From: karl@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) Subject: Re: Joseph Dunphy 's attack on soc.culture.israel Date: 26 Dec 1995 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <4bpvas$6kg@Venus.mcs.com> references: <4b9ont$aem@jik.datasrv.co.il> <4bp3ac$vmj@jik.datasrv.co.il> <4bpd np$iss@Venus.mcs.com> <4bpghu$ru7@teal.csn.net> organization: MCSNet Ops, Chicago, IL newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.misc In article <4bpghu$ru7@teal.csn.net>, Bruce Ediger wrote: >karl@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) wrote: >:In fact, several people *have* called for directed, email harassment of this >:user, and the posting of email-bombs to his account. You've been implicated >:in this, and in fact HAVE sent the user in question email. That much I've >:proven. > >I've sent Dunphy (well-deserved) email too. It was about his utterly rude >and moronic "Back Spamming" campaign. At the time, I had never had any >contact with Skirvin, and I've not to this day had contact with Jonathon >Kamen. Does this make me guilty of email harrassment? Does this make >me part of an orchestrated campaign? No. Here's the short explanation, Karl: > > Dunphy is so astoundingly abrasive and rude that people don't need to > collaborate in order for Dunphy to get lots of angry email. > >No need to postulate orchestration or even a 2 person conspiracy in >Dunphy's case. I'm not postulating anything. I have been sent a copy of the Usenet posts in which such a request to mailbomb him was made. The posts appeared at the time to be authentic. None of the combatents have said they in fact did not participate in such a call, and in fact, one of them has said "so, does that justify the action", which looks pretty much like an admission to from where I sit (as an disinterested party). And such an attack was in fact initiated. We have logged that and sent it on to the authorities. If they decide to prosecute then the senders may have significant problems; this is a federal matter as the traffic crossed state lines. >:inordinate size, has not been substantiated here. If you orchestrate a >:campaign of harassment, and the target returns your (and your cohorts) >:messages to you as a package, do you have a right to complain? > >You're conflating a whole bunch of issues here, Karl. How do you know that >everyone that emailed the abrasive Mr Dunphy about his "Back Spamming" >campaign was part of the campaign? I emailed him, and I wasn't. If >Dunphy had dumped a buttload of other people's messages on me, I would >be justifiably very upset. I would have a right to complain to MSC.net >postmaster. And I would have a right to correct you in your mistaken >assumption that I was part of some conspiracy. Uh, I didn't say you were. I don't consider someone emailing a person *megabytes* of data to be someone "complaining" about a post -- unless you are annotating the mail you're sending, which wasn't happening. I also do not believe you have the right to continue to send unsolicited email to someone who has asked you to stop -- which Mr. Dunphy has in fact done, both in public in his signature and in private email to the combatents in this issue. In particular, there is a PUBLIC forum in which you can respond -- where the original articles were posted. Calling for mailbomb attacks is unwarranted, probably illegal, and most definitely in poor taste. Again, none of the combatents involved here have "clean hands". Those who do have "clean hands" are welcome to use our normal reporting procedures. Those who do not will face a significantly-higher standard of proof, as might be expected. We will not permit people to run others off the net that they disagree with, abrasive or not. The First Amendment *precisely* protects abrasive and offensive speech. If it doesn't protect that kind of speech, what good is it anyway? Why would we need a First Amendment and the principle that it is based on if the speech in question *wasn't* offensive? Finally, the predicate issue here took place some time ago. Now, two people with OLD complaints that were previously dealt with are coming back here demanding a SECOND go-around on the same subject matter. Ever hear of double jeopardy?