[a post by Dan Karnes upon reading his FAQ entry, to alt.usenet.kooks and alt.folklore.computers] I am flattered.. I know that some of my exploits here are legendary - (oh if you only knew!) but there are some gross falsehoods being propagated regarding me in this thing of yours! > Daniel J. Karnes (None of you guys have phased me even for a minute): > In the same tradition; seen periodically on a.p.h, attempting to ridicule > arguments against bigotry and usually winding up showing exactly how > little he knows on the subject. Untrue. Normally, I am simply serving as counterpoise to the many ridiculous claims made by net.queers regarding everything from the words of the Bible to the myth of heterosexual AIDS. Some of us are really tired of queers thinking that they can twist everything from current events to the words of God to their own use and benefit. > His sig says "Infinitely inconclusive", It has not said that for months. [The entry was written months ago; it's been revised to say "has read".] > which many people think applies to his arguments quite well. Has missed, > somehow, learning that quantity of posting does not correlate with quality > of posting. One of his aliases may be "Artimus Page", who posts radical-right > anti-homosexual tracts from time to time from a bogus address at Yale, > claims to have a "cure" for homosexuality and a clinic at which it's > implemented, and who seems to come and go at the same times... many people > argue against this on the grounds that Dan couldn't keep from wisecracks long > enough to post "Artimus Page"'s tracts, and "Artimus" never responded directly > to people... Netcom knows about Dan, and is watching to see if he oversteps Artimus *has* responded to people. Many, many times. (I know he often used my system [TASP.NET] to make the responses!) As for the "bogus address at Yale" - this is also not true! Artimus tells me that he was posting through an open nntp server at Yale, but has used dozens of other systems as well. [Nobody else seems to have received any of these "responses"... unless Dan is getting them confused with responses *he's* made. Put up or shut up, Dan.] > himself... Also seen on the other gay groups occasionally; gets shunned on > soc.motss, and leaves quickly because of it; apparently in it solely for > the attention he gets from gay people, which makes one wonder severely... Also not true! I do not post on soc.motss because I was asked *nicely* by a nice person not to post there. The net.queers on soc.motss are also not as radical as those on a.p.h, a.s.m, and a.h. > Strikingly, no one that I've noticed has nominated Daniel J. Karnes as > a net.butterfly (in the sense of "small thing one wishes were easily > torn apart", perhaps). Maybe it's because he's been away. But he's Might also be because I am a *big* thing that is unmovable by any force save the power of God. > back. Here's an extract from one of his recent posts, detailing his > own assessments of his accomplishments last time around... > >Actually, I "accomplished" quite a lot... Thus: > >1) I got two hundred queers to go buy Bibles - and READ them. > >2) I exposed the little "nice guy" facades that you guys put on > >as the bullshit those of us with thinking minds know them to be. > >3) I demonstrated the mental illness rampant in gay circles by > >facilitating situations in which some really sick people dropped > >their guards and demonstrated symptoms of their sickness publicly. > >4) I exposed dozens of pedophilic gays for what they were by their > >own admissions. > >5) I thoroughly enjoyed myself. :) > -- > Posts as djk@netcom.com (Daniel J. Karnes). [The latter two quotes were actually a Contrib. post that was not marked as such yet, as the FAQ is not yet release-ready; it's been marked now. The list was quoted from Dan himself by the poster...] The problem I have with my entry in this "FAQ" is that most of it is simply just not true, and the rest is nothing but propaganda from the net.queer element that reeks up certain parts of USENET. Reading this, I find that almost all of it conforms nicely to the "model" that net.queers try to paste on anyone that opposes them, but very little of it is based on fact. (quite typical of homosexuals) Please remove my entry from your FAQ - or allow it to be revised so that more TRUTH is presented. Like this: ------------------------------------ Daniel J. Karnes Or "djk" as he is known on computer systems around the world has been a part of the internet since it's early days. At first, he was confined to posting to "relative" newsgroups and sending private email through a numbered account in a large corporate machine. Djk found true freedom when he was one of the first users on one of the first commercial public access UNIX systems when the internet was opened up to non-governmental or academic users in the early 1990's. Djk works in the telecommunications industry as an engineer and manager, and possesses a rare blend of hardware and software skills that make him a technical power to be reckoned with. Early in his net.carreer, djk noticed a strong homosexual element present on the net, and being a member of a very large Traditional Values group, decided to watch them closely. It did not take much time for djk to become outraged by the activities of net.queers who seemed to think that the net was their own private playground. Djk began his very controversial postings to the gay groups as an effort to undermine the efforts of net.queers who were operating with gang-like organization against anyone who opposed them. Djk can stand firm against hundreds of opponents and his name strikes fear into the hearts of most homosexuals on the net. djk posts as djk@netcom.com and operates TASP.NET as a private access UNIX system from his home. ------------------------------------ There! Now THAT is more accurate! -djk -- ---- Daniel J. Karnes | | WA6NDT || || || WA6NDT@WB6YMH.#SOCA.CA.USA.NA ---||=|----------------|||||||||||||||||-------------------------------- "Why doesn't Winchells || || || djk@Netcom.Com / djk@Halcyon.Com have Mogi Donuts?" | | [Amazing, isn't it?] [An email I received at one point, my response, Dan's response, and a couple of Dan's posts on the subject... note that Dan went to the newsadmin before ever contacting I, and as far as I know the "previous email" isn't actual.] From: djk@netcom.com (Daniel J. Karnes) Message-Id: <199404131548.IAA19512@mail.netcom.com> Subject: Legal action against utk and one of your users. To: ipadmin@utk.edu, snyder@utkux.utcc.utk.edu, postmaster@utk.edu Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 08:48:37 -0700 (PDT) Cc: dbd@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Hello, Sorry to bother you all with this, but due to the lack of response from your news admin and the user in question, I have no choice. A user on your system is generating and distributing a list of USENET personalities known as the "net.legends.FAQ" in this list certain net users are profiled in a way that is humorous, and apparently this is done in good fun. Many people read this list and take what is in it to be true. When I was notified that I had been included in this list, I was at first flattered and then appalled after actually reading my entry in the list. David Delaney, the originator of this slander and libel list is making every attempt to defame me and to slander me in a way that makes me look doddering and stupid, and if you will read messages he is posting in the news.admin.misc group, you will see that he is doing this out of malice and with intent and careful planning. He is not being objective in his profile of me, and he is making statements that are either totally untrue or modified versions of the truth. I find his profile of me to be offensive and very damaging to me and my good name. My letters to Mr. Delaney (dbd@utkux.utcc.utk.edu) were simply laughed off and ignored, and the only response so far from Mr. Delaney has been to slightly (very slightly) edit my entry in his slander list. I also contacted your news admininistrator, a Ms. Snyder, who is apparently not doing a thing about this. I demand that my name, any mention of my name, and any profile of me be removed from this list which is maintained, stored, and distributed from utk computers. This list is found in the /pub directory on your enigma.phys.utk.edu machine under the name "net.legends.FAQ". If I am unable to get my name or any facsimile of my name removed from Delaney's slander list within 24 hours I shall contact utk administration via registered mail demanding same. If that does not work, I am prepared to file suit against Mr. Delaney and utk for damages and to get my name removed from Delaney's slander list. Sorry to bother you with this. -djk -- ---- Daniel J. Karnes | | WA6NDT || || || WA6NDT@WB6YMH.#SOCA.CA.USA.NA ---||=|----------------|||||||||||||||||-------------------------------- "Why doesn't Winchells || || || djk@Netcom.Com / 714-254-7888 have Mogi Donuts?" | | CI$: 74323,113 [my email response, also posted to news.admin.* ...] Hello, Daniel. I am pleased that you have *finally* written to me; however, I must take great exception to many of the things you say in your letter. Note please that I am cc:ing this to snyder and to delaney (no relation - Bruce Delaney, working at UTCompCenter) and myself. I will also be posting, unaltered, with approximately the same comments on the bottom, your letter to me, as it contains specific legal threats, on news.admin.policy, misc.legal, and comp.org.eff.talk; you may watch for it there as well. To start with, I highly doubt that you are sorry at all - but I have no particular method of proving this, so will pass on. You have had a "lack of response" from me because you have never *contacted* me before: you have posted once (in ... february? or so) to alt.folklore.computers on this subject, at which time I corrected factual errors you pointed out, and have recently sent (as far as I can tell) two or three emails to UTCC. This letter, dated Wed 13 Apr 1994 08:48:37 -0700 (PDT), is the *first* communication from you I have received. I am responding as soon as I can: I left the office at 7:30AM, went home and slept, and got back here at 6:30 PM. Second para: "good fun" is not exactly the intent; the purpose of the FAQ is to provide profiles on those individuals famous or infamous in several newsgroups, and about whom people are likely to ask "Who *is* this person? And why do you all seem to know things about them? Does this person have some history or something? Are there things I might like to know about them before I respond to them?". Third para: Anyone taking this list to be gospel truth has clearly not read it; there's about four paragraphs of disclaimer at the top specifically stating that *all* we can determine about the people listed generally comes from what they post on the net; your description comes from your habits and style of posting (if you put *half* as much effort into writing well and making good arguments on UseNet, where "your words are your face", as you did in the entry you provided and the email you have finally sent, you would be neither infamous, widely killfiled, nor widely ridiculed in the manner you are at present). Judging from your recent string of posts on news.admin.*, you are still employing this same style, so I have no reason to think your description should change. There is also a paragraph at the bottom, which you have ignored, stating that martha has nothing to do with this and spelling out who to contact (which you have not done correctly). Fourth para: first, it's "DeLaney". I spell *your* name right, and if you're going to make legal threats, you need to spell *mine* right or they'll say "Who's this Delaney person?". Second: written statements *cannot* be slanderous; slander is spoken, and up until yesterday I had never exchanged spoken words about you with *anyone* (I talked to Kim Snyder yesterday and explained some of who you were; you may or may not choose to call that libel, I suppose, because you have absolutely no idea what I said to her). Thirdly: libel must be both false and malicious. The things I have written *are not false*: read the entry (I can email you a copy should you wish, or you can get it yourself). They are not written in a spirit of malice either; I know this cannot be proven - you may have to actually take my word for it. I am not "making every attempt to defame" you (I'll ignore the repeated "slander", which is inappropriate), and am *certainly* not doing it to make you look doddering or stupid. If that were my aim, I could have simply written the entry in your customary posting style (which may in fact be the best thing to do if I totally rewrite this; you *cannot* complain if I am simply imitating your style instead of using my own, or if I simply include some representative postings of yours as the sum total of your entry); instead, I was careful to stick to the facts as seen on UseNet, and not to single you out through a severe difference in writing style or any such object. I even make available, *in the exact same location*, your idea of how you thought your entry should look (which unfortunately gives little knowledge to those reading it as to *why* you are widely known on UseNet...). It is quite true that I am not being totally objective in my profile; as I stated, I can only work with the face you show to the world. Only *you* can be totally objective, as only you know all the facts, and *from the posts I have seen*, you are not at all interested in being totally objective yourself; therefore I find this accusation of yours to be specious and utterly without merit. I make *no* statements that are totally untrue; and I am trying very hard not to make statements that are even *partially* untrue. If you cannot provide specifics of *which* statements you think are untrue, and *why* they are untrue (and so far you have not done either one), then I cannot change things. For instance, if I had said "Dan karnes is Artimus Page", that might or might not be true; you have stated it's false in the past. What I actually wrote was "One of his aliases may be Artimus Page, [description of Artimus] [yes, Artimus' address was bogus; it bounced higher than a rubber check when replied to - I tried, and got this result], [who] seems to come and go at the same times... many people argue against this [and I give reasons]". This is all perfectly true: it's possible you're not Artimus, but firm evidence to this effect has never shown up as far as anyone I've talked to (outside of you yourself) can tell. And I must say that my profile of you *cannot* be damaging to your good name in the least, for the excellent reason that you yourself have tarnished that good name by your own words and actions to the point that what I have written puts you in a *better* light than anyone who has encountered you on UseNet is usually willing to concede to you. If I were you, I'd *want* people to read this FAQ entry before encountering your posts; that way they might have some motivation not to killfile you nearly immediately. Fifth para: Starts off with a blatant lie. You have written *no* previous letters to me; this is the first communication directly from you I have ever received. I responded to a post of yours a few months earlier, which was not directed at me, but was posted to the general public on alt.folklore.computers . I did not "laugh off and ignore" said letters, because they never existed; if you *had* written to me and attempted to explain what you felt was wrong with your entry, I would have attempted to come up with a viable compromise - you may ask Lewis Stiller about this - his entry is now approximately half his own words. And again, this isn't a "slander" list; slander is spoken. Unless you've been reading this aloud to yourself, it doesn't apply. Finally, you contacted Ms. Snyder, possibly over the weekend; she sent me email Monday, and I attempted to get in touch with her but she had left for the afternoon. I talked to her Tuesday afternoon; we hashed things out and, among other things, agreed that she would refer further communications from you to myself first, as at that point I *still* had never been contacted by you about this matter, and she apparently felt I should be given *some* chance to deal with you directly. You may not have been *notified* of this before you sent your threatening letter, but rest assured that she was not "not doing a thing about this". Sixth para: Sorry, Dan, you are in the list precisely because your distinctive posting style and name are known very well on several newsgroups: soc.motss, alt.politics.homosexuality (where your posts are generally on-topic, as much as anything can be there), and recently news.admin.misc with your posts about "filth" and pornography there. Your name may not be removed, because your name is one of those 25 or 30 most well-known names on UseNet, which is what this is a list of; removing it would be like attempting to remove the word "cat" from a list of common domestic animals - wrong and misleading. I am attempting to maintain a *complete* list of people who are widely known on UseNet (I will not use "famous" or "infamous" here, as either could have the wrong connotations), and you are one of them, and cannot deny this. Also, the utk computers you are referencing, on which the FAQ is (I notice you have not *read* the FAQ, as this is the only site you mention; apparently you are getting your information solely from my .signature - could it be that it keeps turning up in your grep script?), are not part of the UTCC, to whom you are complaining; the administration of "martha.utcc.utk.edu" and of "enigma.phys.utk.edu" are two disjoint sets, and are connected only by being in different departments at the same University. Please cease your harrassment of UTCC immediately, and withdraw your threats to them and to me connected with my posting through them, and cease your attempts to have my postings from martha censored. I have never posted a version of the FAQ, that I recall, that had your name in it, from *anywhere* (the last time *I* posted it it was much smaller and had neither you nor Lewis Stiller in it; you were added because of a comment, reproduced in the FAQ, which reminded me that you should by rights be included, and you were not relegated to the Lesser Lights section because you have a widespread reputation). I have heard that Jorn Barger has reposted this document on alt.usenet.kooks once or twice; I cannot say if this is true or not, because I do not *get* that newsgroup at the site I read News from, and I am not connected with his decision to do so. You may go and bother him about it if you wish; leave me strictly out of it. I am not going to bring up at this juncture the accusations against you on other grounds that are going on on news.admin.misc; people interested in them can read them for themselves. People interested in seeing just who you are or what your posting style is can *also* go over to news.admin.misc, or alt.politics.homosexuality, and read any of your postings there, and form their *own* opinions; it's my *personal* opinion that their opinions from doing that will not be as good as the opinions they would get from reading only the FAQ without having actually encountered a series of your posts. Seventh para: Your "24 hours" threat means little; I did not receive your letter until (apparently) 10 hours after you mailed it. If I had decided not to come into work tonight, your "deadline" would have passed and you would have been made to look foolish. Again, this is not a "slander" list; if you are making legal threats it's a good idea to use the correct wording in doing so. You may contact UTK administration if you wish; you may *also* rest assured that they are already aware of you and your email, and that sending multiple threats will not get you anything in particular that simply notifying them would not have gotten. You may also if you wish retain your lawyers and attempt to file suit against UTK; I think you will find (and I am crossposting, when I post this, to comp.org.eff.* to get expert opinions on this from Carl Kadie and the Academic Freedom Organization) that since UTK is a public school and is run entirely on funds from the Tennessee Legislature that they may *not* censor email, read email, or attempt to censor an employee's speech or writings because to do so would violate Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, and that thus you may not bring suit against them for failing to do something that by law they are not allowed to do in the first place (or that, if you do, you will get it thrown out of court quickly and may very well have to pay court costs for having done so). You may if you wish bring suit against me *directly*; be advised that the ACLU will be *very* interested in such a case. And once again, "slander" is quite inappropriate. Eighth para: And I still do not believe you are at all sorry about this, given the overall tone of the one letter I have received from you. David DeLaney, ending at 8PM EST, April 13th, 1994. [Note the timing: he spent at most 80 minutes responding to the email. Had he spent longer, it might have read better...] From: djk@netcom.com (Daniel J. Karnes) Message-Id: <199404140121.SAA20002@netcom12.netcom.com> Subject: Re: threats To: dbd@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 18:21:02 -0700 (PDT) > Hello, Daniel. I am pleased that you have *finally* written to me; however, > I must take grat exception to many of the things you say in your letter. > Note please that I am cc:ing this to snyder and to delaney (no relation - > Bruce Delaney, working at UTCompCenter) and myself. I will also be posting, > unaltered, with approximately the same comments on the bottom, your > letter to me, as it contains specific legal threats, on news.admin.policy > and comp.org.eff.talk; you may watch for it there as well. > In other words, you are just trying to cause me as much trouble as you can in order that you can continue your campaign of defaming me as much as possible. Typical damn queer. > To start with, I highly doubt that you are sorry at all - but I have no > particular method of proving this, so will pass on. You have had a > "lack of response" from me because you have never *contacted* me before: > you have posted once (in ... february? or so) to alt.folklore.computers > on this subject, at which time I corrected factual errors you pointed > out, and have sent (as far as I can tell) two or three letters to UTCC. > This letter, dated Wed 13 Apr 1994 08:48:37 -0700 (PDT), is the *first* > communication from you I have received. I am responding as soon as I can: > I left the office at 7:30AM, went home and slept, and got back here at 6:30 PM. > You are a damn liar. I've sent you mail, and received responses. I'll see if they are still archived. > Second para: "good fun" is not exactly the intent; the purpose of the FAQ > is to provide profiles on those individuals famous or infamous in several > newsgroups, and about whom people are likely to ask "Who *is* this person? > And why do you all seem to know things about them? Does this person have > some history or something?". > No "good fun" at all. You are simply out on a campaign of defamation and that is all. > Third para: Anyone taking this list to be gospel truth has clearly not > read it; there's about four paragraphs of disclaimer at the top specifically > stating that *all* we can determine about the people listed generally comes > from what they post on the net; your description comes from your habits > and style of posting (if you put *half* as much effort into writing well > and making good arguments on UseNet, where "your words are your face", > as you did in the entry you provided and the email you have finally > sent, you would be neither infamous, widely killfiled, nor widely > ridiculed in the manner you are at present). Judging from your recent > string of posts on news.admin.*, you are still employing this same style, > so I have no reason to think your description should change. > Whatever. My name comes out or you go to court. THAT simple. > Fourth para: first, it's "DeLaney". I spell your name right, and if > you're going to make legal threats, you need to spell *mine* right or > they'll say "Who's this Delaney person?". Second: written statements > *cannot* be slanderous; slander is spoken, and up until yesterday I had > never exchanged spoken words about you with *anyone* (I talked to Kim > Snyder yesterday and explained some of who you were; you may or may not > choose to call that libel, I suppose, because you have absolutely no > idea what I said to her). Thirdly: libel must be both false and malicious. > The things I have written *are not false*: read the entry (I can > email you a copy should you wish, or you can get it yourself). They > are not written in a spirit of malice either; I know this cannot be > proven - you may have to actually take my word for it. I am not > "making every attempt to defame" you (I'll ignore the repeated "slander", > which is inappropriate), and am *certainly* not doing it to make you > look doddering or stupid. If that were my aim, I could have simply > written the entry in your customary posting style (which may in fact > be the best thing to do if I totally rewrite this); instead, I was > careful to stick to the facts as seen on UseNet, and not to single you > out ~e > No facts from you Delaney. You are a damn liar, and damn fool, and a real idiot for involving your university in what may become legal action. -djk -- ---- Daniel J. Karnes | | WA6NDT || || || WA6NDT@WB6YMH.#SOCA.CA.USA.NA ---||=|----------------|||||||||||||||||-------------------------------- "Why doesn't Winchells || || || djk@Netcom.Com / 714-254-7888 have Mogi Donuts?" | | CI$: 74323,113 Article: 9387 of news.admin.misc Newsgroups: news.admin.misc,news.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk From: djk@netcom.com (Daniel J. Karnes) Subject: Re: Threats from Daniel J. Karnes Organization: TASP Development Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 14:22:13 GMT dbd@martha.utcc.utk.edu (David DeLaney) writes: >I sent the following email reply to Daniel J. Karnes this evening (cc:ing the >people he cc:ed, myself, an additional UTCC person, and root@netcom.com >separately [because I forgot to put them on the cc: list initially, and >sent them a copy of his threatening email (see last post) as well]), as soon >as I read the email from him and composed the reply. I am crossposting to >several groups that may be interested (and adding a spoiler for soc.motss >folk who wish to not read about djk), and following up to a smaller selection >of newsgroups so as not to spam the net (I'm leaving in news.admin.misc >because that's where this started, as much as anywhere). The reasons for the >mixed crosspost will become clear upon reading this response and the original >letter (posted just previously). Kim Snyder is one of the UT Computing Center >administrators, by the way. > Delaney, your post here, others in other newsgroups, and your general attitude only serve to strengthen my position that your slander in your silly list is malicious, vicious, intentional, and done with the intent to defame. You are simply trying to cause as much trouble for me as you can, and all you are really doing is showing folks that what I say about people like you is absolutely true. :) See you in court delaney. -djk -- ---- Daniel J. Karnes | | WA6NDT || || || WA6NDT@WB6YMH.#SOCA.CA.USA.NA ---||=|----------------|||||||||||||||||-------------------------------- "Why doesn't Winchells || || || djk@Netcom.Com / 714-254-7888 have Mogi Donuts?" | | FAX: 714/970-7418 / CI$: 74323,113 Article: 9388 of news.admin.misc Newsgroups: news.admin.misc,news.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk From: djk@netcom.com (Daniel J. Karnes) Subject: Re: Threats from Daniel J. Karnes Organization: TASP Development Distribution: inet Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 14:30:54 GMT bladex@bga.com (David Smith) writes: >At one point during your message, you stated that you were being defamed >and slandered via a listing in the net.legends.faq. > >"Defamation, as the Student Press Law Center in Washington notes, 'is >generally defined as a false communication which injurs an individual's >reputation by lowering the community's regard for that person or by >otherwise holding an individual to hatred, contempt, or ridicule.' > >Libel is that form of defamation which is expressed through printing and >writing........Slander is defamation through spoken words." > >Quote from The First Freedom : The Tumultuous History of Free Speech in >America, by Nat Hentoff, page. 255. > > >Since Usenet is ASCII text, you can not slander someone on the net, only >commit libel. > Whatever. My attorney says the same thing so you must be right. :) This is going to get interesting since this person claims to "only be doing this list of his in good fun" but is demonstrating a great deal of malice and planning in his defamitory actions. My attorney is considering contacting the other victims of delaneys hate-list as possible members to a class action. I have been informed by someone at utk who knows delaney that his agenda regarding me is based on political things elsewhere in the USENET so this really could get interesting very quickly. > >-- >thanks, Cyberdawg with Mike Godwin, Online Counsel for EFF > High Times 312 Congress April 9th 2 - 5 pm >David Smith Virtual Communities : Howard Rheingold, Tom Jennings >President, EFF-Austin and Sandy Stone, 04/16 1:30 - 5:30 Hyatt Regency Cheers. -djk -- ---- Daniel J. Karnes | | WA6NDT || || || WA6NDT@WB6YMH.#SOCA.CA.USA.NA ---||=|----------------|||||||||||||||||-------------------------------- "Why doesn't Winchells || || || djk@Netcom.Com / 714-254-7888 have Mogi Donuts?" | | FAX: 714/970-7418 / CI$: 74323,113 [my second response, *his* second response, my third response, *his* third response, and another post of his which brings the whole thing into sharp focus, plus one last letter to my (incorrect set of) sysadmins] Date: Thu, 14 Apr 94 15:41:46 -0400 From: David DeLaney To: djk@netcom.com Cc: delaney@utkux.utcc.utk.edu, snyder@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Subject: entries Hello Daniel. I am still interested in finding out exactly what you think is wrong with your entry, since you (in your several posts and emails recently) have not actually told me (or anyone). Saying "you're a liar delaney" and "see you in court" and "take the whole entry out, including my name" is all very nice, but doesn't *tell* me anything. Let me note that your entry, in *some* form, is in there to stay - you're famous in several places, to the point of being folklore ("You're new here, I can tell, because you said *that name* and now he'll appear! Don't do it!"), and need to be mentioned on any list of the-famous-on-UseNet. However, the *form* of the entry is up for discussion (discussion, I say, not quick one-liners; if you need some time to think about it, or to compose an answer, take the time, by all means; this seems to be very important to you, and I wouldn't want you to lose out simply because you were cutting corners on your arguments). Without actual *input* from you in the form of, say, "This sentence *here* is totally wrong *because* X, Y, and Z" or maybe "I don't like the way this is phrased *because* it sounds like you're saying Q and P" (as opposed to "This sentence is totally wrong" or "I don't like the way this is phrased" [although the latter is even somewhat helpful, as I can then say "well, how about if it's phrased like this?" - but telling me *what* you don't like will get much quicker results than letting me guess, because we don't seem to think very much alike), I will only have your postings to go by - and the result of doing that is the current entry (actually, the result was the *first*, uncorrected, entry; the corrections I made before were things that were not at all clear from your usual posts). So if you will, take some time and think, and tell me *why* you feel so het-up about what I have written, please. *If* all I get back is more threats of various sorts, the best I can probably do is move the entry you posted once up from the miniFAQ it's in and append it to the entry I've got, with a joining statement saying (instead of the current "a minifaq containing what he thinks it ought to read like is available...") something like "This is what Dan thinks the entry ought to read like, but he's never actually told me what's wrong with the current entry (other than saying it's slander and libel)" with a humorous comment, perhaps, for the reader to look up slander... And you'd also make yourself look better in this argument if you a) managed to spell my name right (I seem to have missed yours once in the n.a.m headers myself) and b) said "libel" instead of "slander" - and told me (or us, if you're posting) *why* you think it's libellous. As it is, I can quite rightfully say *you've* libelled *me* greatly by saying that I have malicious intent and have defamed your reputation, with (at least from my point of view) better reason than you've given so far for doing so: I have no malicious intent, do not feel I've defamed your reputation, and am not particularly pleased at being accused of evil intentions... Dave "let's see if we can have a slow rational discussion here" DeLaney From: djk@netcom.com (Daniel J. Karnes) Subject: Response to Delaneys request to arbitrate usage of my name in his list. To: dbd@utkux.utcc.utk.edu, snyder@utkux.utcc.utk.edu, ipadmin@utk.edu Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 22:10:16 -0700 (PDT) > Hello Daniel. > Gee! This is the first time you have not followed the a.p.h crew and called me "danny".. I wonder WHY. :) :) :) > I am still interested in finding out exactly what you think is wrong > with your entry, since you (in your several posts and emails recently) > have not actually told me (or anyone). Saying "you're a liar delaney" > and "see you in court" and "take the whole entry out, including my name" > is all very nice, but doesn't *tell* me anything. > I do not believe I *need* to tell you anything beyond what I already have. It is my name. It is my reputation. And you are using my name without my permission or permit of any kind. You are also aggressively trying to expose me to public ridicule and contempt, and since I believe that your actions are injurious to my name, my livelihood, and my family; I demand that you immediately remove from your "net.legends.FAQ" list *any and all* references to my name, any reference to my email address or locality of residence, any reference to my .signature files, or any reference to any email or news message headers containing information that is unique to me, Daniel J. Karnes. > Let me note that your entry, in *some* form, is in there to stay - you're > famous in several places, to the point of being folklore ("You're new here, > I can tell, because you said *that name* and now he'll appear! Don't do it!"), > and need to be mentioned on any list of the-famous-on-UseNet. However, the > *form* of the entry is up for discussion (discussion, I say, not quick > one-liners; if you need some time to think about it, or to compose an answer, > take the time, by all means; this seems to be very important to you, and I > wouldn't want you to lose out simply because you were cutting corners on > your arguments). > Perhaps I do need to be mentioned on some list of the USENET famous, but not on *your* list. You have adopted a publicly adversarial stance on this issue from the very first message I posted requesting a revision to my entry on your silly list; and due to your hostile attitude, I refuse to deal with you on this matter. Your one and only option is to remove me from your list. > Without actual *input* from you in the form of, say, "This sentence *here* > is totally wrong *because* X, Y, and Z" or maybe "I don't like the way this > is phrased *because* it sounds like you're saying Q and P" (as opposed to > "This sentence is totally wrong" or "I don't like the way this is phrased" > [although the latter is even somewhat helpful, as I can then say "well, > how about if it's phrased like this?" - but telling me *what* you don't > like will get much quicker results than letting me guess, because we don't > seem to think very much alike), I will only have your postings to go by - > and the result of doing that is the current entry (actually, the result was > the *first*, uncorrected, entry; the corrections I made before were things > that were not at all clear from your usual posts). > I am not willing to compromise on this matter. I very simply demand that you completely remove any and all mention of me from your silly list. I "cannot" and I will not agree to any form of compromise that allows you to attach the libelous and defamitory comments that you have in your list to any mention of my name whatsoever. > So if you will, take some time and think, and tell me *why* you feel > so het-up about what I have written, please. > I've done all the thinking that is necessary on this subject. My reason for demanding the removal of my name from your silly list is basic and very simple: You are a hostile reporter who is attempting to do damage to me, and I am responding to that fact. > *If* all I get back is more threats of various sorts, the best I can > probably do is move the entry you posted once up from the miniFAQ it's > in and append it to the entry I've got, with a joining statement saying > (instead of the current "a minifaq containing what he thinks it ought to read > like is available...") something like "This is what Dan thinks the entry > ought to read like, but he's never actually told me what's wrong with > the current entry (other than saying it's slander and libel)" with a > humorous comment, perhaps, for the reader to look up slander... > You "can do" a lot better then that. You are not some publisher with a schedule and agenda to meet, you are a kid with nothing better to do then try and make a name for yourself amongst your buddies on the net by attacking a publicly notable figure. Just get my name out of your silly list. > And you'd also make yourself look better in this argument if you a) managed > to spell my name right (I seem to have missed yours once in the n.a.m headers > myself) and b) said "libel" instead of "slander" - and told me (or us, if > you're posting) *why* you think it's libellous. As it is, I can quite > rightfully say *you've* libelled *me* greatly by saying that I have malicious > intent and have defamed your reputation, with (at least from my point of > view) better reason than you've given so far for doing so: I have no > malicious intent, do not feel I've defamed your reputation, and am not > particularly pleased at being accused of evil intentions... > I can and will prove a malicious intent from your actions, and I am quite prepared to do so. I also am now receiving mail from others who are very willing to participate with me in removing their names from your libel- list, and perhaps participating in legal actions against you and those persons who are allowing you to propagate your lies and defamitory comments after being informed of the fact that you are abusing university facilities by distributing organized libel against net.personalities. Just get my name out of your silly list kid and this will very quickly go away. My legal counsel believes that I will prevail in an action against you and the providers of the facilities for your actions and so do I. Furthermore, I demand that you refrain from using the revised listing that I submitted (as per your own procedures) to your list. Your actions and attitude have convinced me that I must not participate in your silly list in any way whatsoever and for that reason I retract any permission for you to use that material in any way related to your silly list. > "lets see if we can have a slow rational discussion here" DeLaney Get my name out of your silly list RIGHT NOW. I consider your "response" to me to be in bad faith and without merit as your original response to my request for a revision to your silly list was "My listing is accurate. And it stays as it is" and some comments that amount to "go to hell". You have only adopted your present mode of dealing with this after your local network administration was contacted. One thing that you should remember sonny is that it is *my* choice to include whatever content I wish in my postings. But it is *your* choice to collect the worst, and then highlight THAT as your profile of me. -djk P.S. I mailed the off my letters to the administrators at your university before I finished this message to you. As I said, I demand that you remove my name from your silly list. Just get my name *out* of your silly list and do it *NOW*. ---- Daniel J. Karnes | | WA6NDT || || || WA6NDT@WB6YMH.#SOCA.CA.USA.NA ---||=|----------------|||||||||||||||||-------------------------------- "Why doesn't Winchells || || || djk@Netcom.Com / 714-254-7888 have Mogi Donuts?" | | FAX: 714/970-7418 / CI$: 74323,113 -========================================================================- (c) Copyright 1994, by: Daniel J. Karnes *ALL RIGHTS RESERVED* No reproduction or redistribution of this private electronic mail message is permitted without the authors expressed and written permission. -========================================================================- [note spurious (and misspelled) copyright notice; enough of the above is my own words that I feel "fair use" covers it nicely...] From: David DeLaney Date: Sat, 16 Apr 94 06:05:37 -0400 To: djk@netcom.com Subject: Re: email Cc: dbd@utkux.utcc.utk.edu, delaney@utkux.utcc.utk.edu, ipadmin@utk.edu First, a minor point: >Gee! This is the first time you have not followed the a.p.h crew and >called me "danny".. No it's not; you really *didn't* read that first email I sent, did you? You may wish to go back and reread it, as it's full of useful information. >I do not believe I *need* to tell you anything beyond what I already have. >It is my name. It is my reputation. And you are using my name without my >permission or permit of any kind. You are also aggressively trying to >expose me to public ridicule and contempt, and since I believe that your >actions are injurious to my name, my livelihood, and my family; I demand >that you immediately remove from your "net.legends.FAQ" list *any and all* >references to my name, any reference to my email address or locality of >residence, any reference to my .signature files, or any reference to any >email or news message headers containing information that is unique to me, >Daniel J. Karnes. Daniel, I wonder at your incredible assumptions here. No-one needs permission from you to use your name, either to refer directly to you or to talk about you, or to describe your activities. You are neither trademarked nor copyrightable. There are almost certainly other "Daniel J. Karnes"es running around somewhere, as well. *I* am not "aggressively ... contempt"; I am simply attempting to be reasonable with you. I'll try once more after this attempt. You may believe what you like; your beliefs, as far as I can tell, are however not in very good contact with reality. I have only a little idea of what your livelihood is (I'm told you're an amateur seismologist), and as far as I know you either have or had a wife at one point. I am *quite* sure that any seismologists or seismologist-customers who are on the net are not having their opinions of you degraded by my entry about you, and am also quite sure that your family, should they be on-net, will not change their opinions of you because of my words. You may demand whatever you like, but your name, email address, locality of residence (Orange County, CA, I am told, somewhere or other there), .signature files, and news message headers are matters of public record, available to anyone willing to make even the slightest effort to find them, as are records of your postings and posting style; and even if you stick copyright notices on all your email I may still quote from it under a) the "fair use" doctrine and b) the doctrine that threats from a person may be publicized; there is *no* law that says that I must keep threats of any nature secret, private, or concealed, and indeed a good body of precedent that putting such in the public record is usable as evidence should things come to a legal trial of some sort. >Perhaps I do need to be mentioned on some list of the USENET famous, but not >on *your* list. You have adopted a publicly adversarial stance on this issue >from the very first message I posted requesting a revision to my entry on >your silly list; and due to your hostile attitude, I refuse to deal with you >on this matter. Your one and only option is to remove me from your list. *I* only see one person here being publicly adversarial; I have repeatedly informed you that I am quite willing to change factual errors, and that telling someone "This is a pack of lies" or "I'm going to sue you over this" is no help whatsoever in establishing the actual facts of the matter, and that if you don't give me anything to work with I can't update things in your entry. If you are refusing entirely to deal with me, that's *your* choice; however, taking the attitude that "I'm right, you're wrong, I'm not going to tell you why, and you're just gonna have to knuckle under to me" is going to get you precisely nowhere. I have many options, one of which is removing you from my list (which cannot in good conscience be done); another is to notify netcom, as they have informed me is possible, that I wish to receive no more email from you; yet another is to ignore you completely. I have chosen none of these, and am exercising my option to figure out why you're upset and what can actually be done about it; due to the glaringly obvious fact that we think in different manners, I cannot figure this out on my own, and without input from you can do nothing to adjust things. >I am not willing to compromise on this matter. I very simply demand that you >completely remove any and all mention of me from your silly list. I "cannot" >and I will not agree to any form of compromise that allows you to attach the >libelous and defamitory comments that you have in your list to any mention >of my name whatsoever. Fine; learn to spell "defamatory" while you're at it. I have heard your demand, and acknowledge that you have so demanded, and ask you what good you think simply demanding things is going to do you. I ask that you explain yourself before I can take any further action; if you're not willing to compromise you're going to get very little out of life, I'm sure, and you are definitely going to get little or nothing out of me by employing bullying and intimidatory tactics. I am making no demands, you'll notice, just asking questions (again), and waiting for answers; if none are forthcoming, I'm not planning on losing much sleep over that. >I've done all the thinking that is necessary on this subject. My reason >for demanding the removal of my name from your silly list is basic and >very simple: You are a hostile reporter who is attempting to do damage >to me, and I am responding to that fact. If that's the conclusion your thinking on this subject has led you to, I respectfully submit that you have not done anywhere near enough thinking; I'm not hostile to you, although your recent communications are slowly providing evidence that by rights I *should* be; I am not attempting to do damage to you in any way, for the simple reasons that a) I have no need to and b) you're doing just fine on your own in this matter. Apparently all I would need to do is stand back and watch; instead, I am attempting to aid you, and have so far gotten only threats and ineffectual ridicule in return. >You "can do" a lot better then that. You are not some publisher with a >schedule and agenda to meet, you are a kid with nothing better to do >then try and make a name for yourself amongst your buddies on the net by >attacking a publicly notable figure. "Kid"? Hmf. I highly doubt you have any idea of my age, I have no need to augment some presumed reputation, and I was not attacking you (although it's gradually becoming a more attractive option). I have a conscience, and know that leaving someone who is behaving like you are all over the net out of my list is not possible. >I can and will prove a malicious intent from your actions, and I am quite >prepared to do so. I also am now receiving mail from others who are very >willing to participate with me in removing their names from your libel- >list, and perhaps participating in legal actions against you and those >persons who are allowing you to propagate your lies and defamitory comments >after being informed of the fact that you are abusing university facilities >by distributing organized libel against net.personalities. You cannot, and you will not (mainly because you cannot). You may if you wish tell your email supporters that they are free to cc: their expressions of their support to me without fear of reprisal or exposure; I have not seen *any* such yet, either in email or on the net. And again, I am distributing nothing - it's available for people to come and find. My opinions about you are not libellous (one prerequisite for which is falsity, I am informed, with the other being malicious intent; if I'm wrong I'm sure someone will notify me). I note that you have not even managed to correctly identify, yet, which university faculties I *am* using, or that I am not distributing anything. >Just get my name out of your silly list kid and this will very quickly go >away. My legal counsel believes that I will prevail in an action against >you and the providers of the facilities for your actions and so do I. If that is the case, your legal counsel would do well to get some advice on this subject themselves. As far as I can tell, you hope that if you yell at me loud enough I will do what you want; you seem not yet to have learned that this is not a particularly effective tactic, and neither is threatening to sue me because you don't like something I wrote, *particularly* since you apparently refuse to tell me *why* you don't like it. >Furthermore, I demand that you refrain from using the revised listing that >I submitted (as per your own procedures) to your list. Your actions and >attitude have convinced me that I must not participate in your silly list >in any way whatsoever and for that reason I retract any permission for you >to use that material in any way related to your silly list. Daniel, listen to yourself. You submitted that entry in order (and I quote) that "more TRUTH is presented", and said at its end "There! Now THAT is more accurate!" Are you now saying that your aim is *not* to have the truth known? That you *want* an incorrect entry? Or are you saying that what you presented as truth is in fact not true? Your words have already been incorporated, and your permission stands; you gave it yourself, explicitly, and may not withdraw it through threats of force and demands (you may withdraw it by explaining exactly what's *wrong* and/or offensive about your entry, so that I may correct it, however). They are your own words, presumably written with some care that they be true and accurate, and if that isn't good enough for you I fail to see what possibly could be. Your choices are the entry with your portion incorporated, or your entry without it, possibly with explanations/revisions from you in either case; I feel you would rather have the first, and also feel, after some thought on the matter, that including your own version is only fair. If it's withdrawn, then you're left with only the words of others about you, and you seem to be greatly averse to that possibility. >Get my name out of your silly list RIGHT NOW. I consider your "response" >to me to be in bad faith and without merit as your original response to >my request for a revision to your silly list was "My listing is accurate. >And it stays as it is" and some comments that amount to "go to hell". You >have only adopted your present mode of dealing with this after your local >network administration was contacted. If you're going to a priori discard any response I give, I fail to see what you thought you were going to have happen; if you're seriously saying that you're not going to listen to me, you're going to have to give me an extremely good reason why I should pay any attention to you whatsoever. You seriously misremember my response to your original a.f.c post; I corrected errors you pointed out, and asked for explanations on some other points, and never heard anything more on the subject until you started sending threatening email to the admins at the system I post from. *I* never told *you* anything amounting to "go to hell". Claiming that because *you* never responded to *me*, you were forced to contact my admins, is specious (and extremely curious) reasoning. By that logic, you could claim that everyone *else* whose arguments you've failed to respond to or laughed off with irrelevant one-liners is *also* in danger of your contacting their admins and threatening them. If you want something changed, remaining silent on the issue for months and then making demands and threatening to sue is a very odd method of attempting to accomplish this. >One thing that you should remember sonny is that it is *my* choice to >include whatever content I wish in my postings. But it is *your* choice to >collect the worst, and then highlight THAT as your profile of me. You claim that *you* may include whatever you wish, but that *I* am prohibited from doing so? Curious, and quite untrue. Your claim that I am somehow collecting "the worst" is also devoid of content; I am collecting simply what you are specifically aiming in my direction. If anything, I'm basing my entry on the *average* of what you post, the better for people to recognize you from the entry. Using only the worst would cause serious misapprehensions, and would result in a very skewed profle; my aim is to present an *accurate* profile, and therefore I cannot be using the methods you seem to think me guilty of. In sum, your reputation is in *no* danger from my entry, and never has been; as far as I can tell, the only thing it's in danger from is your own postings and email, and your own behavior. Furthermore, if you can find someone aware of your reputation on the net who *does* think my entry either degrades your reputation or describes you in any way falsely or misleadingly, I'll be *very* surprised. Therefore, I still fail to see how I can possibly be libelling you or defaming you, since you are refusing to inform me of this. Finally, I note that I'd have to work hard in order to do any such thing in the face of your own efforts on this subject. Look to your own house before you start casting aspersions on others, Daniel. Dave "try number two" DeLaney From: djk@netcom.com (Daniel J. Karnes) Subject: Re: email To: dbd@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Date: Sat, 16 Apr 1994 08:59:17 -0700 (PDT) > First, a minor point: > > >Gee! This is the first time you have not followed the a.p.h crew and > >called me "danny".. > > No it's not; you really *didn't* read that first email I sent, did you? > You may wish to go back and reread it, as it's full of useful information. > You lie a lot delaney. That is the substance of most of what I see you write. Full of useful disinformation perhaps.. > Daniel, I wonder at your incredible assumptions here. No-one needs permission > from you to use your name, either to refer directly to you or to talk about > you, or to describe your activities. You are neither trademarked nor > copyrightable. There are almost certainly other "Daniel J. Karnes"es running > around somewhere, as well. *I* am not "aggressively ... contempt"; I am > simply attempting to be reasonable with you. I'll try once more after this > attempt. You may believe what you like; your beliefs, as far as I can tell, > are however not in very good contact with reality. > Just letting you know where I stand on your use of my good name. AND.. There are *no* other Daniel J. Karnes's on earth. I've checked. :) Trademarked? Copyrightable? Want to make a bet child? Use my words without my permission *again* and prepare for a learning experience. > I have only a little idea of what your livelihood is (I'm told you're an > amateur seismologist), and as far as I know you either have or had a wife at > one point. I am *quite* sure that any seismologists or seismologist-customers > who are on the net are not having their opinions of you degraded by my entry > about you, and am also quite sure that your family, should they be on-net, > will not change their opinions of you because of my words. You may demand > whatever you like, but your name, email address, locality of residence (Orange > County, CA, I am told, somewhere or other there), .signature files, and news > message headers are matters of public record, available to anyone willing to > make even the slightest effort to find them, as are records of your postings > and posting style; and even if you stick copyright notices on all your email I > may still quote from it under a) the "fair use" doctrine and b) the doctrine > that threats from a person may be publicized; there is *no* law that says that > I must keep threats of any nature secret, private, or concealed, and indeed > a good body of precedent that putting such in the public record is usable as > evidence should things come to a legal trial of some sort. > You do not know my line of business and you are to be trusted in publishing ANYTHING? What was that comment about reading comprehension earlier sonny? Read the "minifaq" you yourself stuck in your silly list the other day! As for your last paragraph, I can and will prove that you are not publishing *anything* regarding me for any purpose except to defame me and to cause as much trouble as you can. The crux of my argument against you and your stupid list. > *I* only see one person here being publicly adversarial; I have repeatedly > informed you that I am quite willing to change factual errors, and that > telling someone "This is a pack of lies" or "I'm going to sue you over this" > is no help whatsoever in establishing the actual facts of the matter, and that > if you don't give me anything to work with I can't update things in your entry. > Your attitude has only changed since I got serious about contacting those who are providing you with the facilities for propagating your lies. Before that you were uncooperative, arrogant, and just generally behaving like a snotty little kid. I am giving you something to work with. A demand that you remove my name from your silly list. That is all you will get, and that is what you will end up doing one way or the other. > If you are refusing entirely to deal with me, that's *your* choice; however, > taking the attitude that "I'm right, you're wrong, I'm not going to tell you > why, and you're just gonna have to knuckle under to me" is going to get > you precisely nowhere. I have many options, one of which is removing you from > my list (which cannot in good conscience be done); another is to notify netcom, > as they have informed me is possible, that I wish to receive no more email > from you; yet another is to ignore you completely. I have chosen none of > these, and am exercising my option to figure out why you're upset and what can > actually be done about it; due to the glaringly obvious fact that we think in > different manners, I cannot figure this out on my own, and without input from > you can do nothing to adjust things. > Don't give me that silly attitude. Your list is poorly written and composed. FULL of "^H"'s and grammatical errors (why don't you strip those before exporting the thing from your PC?) and you have no board or editor to answer to as you are just one little jerk trying to play reporter. Just get my name *out* of your silly list. That is your only option and that is the only thing that is acceptable to me. > Fine; learn to spell "defamatory" while you're at it. I have heard your > demand, and acknowledge that you have so demanded, and ask you what good you > think simply demanding things is going to do you. I ask that you explain > yourself before I can take any further action; if you're not willing to > compromise you're going to get very little out of life, I'm sure, and you are > definitely going to get little or nothing out of me by employing bullying and > intimidatory tactics. I am making no demands, you'll notice, just asking > questions (again), and waiting for answers; if none are forthcoming, I'm > not planning on losing much sleep over that. > I will get *everything* I want out of you. Just watch and see. No matter what it costs, and how much effort it requires - you *will* remove my name from your list. And if it comes to that you will also end up compensating me for my time and effort to get you to do the only reasonable thing and that is spend ten seconds cutting my name from your silly list. > If that's the conclusion your thinking on this subject has led you to, > I respectfully submit that you have not done anywhere near enough thinking; > I'm not hostile to you, although your recent communications are slowly > providing evidence that by rights I *should* be; I am not attempting to do > damage to you in any way, for the simple reasons that a) I have no need to > and b) you're doing just fine on your own in this matter. Apparently all > I would need to do is stand back and watch; instead, I am attempting to aid > you, and have so far gotten only threats and ineffectual ridicule in return. > Yes you are hostile. Your attitude both public and private has shown me that. I believe that your agenda is this is related to political matters that are of interest to you. > "Kid"? Hmf. I highly doubt you have any idea of my age, I have no need to > augment some presumed reputation, and I was not attacking you (although > it's gradually becoming a more attractive option). I have a conscience, > and know that leaving someone who is behaving like you are all over the net > out of my list is not possible. > I can tell your age sonny. You are to ignorant and arrogant to be anything but a dumb little child. So mary, what about my "behaviour" on the net is it that you do not like? :) Tell me. So we can get your attitude into it's proper perspective. > You cannot, and you will not (mainly because you cannot). You may if you > wish tell your email supporters that they are free to cc: their expressions > of their support to me without fear of reprisal or exposure; I have not seen > *any* such yet, either in email or on the net. And again, I am distributing > nothing - it's available for people to come and find. My opinions about you > are not libellous (one prerequisite for which is falsity, I am informed, with > the other being malicious intent; if I'm wrong I'm sure someone will notify > me). I note that you have not even managed to correctly identify, yet, which > university faculties I *am* using, or that I am not distributing anything. > Yes I can. You are not smart enough to cover your tracks. You've left a mess for me to find and examine. Supporters? I'll allow my supporters to make any moves that they choose or not choose to make. Facilities? Give me a break. What do you want? The serial number on your PC and the UNIX box that you are talking to? > If that is the case, your legal counsel would do well to get some advice > on this subject themselves. As far as I can tell, you hope that if you > yell at me loud enough I will do what you want; you seem not yet to have > learned that this is not a particularly effective tactic, and neither is > threatening to sue me because you don't like something I wrote, *particularly* > since you apparently refuse to tell me *why* you don't like it. > Yell? I've never yelled.. You'd be crying for mommy if I did that. I've already told you why I do not like your lies in your list. 1) Because you are participating in an effort my the homosexual element on the net to defame me as much as possible. 2) Because you are a hostile reporter and I do not wish for you to participate in *any* profile of me whatsoever. I am not a "public figure" by the common definition, so your argument for any "right" to publicly defame me is non-existent. I have other reasons, but you only need to know the above. I am counseled that my demand that you remove me from your silly list is quite enough under the laws we are looking at in order to possibly follow up with legal action in the event that you do not remove my name from your silly list after my final out-of-court action. (the letters to your university administration). > Daniel, listen to yourself. You submitted that entry in order (and I quote) > that "more TRUTH is presented", and said at its end "There! Now THAT is > more accurate!" Are you now saying that your aim is *not* to have the truth > known? That you *want* an incorrect entry? Or are you saying that what you > presented as truth is in fact not true? Your words have already been > incorporated, and your permission stands; you gave it yourself, explicitly, > and may not withdraw it through threats of force and demands (you may > withdraw it by explaining exactly what's *wrong* and/or offensive about > your entry, so that I may correct it, however). They are your own words, > presumably written with some care that they be true and accurate, and if > that isn't good enough for you I fail to see what possibly could be. > I was willing to allow you to use my revised entry until you demonstrated a hostile attitude towards me, and until you started acting like a spoiled brat. > Your choices are the entry with your portion incorporated, or your entry > without it, possibly with explanations/revisions from you in either case; I > feel you would rather have the first, and also feel, after some thought on > the matter, that including your own version is only fair. If it's withdrawn, > then you're left with only the words of others about you, and you seem to > be greatly averse to that possibility. > I want *no* words about me in *your* list. > If you're going to a priori discard any response I give, I fail to see > what you thought you were going to have happen; if you're seriously saying > that you're not going to listen to me, you're going to have to give me an > extremely good reason why I should pay any attention to you whatsoever. You > seriously misremember my response to your original a.f.c post; I corrected > errors you pointed out, and asked for explanations on some other points, and > never heard anything more on the subject until you started sending threatening > email to the admins at the system I post from. *I* never told *you* anything > amounting to "go to hell". > You are *lying* again delaney. You said your original profile of me was accurate and it would stay as it was. You *only* became even partially co-operative and willing to consider a compromist *after* I contacted your local system administrators. > Claiming that because *you* never responded to *me*, you were forced to > contact my admins, is specious (and extremely curious) reasoning. By that > logic, you could claim that everyone *else* whose arguments you've failed to > respond to or laughed off with irrelevant one-liners is *also* in danger of > your contacting their admins and threatening them. If you want something > changed, remaining silent on the issue for months and then making demands and > threatening to sue is a very odd method of attempting to accomplish this. > MONTHS? I received notice of your silly list from someone who was asking me for a photograph and perhaps some background info for a magazine article. This person informed me about the existence of your list in the first place. Shortly after that, the net.queers started fawning over you for your list, and acting like they wanted to erect a statue or something with your likeness on it, and then *I* was contacted by another net.personality who wanted me to consider joining with him in an action to force you to remove his name from your list. Due to this other persons background and political affiliations I told him "no". At that time, I thought it was great - so (in the mistaken belief that you were a reasonable and impartial reporter) I composed my revision, and posted it as per the instructions in your silly list. Your response to me regarding the revision demonstrated beyond a doubt that you were a hostile reporter, and that you were doing this in order to either silence me or to cause as much damage as you could to my name and reputation. At THAT time, I began demanding that you remove my name from your silly list. This little situation is only about four weeks old sonny. > You claim that *you* may include whatever you wish, but that *I* am > prohibited from doing so? Curious, and quite untrue. Your claim that I am > somehow collecting "the worst" is also devoid of content; I am collecting > simply what you are specifically aiming in my direction. If anything, I'm > basing my entry on the *average* of what you post, the better for people to > recognize you from the entry. Using only the worst would cause serious > misapprehensions, and would result in a very skewed profle; my aim is to > present an *accurate* profile, and therefore I cannot be using the methods > you seem to think me guilty of. > I have aimed *nothing* in your direction before you began your defamation campaign. *NOTHING*. The problem with your "accuracy" is that it only exists in the minds of net.queers. Nowhere else. > In sum, your reputation is in *no* danger from my entry, and never has > been; as far as I can tell, the only thing it's in danger from is your > own postings and email, and your own behavior. Furthermore, if you can > find someone aware of your reputation on the net who *does* think my > entry either degrades your reputation or describes you in any way falsely > or misleadingly, I'll be *very* surprised. Therefore, I still fail to see > how I can possibly be libelling you or defaming you, since you are refusing > to inform me of this. Finally, I note that I'd have to work hard in order to > do any such thing in the face of your own efforts on this subject. Look to > your own house before you start casting aspersions on others, Daniel. > > Dave "try number two" DeLaney > Baby logic delaney. Just get my name out of your list before I turn your "serious doubt" into an interesting trend-setting court case. -djk -- ---- Daniel J. Karnes | | WA6NDT || || || WA6NDT@WB6YMH.#SOCA.CA.USA.NA ---||=|----------------|||||||||||||||||-------------------------------- "Why doesn't Winchells || || || djk@Netcom.Com / 714-254-7888 have Mogi Donuts?" | | CI$: 74323,113 -=========================================================================- (C) Copyright, 1994 by Daniel J. Karnes *ALL RIGHTS RESERVED* No portion of this electronic mail message my be distributed to any party or parties other then the addressee(s) without the authors expressed and written permission. From: djk@netcom.com (Daniel J. Karnes) Message-Id: <199404161622.JAA23022@mail.netcom.com> Subject: Illegal actions of one of your users. To: snyder@utkux.utcc.utk.edu, ipadmin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu, postmaster@utk.edu Date: Sat, 16 Apr 1994 09:22:58 -0700 (PDT) Cc: dbd@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Hello, As you know, I am quite upset with the actions of one of your users, Mr. David Delaney (dbd@utkux.utcc.utk.edu) in his insistence on keeping my name and a deurogatory profile of me, in a list of "usenet kooks" that he maintains and distributes through your computing facilities. That is one issue. Now Mr. Delaney is taking all private email that is sent to him (for any reason) and is posting that mail to the net with commentary inserted. I *demand* that utk take immediate action to prevent delaney from any further posting of *private* email in his organized campaign of libel and defamation against me, through the facilites of the University of Kentucky or I will *immediately* exercise any and all remedies that are available to me under the law. Postings that are already public due to the nature of the USENET are one thing, but there are restrictions in both federal and local law against publicising private electronic mail. Daniel J. Karnes -- ---- Daniel J. Karnes | | WA6NDT || || || WA6NDT@WB6YMH.#SOCA.CA.USA.NA ---||=|----------------|||||||||||||||||-------------------------------- "Why doesn't Winchells || || || djk@Netcom.Com / 714-254-7888 have Mogi Donuts?" | | CI$: 74323,113 Article: 48300 of alt.politics.homosexuality Newsgroups: alt.homosexual Path: netcom.com!djk From: djk@netcom.com (Daniel J. Karnes) Subject: Re: Danny Boy shuns his rightful fame Date: Sun, 17 Apr 1994 18:48:05 GMT jase@crl.com (Jase P. Wells) writes: >Too bad we couldn't make a class action suit against Danny, huh? But he >is a United States citizen, and has that freedom to hate thing. > Actually, the freedom to tell the TRUTH even if it pisses off a bunch of filthy faggots. >Ummm.. Does anybody else laugh at that?? Danny Boy, there's no such thing >as a good post by you! Even your lesbian joke was a bomb! Sure, it's your >choice to post whatever drivel you choose to, but I think it's our choice >to let other netters know what to expect from you. > My only objection to that faq is that the entry was authored by faggots, using faggot propaganda. delaney is probably a faggot too. >Jase > Go refill your tucks container jasey. -djk -- ---- Daniel J. Karnes | | WA6NDT || || || WA6NDT@WB6YMH.#SOCA.CA.USA.NA ---||=|----------------|||||||||||||||||-------------------------------- "Why doesn't Winchells || || || djk@Netcom.Com / 714-254-7888 have Mogi Donuts?" | | FAX: 714/970-7418 / CI$: 74323,113 [perhaps unsurprisingly, the martha sysadmins are taking the stance that this is a private matter between myself and Dan, and are really rather puzzled as to *why* he's emailing them; I will shortly fix Daniel's second concern by requesting (as netcom has indicated is possible) that he send me no more email, thus depriving me of material of his to repost. I think that anything further he has to say he can say in public, and that he should have fun finding a newsgroup I haven't killfiled him on to say it on.]