your faith. To lie dormant is certain death." -Slayer, "At Dawn They Sleep" DISCLAIMER: My opinions do not necessarily, or even remotely, reflect those of Loyola University, Chicago.

Response:

No, Dimitri, you are trying to blatantly vote monger, Ill concieved group well, that is your opinion not mine. What you are complainging about is that you tried MailBombing, False Vote Submissions and other tactics that are contrary to the rules in a CFV, and Dan Hartung quite properly caught you, and delaired your ballots, and all those fake accounts on dm.com to be invalid. Such actions are you are trying to complete are the very reasons why the group was proposed in the first place. Are YOU one of the Alt.tactical.syntax nerds who Spammed alt.pagan in the first place? From your Actions, I might guess so…. Folks, Read the Proposal, Read all about the issues, and then Vote as you see fit, any one calling for a "Yes" or "No" vote is trying to violate the rules of Usnet by Vote Mongering –Uncle Wolf –Proponant soc.religion.paganism

Response:

NOTE: I have snipped all non-relevant headers and sigs in the following quotes. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -And by the way, here’s one of the homophobic rants from Dan Hartung (spit): ]Followup-To: alt.bonehead.john-grubor ] ] The Subject says it all. Usenet votes are supposed to be reader interest ] polls. Who cares about the opinions of someone who’s going to die from AIDS ] in a month, and won’t be rrading Usenet anyway? Their votes shouldn’t count. ] ]Absolutely. I couldn’t agree more. But we have to have a litmus test, ]a means for determining precisely who is homosexual. I know! We’ll ]just assume anyone who conceals their identity is homosexual. Why should someone so bigoted and malicious be allowed to conduct Usenet

votes? Dmitri, you are a moron! Do you not recognize satire when you read it? Dan asked how do we know who is homosexual? Perhaps by their anonymous address. Grubor used an anonymous remailer to start this particularly objectionable thread so, in essence, Dan was VERY slyly calling Grubor the very thing that Grubor detests… gay. He even went so far as to redirect followups to alt.bonehead.john-grubor! This is known as wit, something you could never recognize as you are witless. http://www.srisoft.com Senior Programmer ftp://ftp.srisoft.com Sunland Resources, Inc. (713) 955-2800 (Voice) (713) 955-7564 (Fax)

Response:

writes:

<snipping a lot of earlier posts – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -(continuing to quote Heather) Look, I don’t know anything about your beef with Dan Hartung, since you haven’t shown anything in your post that is homophobic or malicious, but *why* should soc.religion.paganism be punished because you have a personal problem with the votetaker? I said, I wanted to vote NO on s.c.p because I object to its moderation policy. Look at the lies being posted by your proponents/moderators: one of them just accused me of mailbombing a votetaker (a lie), another claims that I don’t have a Ph.D. (a lie), and many other bizarre lies. Do you really want these proven liars to decide for you what you can and can’t read in your newsgroup? My advice to you is to vote NO now on this ill-conceived proposal, then hold another vote on an *unmoderated* s.c.p. I promise to vote YES on that one. A usenet vote is supposed to be a readership interest poll. The crooked homophobic votetaker Dan Hartung (spit) refused to count my vote because he doesn’t like me, and therefore skewed the results of the poll. To correct for his vote fraud, I ask those who had little interest in s.c.p to vote NO instead of me. My rejected ballot is quoted in Dan Hartung’s (spit) flame above. Just And by the way, here’s one of the homophobic rants from Dan Hartung (spit):

<snipping the post First, my vote’s been counted. I voted YES the first day the CFV came out, and you aren’t changing my mind with this. I did check out DejaNews for Dan Hartung’s supposed "homophobic rant" even before you posted it here. Have you never seen sarcasm before? Or should he have written a smiley after his post to make it clearer? Second, we’re not voting on s.c.p. We’re voting on s.r.p. Since you seem to be unaware of what we’re even voting on, I suggest you do some research before doing anymore campaigning. Third, the whole reason srp was conceived was so we could have a moderated group. There already a number of unmoderated pagan groups available. –Heather

Response:

This is a lie. Emory University’s announcement said: "We find [Jan Isley's] forgeries repugnant… We have asked Jan Isley to vacate his account".

Oh, please. This is so pathetic it’s funny. The real article, as opposed to your edited version, has been posted here multiple times and is quite clear on the point that Jan Isley was not responsible for the forgeries and was not the person at fault. Dimitri, I’ve known you to seriously twist the truth, but I’ve never known you to flat out make things up before this entire thread started. Don’t you honestly think this is a bit beneath you? And rather stupid to do something that’s so easily detected? —

Response:

(restored ballot resnipped. Continuing to perpetrate vote fraud doesn’t reflect well on you, Dr. Vulis) I said, I wanted to vote NO on s.c.p because I object to its moderation policy. Look at the lies being posted by your proponents/moderators: one of them just accused me of mailbombing a votetaker (a lie), another claims that I don’t have a Ph.D. (a lie), and many other bizarre lies. Do you really want these proven liars to decide for you what you can and can’t read in your newsgroup? I was the one who said you were not a doctor. I have since been corrected by a third party, and retract that statement.

Everything else Lorrie wrote about me is also a lie. Lorrie wants to be a newsgroup moderator so she can post malicious lies about her "enemies" in a forum where her victims would be unable to respond and defend themselves. But I’ll note you haven’t accused me of lying on every other count and charge I levelled against you. The thing I was misinformed about, I’ve retracted. And I’ll be happy to do so again, if the real facts are available through a third party.

I said, you lied on every other count. I have better things to do than go through your lies line-by-line and refute them. (I probably have better things to do than even to read your lies.) I refute a sample one below. So, are you against our (quite liberal) moderation policy in particular, or moderation in general? If it’s specifically ours, you could have said something during the RFD period like everyone else. Yes, even you, because at least I made it a point to listen to everyone. If against moderation in general… well, can’t help you there. …

No, I oppose s.c.p because I oppose the stated moderation policy and because the proposed moderator body is composed of liars, forgers, flamers, and bullies like Lorrie. I’ve voted YES on many other moderated newsgroups. Primarily because one of th reasons we’re attempting to create this group is to filter out off-topic noise (primarily through moderation software), but also because all soc.religion groups must be moderated (sr.quaker being the only exception) by Usenet convention.

This is an example of Lorrie’s lie. Did group-advice tell you this? A usenet vote is supposed to be a readership interest poll. The crooked homophobic votetaker Dan Hartung (spit) refused to count my vote because he doesn’t like me, and therefore skewed the results of the poll. He refused o count your vote because you have generated large numbers of votes from accounts on your custom domain that you created solely for that purpose. CFV’s are supposed to be one person, one vote. Not one sysadmin, 1000 votes. Please point me to third-party evidence to correct me if this is not so. I remind you that providing same yourself… isn’t the same.

This is an example of several compound lies by Lorrie. OK, let’s refute them. 1. You claim that I created a "custom domain" for the purposes of voting multiple times. You lie. I’ve had my firm and my domain for a number of years, as anyone capable of typing ‘whois dm.com’ can see from the last modification date. My participation on Usenet votes is a very small portion of my Internet activities. 2. I did not generate multiple votes, nor did the homophobe Dan Hartung (spit) even claim that. I had submitted a single NO vote which Dan Hartung (spit) illegally refused to count. Once again, Dan’s homophobic e-mail follows: ]Received: by mercury.mcs.com (/==/ Smail3.1.28.1 #28.5) ]X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] ]Content-Type: text ]

] ] soc.religion.paganism Ballot <SRP-0986 (Don’t remove this marker) ] ] Give your real name here: Dr. Dimitri Vulis ] If you do not give a real name on the above line your vote may be rejected. ] ] [Your Vote] Group ] [NO ] soc.religion.paganism ] ] — ] ] Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps ] ] ]Returned uncounted. ] He subsequently stated that he refused to count it because he doesn’t like me, not because there were multiple votes. As far as I know, no other ballots on the pagan vote were ever submitted from dm.com. 3. Lorrie is trying to confuse the issues because there was an incident similar to what she described in June of this year involving the domain algebra.com: (spit) ]Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,misc.invest,sci.econ,sci.econ.research, sci.stat.math ]Followup-To: news.groups ]Organization: Usenet Volunteer Votetakers ]Lines: 475 (spit) ]NNTP-Posting-Host: rodan.uu.net ]Archive-Name: sci.finance.abstracts ] ] RESULT ] moderated group sci.finance.abstracts passes 299:22 ] ]sci.finance.abstracts results – 321 valid votes ] ] Yes No | 2/3 100 | Pass | Group ] 299 22 | Yes Yes | Yes | sci.finance.abstracts ] 32 invalid votes … ][ notes on the voter list: ] ] 31 "suspicious" votes from manifold.algebra.com were invalidated. ] Most of the acks bounced and no response was recieved after multiple ] attempts to verify the voters. … ] ]Invalid ballots ] ! site invalidated ] ! site invalidated ] ! site invalidated ] ! site invalidated ] ! site invalidated ] ! site invalidated ] ! site invalidated ] ! site invalidated ] ! site invalidated ] ! site invalidated ] ! site invalidated ] ! site invalidated ] ! site invalidated ] ! site invalidated ] ! site invalidated ] ! site invalidated ] ! site invalidated ] ! site invalidated ] ! site invalidated ] ! site invalidated ] ! site invalidated ] ! site invalidated ] ! site invalidated ] ! site invalidated ] ! site invalidated ] ! site invalidated ] ! site invalidated ] ! site invalidated ] ! site invalidated ] ! site invalidated ] ! site invalidated Similarly, dozens of ballots from nonexistent people at algebra.com were sent in and rejected during soc.culture.belarus and a few other votes. … read more »

Response:

<snip I said, I wanted to vote NO on s.c.p because I object to its moderation policy. Look at the lies being posted by your proponents/moderators: one of them just accused me of mailbombing a votetaker (a lie), another claims that I don’t have a Ph.D. (a lie), and many other bizarre lies. Do you really want these proven liars to decide for you what you can and can’t read in your newsgroup?

Several points exist in this paragraph which I’d like to address. 1) I read your original post very carefully, several times, to see whether you indicated a desire to censor the proposed new group on any grounds other than unmitigated personal spite against the UVV. No such hint appeared in that post. Your vote for or against a proposed new group is of course your own business, but I question the ethics of censoring an entire population of netizens who heretofore have remained blissfully unaware of not only your spat with the hierarchy of Usenet but of your very existence. 2) Whether or not you possess a PhD is of absolutely no interest to me. I was, however, brought up in an academic family and know precisely what to think of persons other than medicos who insist upon using the title in any or all circumstances, whether the information is germane to the discussion or not. Academic conferences are, of course, an appropriate place to insist upon the recognition adumbrated by the title, since the pecking order must at all costs be maintained. 3) The "many other bizarre lies" include the information that you have used your own personal domain to create fictitious accounts in equally fictitious names to try to influence the outcome of previous votes. I notice you did not address that charge specifically. Perhaps you would care to do so now. My advice to you is to vote NO now on this ill-conceived proposal, then hold another vote on an *unmoderated* s.c.p. I promise to vote YES on that one.

Why? What possible business is it of yours? I have never seen your name attached to posts on any of the newsgroups most affected by the creation of soc.religion.paganism, with (of course) the exception of this current outburst. The question of moderation vs. censorship was discussed at length during the RFD phase of the proposal, and the changes resulting from that discussion are reflected in the charter: even a cursory examination of that document (included with the CFV but carefully omitted, I notice, from your diatribe against it and also dissociated from the sample ballot you included in the post to which I am replying: not being an expert on the laws and customs of Usenet I cannot, of course, speculate on whether that action constitutes vote fraud on your part) should be sufficient to refute the "ill-conceived" label you attached to it. Every effort was made to ensure that the one would not mutate into the latter. I will concede that the charter is not perfect, but excuse the fact on the grounds that it was written by a committee. One further question: does your promise to vote "yes" to an unmoderated group reflect a desire to inserted unwanted and off-topic threads into it at will? If so, I can perfectly understand your opposition to the entire concept of moderated groups. A usenet vote is supposed to be a readership interest poll.

Granted. And since, as I said, I’ve never seen your name attached to articles posted to the newsgroups from which the presumed readership may be drawn, I still fail to see how the outcome of this vote concerns you. Or are you going to claim to be an assiduous reader of every single Usenet newsgroup? The crooked homophobic votetaker Dan Hartung (spit) refused to count my vote because he doesn’t like me, and therefore skewed the results of the poll. To correct for his vote fraud, I ask those who had little interest in s.c.p to vote NO instead of me. My rejected ballot is quoted in Dan Hartung’s (spit) flame above. Just

I see. In effect, you are proposing to moderate the whole of Usenet yourself in an effort to prevent a population which desires moderation and in which you have demonstrated no previous interest from achieving it. Who elected you Censor? And by the way, here’s one of the homophobic rants from Dan Hartung (spit): ]Path: …!Q.Net!nntp1.best.com!news1.best.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sprintlink. net!news-stk-3.sprintlink.net!news.ultranet.com!homer.alpha.net!uwm.edu!mat h.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net !in-news.erinet.com!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!usenet ]Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.config,soc.motss

<much of header snipped I believe that this post has been demonstrated to be a forgery, in the first place. Perhaps someone more skilled in the detection of such forgeries than I would be kind enough to post that demonstration. ] The Subject says it all. Usenet votes are supposed to be reader interest ] polls. Who cares about the opinions of someone who’s going to die from AIDS ] in a month, and won’t be rrading Usenet anyway? Their votes shouldn’t count. ] ]Absolutely. I couldn’t agree more. But we have to have a litmus test, ]a means for determining precisely who is homosexual. I know! We’ll ]just assume anyone who conceals their identity is homosexual. ] ]– ]Daniel A. Hartung | I believe we can fly ]www.mcs.net/~dhartung/ | — Melissa Etheridge Why should someone so bigoted and malicious be allowed to conduct Usenet votes?

Bigoted and malicious? As a member of the group against which Mr. Hartung is supposed to be expressing bigotry and malice (always supposing that he was indeed the author of the article), I fail to see anything except a flippant denigration of the custom of anonymous posting to the newsgroups. Is that, perhaps, what stings? I notice also that you have not accused any of the proponents or proposed moderators of bigotry, malice or homophobia — which is just as well, since although I have declined to take part in the moderation, I did play a large part in crafting the original proposal and the modifications which were made during the RFD process (during which you, I note, were markedly silent; I would have expected you to enter your, um, "objections" at a point at which they might have done some good). I shall return therefore to Heather’s question: why are you attempting to smear a group of wholly innocent netizens with the perceived shortcomings of our votetaker, over whose selection we had and have absolutely no control? Blessed be, Baird proponent, soc.religion.paganism

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -And by the way, here’s one of the homophobic rants from Dan Hartung (spit): ]Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.config,soc.motss ]Followup-To: alt.bonehead.john-grubor ] ] The Subject says it all. Usenet votes are supposed to be reader interest ] polls. Who cares about the opinions of someone who’s going to die from AIDS ] in a month, and won’t be rrading Usenet anyway? Their votes shouldn’t count. ] ]Absolutely. I couldn’t agree more. But we have to have a litmus test, ]a means for determining precisely who is homosexual. I know! We’ll ]just assume anyone who conceals their identity is homosexual. ] Why should someone so bigoted and malicious be allowed to conduct Usenet votes?

*low whistle* sarcasm is obvious LOST on some people. and this, kiddies, is why we should never assume that our readers have an IQ higher than, say, peach fuzz. -ailsa — Proponent of soc.religion.paganism; see news.groups for details [.sig quote to return after the vote]

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -A usenet vote is supposed to be a readership interest poll. The crooked homophobic votetaker Dan Hartung (spit) refused to count my vote because he doesn’t like me, and therefore skewed the results of the poll. To correct for his vote fraud, I ask those who had little interest in s.c.p to vote NO instead of me. My rejected ballot is quoted in Dan Hartung’s (spit) flame above. Just And by the way, here’s one of the homophobic rants from Dan Hartung (spit): ]Path: …!Q.Net!nntp1.best.com!news1.best.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sprintlink.n et!news-stk-3.sprintlink.net!news.ultranet.com!homer.alpha.net!uwm.edu!math .ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net! in-news.erinet.com!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!usenet ]Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.config,soc.motss ]Followup-To: alt.bonehead.john-grubor ]Organization: Rotaract Club of Evanston ]Lines: 13 ]NNTP-Posting-Host: dhartung.pr.mcs.net ]Mime-Version: 1.0 ]Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii ]Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ]X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b4 (Win95; I) ] ] The Subject says it all. Usenet votes are supposed to be reader interest ] polls. Who cares about the opinions of someone who’s going to die from AIDS ] in a month, and won’t be rrading Usenet anyway? Their votes shouldn’t count. ] ]Absolutely. I couldn’t agree more. But we have to have a litmus test, ]a means for determining precisely who is homosexual. I know! We’ll ]just assume anyone who conceals their identity is homosexual. ] ]– ]Daniel A. Hartung | I believe we can fly ]www.mcs.net/~dhartung/ | — Melissa Etheridge Why should someone so bigoted and malicious be allowed to conduct Usenet votes?

Ah, Hartung was being sarcastic! His response to the homophobe — who posted anonymously- was flippant, to be sure, but it was _anti-homophobic._ All Hartung (whom I don’t know) is doing is counting the votes and keeping it on the up and up. I think you owe him an apology. It’s obvious to me that you totally misread his intent. The lesson here, I guess, is to assume that someone somewhere reading usenet will be so humor impaired that they take even the simplest jest literally. In this instance, I think the flippancy was justified because it carried the (unwritten) message, "This proposal is so stupid it does not deserve serious discussion." BB Nan

Response:

(snipped ballot restored:) ]Received: by mercury.mcs.com (/==/ Smail3.1.28.1 #28.5) ]X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] ]Content-Type: text ]

I said, I wanted to vote NO on s.c.p because I object to its moderation policy. Look at the lies being posted by your proponents/moderators: one of them just accused me of mailbombing a votetaker (a lie), another claims that I don’t have a Ph.D. (a lie), and many other bizarre lies. Do you really want these proven liars to decide for you what you can and can’t read in your newsgroup? My advice to you is to vote NO now on this ill-conceived proposal, then hold another vote on an *unmoderated* s.c.p. I promise to vote YES on that one. A usenet vote is supposed to be a readership interest poll. The crooked homophobic votetaker Dan Hartung (spit) refused to count my vote because he doesn’t like me, and therefore skewed the results of the poll. To correct for his vote fraud, I ask those who had little interest in s.c.p to vote NO instead of me. My rejected ballot is quoted in Dan Hartung’s (spit) flame above. Just And by the way, here’s one of the homophobic rants from Dan Hartung (spit): ]Path: …!Q.Net!nntp1.best.com!news1.best.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sprintlink.n et!news-stk-3.sprintlink.net!news.ultranet.com!homer.alpha.net!uwm.edu!math .ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net! in-news.erinet.com!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!usenet ]Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.config,soc.motss ]Followup-To: alt.bonehead.john-grubor ]Organization: Rotaract Club of Evanston ]Lines: 13 ]NNTP-Posting-Host: dhartung.pr.mcs.net ]Mime-Version: 1.0 ]Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii ]Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ]X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b4 (Win95; I) ]

] The Subject says it all. Usenet votes are supposed to be reader interest ] polls. Who cares about the opinions of someone who’s going to die from AIDS ] in a month, and won’t be rrading Usenet anyway? Their votes shouldn’t count. ] ]Absolutely. I couldn’t agree more. But we have to have a litmus test, ]a means for determining precisely who is homosexual. I know! We’ll ]just assume anyone who conceals their identity is homosexual. ] ]– ]Daniel A. Hartung | I believe we can fly ]www.mcs.net/~dhartung/ | — Melissa Etheridge Why should someone so bigoted and malicious be allowed to conduct Usenet votes?

Response:

Why do we need a moderated soc.pagan newsgroup? Because current newsgroups are infested with SPAM like the message I’m replying to (and, unfortunately, SPAMMING on in the process — my apologies to all of you who have no interest in the issue). Wouldn’t it be nice to read a newsgroup without the tripe from mad 14 year olds whose finger gets stuck on the enter key? (Assuming this is one; s/he writes like one). Blessed Be, Gale

Response:

]– ]Daniel A. Hartung | I believe we can fly ]www.mcs.net/~dhartung/ | — Melissa Etheridge

As my two cents to this udderly ridiculous discussion… I would like to point out one little fact to Herr Doktor… If Mister Hartung were really such a rabid homophobe, as you have painted him, why, OH WHY? Does he have a quote in his Signature line which revels in diversity and openness attributed to a pop singer who is widely noted for her Lesbian rights stance? Also, as is exhibited by my own creative quoting at the top… It is amazing the little editing effects we can achieve with computers nowadays… {snip}{snip} and I truncated your long, repetitive, hysterical diatribe down to the section I wished to comment on, without skewing the content or relevency of said quote… too, bad we couldn’t get the full facts from you in your posts without others filling us in Doc! — WOMBAT! ** Visit the Stellar Operations Command Homepage *** "Ooooo! I’ve got** * http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/4162 <* to Potty!!!" * **Find out more about Interactive Fiction Writing*** -Wakko Warner**

Response:

And by the way, here’s one of the homophobic rants from Dan Hartung (spit): <Header snipped ] ] The Subject says it all. Usenet votes are supposed to be reader ] interest polls. Who cares about the opinions of someone who’s going ] to die from AIDS in a month, and won’t be rrading Usenet anyway? ] Their votes shouldn’t count. ] ]Absolutely. I couldn’t agree more. But we have to have a litmus ]test, a means for determining precisely who is homosexual. I know! ]We’ll just assume anyone who conceals their identity is homosexual.

<.sig snipped Why should someone so bigoted and malicious be allowed to conduct Usenet votes?

If you look at the post carefully, you will notice that the original wrote" was done by someone who didn’t wish to be known. That is what "anonymous" means. I know its a big word, but that’s the great thing about USENET, occasionally you see a word of more that three letters. Now, Dan, seeing this, replied by saying "I agree. But how to tell a homosexual. AHA! Anyone who posts anonymously, of course!" Given half a wit, you would understand about a concept called "SARCASM." This is where someone says something in a cutting or contemptuous manner. Often, this is combined with "IRONY", which is "the use of words to express the opposite of what one really means." (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Now, when we take these two concepts together, we see that what Dan is really saying is "You are a bigoted moron. Go away and leave us alone." Now for another example of irony and sarcasm, I would like to say to you, Dmitri Vulis: You are _NOT_ a bigoted moron. Please stay and continue enlightening us with your so-cogent analysis of USENET voting and the practices of various vote-takers. We await your next posting with fear and trembling that we may once more partake of your shining intellect. This intellect is no doubt the reason you were able to attain such a high degree as a Ph.D. See. This is a _SARCASTIC_, _IRONIC_ comment, because most of us feel that you _ARE_ a bigoted moron, and we really have no interest in listenong to your puerile diatribes. Dmitri, I sincerely hope that this will help you to better understand USENET in the future, and that it will be of some benefit to you. Have a nice day. David David J Harr game hacker & biker scum "It’s a, I say it’s a *joke* son. Don’t cha get it? You’re built too short, the good ones go over yer head. Ya got a hole in yer glove, boy, I keep pitching them and you keep missing them. Ya gotta keep yer eye on the ball, son. Eye. Ball. Eyeball. I almost had a funny there. Joke, that is." — Foghorn Leghorn

Response:

I was the one who said you were not a doctor. I have since been corrected by a third party, and retract that statement. You may confirm or deny the following: My source says you received a PhD in CS from CUNY, and your thesis was on computer security. But I’ll note you haven’t accused me of lying on every other count and charge I levelled against you. The thing I was misinformed about, I’ve retracted. And I’ll be happy to do so again, if the real facts are available through a third party. So, are you against our (quite liberal) moderation policy in particular, or moderation in general? If it’s specifically ours, you could have said something during the RFD period like everyone else. Yes, even you, because at least I made it a point to listen to everyone. If against moderation in general… well, can’t help you there. Primarily because one of th reasons we’re attempting to create this group is to filter out off-topic noise (primarily through moderation software), but also because all soc.religion groups must be moderated (sr.quaker being the only exception) by Usenet convention. My advice to you is to vote NO now on this ill-conceived proposal, then hold another vote on an *unmoderated* s.c.p. I promise to vote YES on that one.

Pardon, we’re in soc.RELIGION. Please change your references accordingly; paganism is a loose name for a group of religions, not a culture or sub-culture. Besides, if you think the votetaker’s crooked, you’d be doing this same carousel ride again, I’m sure, tromping on an innocent group to propmote your vendetta. Please don’t. A usenet vote is supposed to be a readership interest poll. The crooked homophobic votetaker Dan Hartung (spit) refused to count my vote because he doesn’t like me, and therefore skewed the results of the poll.

He refused o count your vote because you have generated large numbers of votes from accounts on your custom domain that you created solely for that purpose. CFV’s are supposed to be one person, one vote. Not one sysadmin, 1000 votes. Please point me to third-party evidence to correct me if this is not so. I remind you that providing same yourself… isn’t the same. To correct for his vote fraud, I ask those who had little interest in s.c.p to vote NO instead of me.

(directions on how to vote without seeing the entire CFV, a Usenet no-no, snipped. Tsk, tsk.) Oh, yeah. Make up for vote fraud by perpetrating your own. Swell. People, if you care about this other than as another lameass kook crossposting into your newsgroup to wreck your day, I suggest reading the CFV in its entirety on news.announce.newgroups. And then make your own decision. Yeah, I’m a proponent. But I’m not gonna sink to the Doctor’s level. And by the way, here’s one of the homophobic rants from Dan Hartung (spit):

Context, my good doctor, is everything. Allow me to provide some. (headers snipped) Yes, Dan Hartung did write this, but… ] The Subject says it all. Usenet votes are supposed to be reader interest ] polls. Who cares about the opinions of someone who’s going to die from AIDS ] in a month, and won’t be rrading Usenet anyway? Their votes shouldn’t count. ] ]Absolutely. I couldn’t agree more. But we have to have a litmus test, ]a means for determining precisely who is homosexual. I know! We’ll ]just assume anyone who conceals their identity is homosexual.

The above quoted post, from the anonymous remailer at portal.com, is not from Mister Hartung, as far as anyone knows. The reply is meant as sarcasm to this patently irrational remark. Note the pointed reference to ‘assum[ing] anyne who conceals their identity is homosexual,’ obviously referring to the quoted post above, wherein one may assume that the person sending this from the anonymous remailed is concealing their identity, and *did* make a rather homophobic remark. The reply is sarcasm, Doctor Vulis. The original post is homophobia, I’ll certainly admit. Please provide pointers to any third-party evidence you have to support your claims or disprove mine. And get this crap out of the dozen groups it doesn’t belong in. Followups reset. Please either ignore us or read the CFV for yourself before voting. — Lorrie — Proponent/proposed moderator, soc.religion.paganism — Babylon 5 fan CDA Protest: Fuck Senator Exon and the dead gay horse he rode in on.

Response:

Several weeks ago Dan Hartung (spit) posted a particularly offensive homophobic diatribe to news.groups, arguing that gays shouldn’t be allowed to take part in Usenet votes because they’re supposedly going to die from AIDS. I guess Dan Hartung (spit) now thinks that I’m gay, because he refused to count my votes. Here’s his latest e-mail to me:

<snip – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -] Returned uncounted. ] ] ] Why was my ballot return uncounted? Please reconsider and count it. ] ]You aided and abetted an anti-votetaker action involving slander, ]harassment, invasion of privacy, and mailbombing. In addition, your ]vote contained an obscenity in the subject line, although this did ]not factor into my decision. I note that you neglected to include the ]subject line in your post. ] ]I will no longer accept votes from the domain dm.com. ] ]To retain neutrality, I will make no further comment on this matter. ]I grant you explicit permission to post this e-mail. ] ]Dan Hartung ]UVV If you find Dan Hartung’s actions offensive, please vote NO instead of me.

Look, I don’t know anything about your beef with Dan Hartung, since you haven’t shown anything in your post that is homophobic or malicious, but *why* should soc.religion.paganism be punished because you have a personal problem with the votetaker? –Heather

Response:

Filed under: Feminist

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism