This post to alt.meditation.transcendental and sci.skeptic by Judy Stein needs no editorial comment. Its dissembling speaks for itself.
In article <35999AB8.5114@naspamnasw.org>,
"Andrew A. Skolnick" wrote:
> About a month or two ago, Judy Stein posted a message on a.m.t.
> threatening to complain to the National Association of Science Writers
> (I wish she would; my colleagues there always enjoy a good laugh.)
This is a blatant lie. I made no such threat.
Here's what I wrote:
Say, Andrew, what do you think the National Association of
Science Writers would have to say about your (ab)use of their net
services to engage in this sort of imbecilic tomfoolery?
I was referring specifically to Andrew's disastrous and prolonged
insistence that I'd gotten the name of a church wrong on my
resume. He was finally forced to admit he'd been mistaken.
I was calling attention to the extraordinary *contrast* between
the seriousness and respectability of NASW and Andrew's utterly
juvenile behavior, and how appalled NASW would be if it were to
see this other side of one of its esteemed members, all the more
so when that member was using a service provided by NASW to
display it.
I'm sure NASW is as strong an advocate of free speech as I am and
would never try to interfere with Andrew's activities on the net.
But if it *were* to find out about them (which it would never do
from me), it would certainly have to revise its opinion of
Andrew.
> And previously, she launched a campaign to get my Internet server,
> Netcom, to kick me off for lampooning her silly sig.
This is *another* blatant lie, one Andrew has tried to put over a
number of different times now. Here are the facts:
I launched no "campaign." I said *I* personally was going to
complain to Netcom about *one* very specific type of "lampooning"
of my sig Andrew was doing that was potentially injurious to my
business (not because of the juvenile insults but because it
could cause potential clients to try to contact me at a
nonexistent email address). As Andrew well knows--because I've
said so explicitly many times--he's welcome to engage in any
lampooning of my sig he wishes *except* for that one type.
My complaint was intended only to have Netcom require Andrew to
cease that one type of lampooning, not make him stop the
lampooning overall, much less to get him kicked off Netcom.
Andrew knows all this. He's deliberately attempting to mislead
readers.
She even boasted
> that Netcom had spiked at least one of my offending posts. She was
> wrong. Netcom didn't take her rants seriously enough to even contact me.
Yes, apparently Netcom lied when it told me it had removed from
its servers the first post I sent it a copy of.
> She then threatened to take legal action if Netcom didn't comply,
> suggesting that she and her attorney just might set a "legal precedent."
Right. My attorney thinks I have a good case.
> After nobody took the foul-mouthed blowhard seriously, she announced
> that didn't have to take action because I was complying with her
> demands. Of course, I wasn't complying with any of her demands.
In fact, for a period Andrew *had* stopped using the particular
type of lampooning I was objecting to.
