Dark Rantings

This could be an interesting fight between the judicial and executive branches of our government. It will be quite interesting to watch Ashcroft attempt to wiggle out of this one.

The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it wants the Bush administration to defend the secrecy that enveloped lower federal courts' proceedings involving one of the 1,200 Arab and Muslim men detained by federal authorities after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. [Washington Post: Nation and Politics]

Posted by mikki at 10:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From: Richard J. Sexton (richard@ns1.vrx.net)
Subject: USPS to take over .US ?

This is the only article in this thread

View: Original Format
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains
Date: 1999/08/04
If you don't want the NTIA to hand over .US to the USPS
then send something similar to the below to Peter before
5 today. Or just endore the DNRC position. Either way,
send mail to Peter today.

As a Canadian, I don't care, the only reaosn I post this
is things are happening and I suspect a lot of people are unaware
of whats going on.

To: "Uhlmann, Peter"
From: Mikki Barry
Subject: DNRC on the .US TLD

August 4, 1999

Dear Peter:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to your office regarding the
.US top level domain. The Domain Name Rights Coalition is very concerned
with the disposition of the .US domain name, and has been closely following
various proposals. We strongly object to any attempt by NTIA to place the
.US TLD under the US Postal Service or any other entity that relies upon
static physical addresses for the following reasons:

* The Commerce Department is not the entity that should be deciding
aspects of Internet governance. The Internet is a medium of communication
of which commerce is but a subset. The vast majority of communications on
the Internet are non commercial. For this reason alone, NTIA should have
no authority to mandate its governance.

* The .US TLD offers the unprecedented opportunity to establish domain
name space ruled by American ideals and rights. The rights to free speech
and expression in choice of domain names, uninhibited by reverse hijacking
or unsubstantiated threats of infringement suits could create an incubator
of sorts for individual and small business interests. Cherished First
Amendment rights controlled by the US for all US citizens would assist
communication, and aid those who want domain names like "pokey.us" or
"veronica.us."

* The .US TLD has suffered from atrophy precisely because the domain names
were assigned based on physical address. It became almost impossible to
use the unweildy domain names, even for government, because they were non
intuitive and difficult to remember. This problem is compounded for
individual and small business users who may change physical address every
few years. They would essentially lose any goodwill or identity that was
centered around their web address, email address, FTP server, etc. since it
would change upon their moving from a certain city, county, or state.

* The US Postal Service does not have the expertise (either technical or
policy wise) to run a top level domain of the potential popularity of the
.US TLD. Physical mail is not analagous to electronic communication. The
USPS does not have the infrastructure, or the engineering talent necessary
to build and maintain a database, generate domain name service, create a
directory structures, or run a root zone. Perhaps a confederation of
technical and public interest groups with oversight provided by an
interagency task force, would be a far better answer than turning such a
vast public resource over to the US Postal Service.

Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance to you.

Sincerely,

Mikki Barry
President
DNRC

--
Richard Sexton | richard@tangled.web | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
http://killifish.vrx.net http://www.mbz.org http://lists.aquaria.net
Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada, 70 & 72 280SE, 83 300SD +1 (613) 473-1719

Posted by mikki at 10:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From: Mikki Barry (ooblick@intercon.com)
Subject: Re: INFO: Aviation Website

View: Complete Thread (9 articles)

Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Date: 1995/12/12
In article , jbergt@iu.net (John
Bergt) writes:

> You forgot to mention that the entire thing is nothing but an effort
> to sell airplanes on the net by showing an airplane and its specs
> along with a badly disguised picture of scantilly clad women.

Oh damn! That's so depressing! I want to buy a Baron, but only if it comes
with a scantily clad man. All the ones I've seen have had women with them. I
suppose I could find my own scantily clad man and get an STC....

Mikki Barry PP-ASMEL-IA-EIEIO
Proud Co-Mommy N1707H
http://www.access.digex.net/~ooblick/cyberflight.html

Posted by mikki at 10:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From: Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Subject: Re: Ethics of posting bundy's apology

View: Complete Thread (22 articles)

Original Format
Newsgroups: news.admin
Date: 1992-07-09 08:09:04 PST
In article <6897@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>Come again? The avoidance of public shame is an achieved good in itself.
>Come again? Public shame is one of a very small number of behavior
>modification techniques available on the Usenet.

So is deep personal embarrassment, all on his lonesome. So is having
his future feed depend on being a good boy from now on.

> Are you truly
>advocating that the Mad Canceler, get away scot-free with canceling
>over 400 articles he didn't post?

Well yes. Erik Fair was closest to the situation, and if *he* was
satisfied that everything was more or less resolved and that the
imminent death of USENET was postponed for yet another week, then
so am I.

> If so, for heaven's sake, WHY?

Because it's only 1s and 0s, as Erik often said.

>If not, then what would you propose as an alternative?

Getting on with your life. And along the way, notice that without any
reposting of information, our Mad Canceler certainly knew that his
identity was known to a fairly wide circle of serious netters who'd
probably nail him for future stunts.

Meanwhile, the singlehanded action of Sean Eric Fagan is now a major
disincentive for anyone coming clean with anyone in the future.

A personal example--other netters have pointed out they weren't really
bothered that some of their articles were lost in the cancel storm, but
I'm not one of them. Gene Ward Smith and I exposed the Foothead forgeries
so many aeons ago, which led to Foothead getting kicked off USENET by his
site. We still have no idea who he really was, or if he ever showed up
again under a different pseudonym, or what not. I don't think either
of us ever really cared either. Problem solved. His net.persona was
incompatible with such a major choke on his part, so if he came back,
it would have to be from a clean slate. Anonymity permits that.
--
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)

Posted by mikki at 11:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Re: Canoe club, sailing club
having fun on the net is prohibited. Q
dc.general - May 5, 1992 by Lin Yon Q - View Thread (2 articles)

Re: I need a decent attorney for a VA collections job
Shopping for attorneys on the net is prohibited. Q
dc.general - May 5, 1992 by Lin Yon Q - View Thread (6 articles)

Re: drive to Florida...
Driving to Florida via the net is prohibited. Q
dc.general - May 5, 1992 by Lin Yon Q - View Thread (4 articles)

Re: Apt. for Rent
Commercial use of the net is prohibited. Q
dc.general - May 5, 1992 by Lin Yon Q - View Thread (2 articles)

Re: just a test...
Commercial testing of the net is prohibited. Q
dc.general - May 5, 1992 by Lin Yon Q - View Thread (2 articles)

Posted by mikki at 11:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From: Lin Yon Q (deja-q@access.digex.com)
Subject: Re: It was a good joke while it lasted

View: Complete Thread (8 articles)

Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.fan.q
Date: 1992-04-03 20:27:02 PST
In article <02569@unisql.UUCP> wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
>In article <1992Mar19.200817.11720@access.digex.com> douglose@access.digex.com (Doug Humphrey) writes:
>> [ garbage deleted ]
>
> The only thing I can think of more stupid than some anonymous
>weenie spending his time jerking off on his modem while he tries to
>play head games on Usenet is the guy who sells him system time wasting
>even more public resources patting himself on the back over his choice
>of users, his choice of hardware, and his choice of restaurants.

Ah Wharfie. Thus sayeth the hearty purveyor of Capitalism, until he finds that
someone such as myself is better at the game than he is. Wharfie, old
chum. I've already invited you to my humble 5 acre abode, but no. Instead
you would rather spurn my advances and snipe again and again.

If only you could see me standing next to Doug Humphrey. Doug looks like a
pregnant yak compared to me. Doug has buns like a steel trap. Or was that
someone else.....no mind.

Anyway, wharfie dahlink, any time you wish to come visit me, let me know.
I'll send Alex to meet you at the airport. Everyone knows, after all, that
all feminists think you can't hold your own between the sheets. But that's
ok. I'll give you another chance.

Or am I confusing you with another habitual ignoramus? I tend to forget these
days. But that's ok. I'll honor the promise anyway.

See you soon, Wharfie-Pie.

Q

Posted by mikki at 11:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From: Lin Yon Q (deja-q@access.digex.com)
Subject: Re: IQ and religious belief....

View: Complete Thread (4 articles)

Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.flame, alt.fan.q
Date: 1992-03-14 00:31:15 PST
In article <6eViHB14w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B) writes:
>stitzel@visna.med.umn.edu (Joel Stitzel (Med)) writes in rec.org.mensa,
>cross-posting to alt.atheism:
>> I was valedictorian of my HS, a Presidential and a National Merit Scholar, go
>> 1510 on my SATs (in 1984), graduated from the University of Chicago with a 3.
>> in Biology and Chemistry (never went to class or did homework--silly me :-)),
>> won lots of spelling bees, etc. ad nauseum.
>
>Well, I see rec.org.mensa's off to a good start.

You bunch of dweebish GEEKS! I'm so goddamned IMPRESSED TO HELL that you
got a piddly 1510 in 1984, showing you to be a teeny weeny kid more impressed
with how your identity can be reduced to numbers and pieces of paper than
how to clean your dick.

I guess that since my SAT's and all the other three letter (and four letter)
acronym tests that *I* took are higher than YOUR piddly showing, this makes
me a better person than you. Because *I* have MANY MANY bits of paper called
degrees, I must be a MUCH better person than you. Bow down before me and
grovel you sick excuse for a human. Better still, GET A LIFE! GET A JOB!
Have sex for the first time. Maybe even move out of your parents basement
and stop going to star trek conventions.

Q

Posted by mikki at 11:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From: Lin Yon Q (deja-q@access.digex.com)
Subject: Re: SATAN IS A CHRISTIAN GOD!

View: Complete Thread (72 articles)

Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.satanism, alt.flame, alt.fan.q
Date: 1992-03-10 18:14:12 PST
In article <1992Mar9.231453.14702@sbcs.sunysb.edu> alushiku@engws4.ic.sunysb.edu (Lushiku) writes:
>In article <1992Mar8.225734.17037@rice.edu> davies@owlnet.rice.edu (Stephen Clark Davies) writes:
>>
>> That is exactly why these sorts of belief systems are so popular:
>>they feed the ego in a way that the natural self craves. Christianity doesn't
>>offer anything like that on the surface, and this is exactly why it is treated
>>with so much *scorn* by non-believers! The first thing Christianity teaches
>>you is this: *you* are only a creation by God, Who is infintely more loving,
>>powerful, and knowledgeable than you. You will never, never approach the
>>mighty character of His Being, placing you immediately on the "wrong" end of
>>a superiority-inferiority relationship. Not very attractive, huh?
>>
>> Furthermore, you were made *only* for the express purpose of giving
>>all aspects of your life over to him and utterly worshipping Him. And what's
>
>Doesn't that last sentence lead you to wonder just WHO really has the
>hungry ego?

At least someone understands what the bible REALLY means. It's a mythological
story book about the glorification of a deity that proclaims loudly that
you shall take no other gods, gets so pissed off at his very own creation
that he trashes the entire world, promises he'll never do it again but
changes his mind in time for a sequel, pre-programs people with lusts, then
wipes out cities because of his mistake, kills fig trees when they don't
bear fruit (no matter that it's off season) when he MADE them that way, and
got caught up in one of the biggest propaganda and PR campaigns in recorded
history. A 2000 year joke that plays to full houses.

What's the difference WHAT you call an entity that REQUIRES this type of
devotion? What does it matter if you call it satan or jesus? The only
difference is that one is classified as "good" and the other is classified
as "evil". And who made up these classifications? Why the victors of
course! And we all know how accurate THEIR accounts are.

Sorry, Charlie. I reject this garbage. And I see no difference in worshipping
self as in worshipping a mythical entity. Trying to tell us we are "wrong"
for not turning ourselves over to somebody's bad peyote crazed idea is
laughable.

Q

Posted by mikki at 11:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From: The Omnipotent (q@access.digex.com)
Subject: Re: Q who?

View: Complete Thread (10 articles)

Original Format
Newsgroups: soc.men, alt.fan.q
Date: 1992-02-09 13:27:57 PST
In article <1992Feb5.031740.14555@watserv1.waterloo.edu> dmcanzi@watserv1.waterloo.edu (David Canzi) writes:
>A very combative and often obnoxious individual. (Actually, I didn't
>usually notice it because I was never the target of it.) He never
>admitted to a real name, and he was probably more willing to insult
>people because he was anonymous.
>
>His articles contained a mixture of arguments and insults, rather than
>consisting wholly of insults like many of yours. For this reason, and
>reasons pointed out by Paul Dubuc, I don't think you're "foothead"
>after all.

Well, Dave, I've decided to turn over a new leaf. I will now immediately
begin being the "kinder and gentler" Q. The one with more arguments than
insults. The "new and improved" Q. That will be me, yessiree. And I'll
start right now since I know that the members of soc.men really don't wish
me to go away since only 10 of them sent me "go away" mail. Two of these
were forgeries from Pitt. So, what can I say. The overwhelming lack of
hostility in my direction, save from that bastion of intellectual prowess
known as Pittsburgh, shows me that I am still wanted. I am deeply touched.

And, as always, thank you for your support.

Q

Posted by mikki at 12:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From: The Omnipotent (q@access.digex.com)
Subject: Re: Moratorium Proposed (this one's different (was: Earth to Alex, Earth to Alex)

View: Complete Thread (5 articles)

Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.fan.q
Date: 1992-02-04 19:48:41 PST
In article <1992Feb3.225342.8625@access.digex.com> doug@access.digex.com (Doug Humphrey) writes:
>An ATT.COM person; didn't really need them around anyway. Maybe we
>can steer the Q onto some real issues here; and not flame the hell
>out of said Q when things get hot! Suggest a popular topic of the
>day and see what Q and the rest of us can do with it!
>
>Example:
>
> Dear Q,
>
> When on a date the other evening, a yound lady and I
> had an interesting time in the sexual arena; alas, we
> were both too ________ (select 1: drunk, stoned, excited,
> worn out from reading netnews) to really remember what
> we did. Except that she says that she didn't want to
> do any of it at all, and now they are after me for date
> rape! What can I do?
>
> Signed,
>
> Sigmoid Stealthmacher
>
>Eh Q? Whatcha gonna do?

Well, the first thing I have to tell you, Douggie old chap
is that that was no young lady, that was your sysadmin
Mike with the butt like a steel trap. And the only thing
he didn't want to do was clean up the chocolate sauce after
you'd finished. If I were you, I'd check to make sure that
your wallet was in your pocket.

Helpfully yours,
Q

Posted by mikki at 12:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Original InterCon Anouncement

From: Mikki Barry (ooblick@lts.UUCP)
Subject: TCP/Connect - NCSA Telnet Plus Support

This is the only article in this thread

View: Original Format
Newsgroups: comp.newprod, comp.protocols.tcp-ip, comp.sys.mac
Date: 1988-08-04 06:52:09 PST
Learning Tree Software, Inc. would like to announce the formation of
a new company: InterNet Systems Corporation. ISC is modifying the
existing NCSA Telnet for the Macintosh to produce new and nifty features,
and is offering telephone support. We will begin shipping this new product
Sept. 1.

The price of $495 (with substantial discounts for multiple copies) includes
an updated manual, the software, and one year of telephone support.
Current NCSA Telnet users can contact us for special pricing. (703)
435-8170. Until InterNet Systems Corp. gets on the net, LTS will
forward mail sent to uunet!lts!comment.

InterNet Systems Corp. will be at MacWorld sharing the Kinetics
booth. We will have a special show discount for this product, as
well as RealTalk, a new and nifty product similar to "talk" on Unix
systems. It also includes a file transfer program, and window servers.
Current pricing is $79.95 for one, or $219.95 for a three pak (in a
peachy keen binder that will light up your bookshelf). It has so many
neato features that you really should come see it at MacWorld.

Mikki Barry
Grand Poohbah

Posted by mikki at 03:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From: Mikki Barry (ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU)
Subject: Re: Proposed lawsuit

View: Complete Thread (96 articles)

Original Format
Newsgroups: news.admin, misc.legal, soc.women
Date: 1988-07-19 13:55:00 PST
Regardless of the merits or lack of same of this proposed suit, think of
this: Do we really want a judge, jury and bunch of lawyers who have NEVER
TOUCHED a computer in their lives to attempt to make precedent out of the
Usenet?

They might rule that Mark is a public figure and must prove malice and
actual damage to collect. They might rule that sysadmins are editors
and as such are responsible for the content of articles and mail coming
from their machines (sure death for the net). They might rule that all
sites carrying such material and tranferring it to other sites are liable
for the content. Or they might all just laugh and throw it out of court.
But do we really want to find out?

Never underestimate the stupidity of the legal system when regarding
technology. Remember, these are the same fools who believe that cellular
telephone transmissions are private and listening to them on legally available
equipment constitutes a federal offense. You want them to put their slimy
fingers into the net?

Then again....

Mikki Barry

Posted by mikki at 03:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From: Whatever I'm calling myself this week (rlr@pyuxd.UUCP)
Subject: The net in reruns

This is the only article in this thread

View: Original Format
Newsgroups: talk.bizarre, net.tv, soc.singles
Date: 1986-10-13 12:37:20 PST
It seems to me that the summer netnews reruns, rehashing old topics in
redundant and redundant articles over and over again, have gone on far too long.
Yes, now at last it's time for...

NET.TV: THE NEW FALL SEASON (Let's ALL be there!!)

Old favorites return in new exciting series resulting in lots of fun!

Some examples and coming attractions:

MONDAY
8:00 (2) THE ARNDT FAMILY---Situated Comedy
Ken Arndt does an incredible acting job portraying a grownup
relating to children in a way that only he could do, in this new comedy series. He plays the traditional breadwinning head
of a wild and wacky household where fun is the buzzword and
laughter is the only cure for the best medicine there is. In
the premiere show, Ken seeks to convey strong American family
values to his children by teaching them how to taunt
homosexuals and other minority groups. Lyndon Larouche: Don
Black. Lurch: Ted Cassidy.

8:30 (8) DR. RAY'S GOOD SEX---Educational
The imminent Dr. Ray Frankheimer gives his views on modern
sexuality in today's society, as exemplified in this charming
excerpt from the premiere program:

DR. RAY: Hello, iss the caller there?
FEMALE CALLER: Yes, Dr. Ray, I just wanted to say that I love your
show, and I wanted to ask you if you thought it was
indecent for a woman to go to a supermarket in tank
top and shorts. You see, I do that, and my...
DR. RAY: Are your buttocks exposed when you do this?
FEMALE CALLER: Well, sort of...
DR. RAY: What supermarket do you do this in?
FEMALE CALLER: Alpha Beta...
DR. RAY: What time?
FEMALE CALLER: About 9 at night...
DR. RAY: What aisle?
FEMALE CALLER: Uh, aisle 10...
DR. RAY: YOU SLUT!!!!! (Hangs up phone in disgust and wipes
mouth) Iss the next caller there?
MALE CALLER: Dr. Ray, I have this problem. You see I was performing
cunnilingus on my wife after we had just ...
DR. RAY: YOU PIG!!!! No straight man would ever do that! (Slams
down phone) ... Iss the next caller there?
ANOTHER
MALE CALLER: Yes, hi, Dr. Ray, I just wanted to know, since you
speak for all straight men, is it all right for my
wife to tie me to the bed and tickle me?
DR. RAY: NO, of course not!! That's sick and disgusting!
Give me your address and I'll go have a talk with your
wife about this... Well, it's almost 9:00 and
I have to be going, so ...

9:00 (42) EPIC MINISERIES THEATRE---Drama
This week, the story of "Ivan the Terribile". In the first
episode, Ivan abolishes pornography by nuking a heinous porn
factory in Svatislavostokgrad, and then forces Rich Rosen
to eat a cheeseburger.

TUESDAY
8:00 (17) THE BEST OF SATURDAY NET LIVE!!!!---Comedy [well...]
This week, Emily Nettella asks "What's all this I hear
about monotonous and non-monotonous relationships?"
This is followed by a skit about net.abortion:

PRO-CHOICE: It's a fetus!
ANTI-ABORTION: It's a baby!
PRO-CHOICE: It's a fetus!
ANTI-ABORTION: It's a baby!
PRO-CHOICE: It's a fetus!
ANTI-ABORTION: It's a baby!
BARRY KORT: No, wait, you're both right!
BOTH IN UNISON: <>
PRO-CHOICE: It's a fetus!
ANTI-ABORTION: It's a baby!
PRO-CHOICE: It's a fetus!
ANTI-ABORTION: It's a baby!

9:00 (35) ROSEN TREK---Huh?
"Netnews, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the
starship Rosenprize. Its infinitely long and drawn out
mission: to explore strange new newsgroups, to seek out
new topics to flame about, to boldly post where no man has
posted before". This week: "Rosen's Brain". Crew members
looking for Rosen's brain on a small planet are persistently
interrupted by a woman who keeps saying "You are not news,
you are not i-news", while avoiding being attacked by the
vicious Klingon commander, K'Narndt.

10:00 (107) LIFESTYLES OF THE BIG AND STUPID---Entertainment
Robin Letch follows Mikki and Pooh on their quest for
ever increasingly big and stupid men to dump by the side
of the road. Having made use of all the big and stupid men
in New Jersey, they move onward to sunny California, taking
in the scenic coastline, discovering surfers with the IQ's
of snails, and then re-covering them with sand.

WEDNESDAY
8:00 (6) LEAVE IT TO WIENER---Situation Comedy
An updated version of the popular 1950's TV program.
This week, the Wiener neglects important work by spending
too much time posting to the net, and learns a valuable lesson.
(Well, sort of...) Wiener: Matt Wiener. Eddie Haskell: Ken
Arndt. Gene-Ward: Matt Wiener. June: Liz "Mamaliz" Sommers.
("Gene-Ward, don't you think you were a bit hard on the Wiener
last night?...")

8:30 (16) STUPID PEOPLE'S COURT---High Drama
Judge Moriarty Wapner presides over the Stupid People's Court
with the assistance of Rusty the bailiff. This week, a
graduate of the RLRCLC complains that he is unable to find
a job posting 400 articles a day to the net and sues the RLRCLC
for damages. In addition, a man sues a health spa where he
failed to meet any women with brightly colored clothing.

9:00 (43) HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE: OUR COMMON RELIGIOUS HERITAGE---Fiction
An extended documentary style show starring Ray Frank, Ken
Arndt, and Clayton Cramer.

9:02 (43) TO BE ANNOUNCED

And this is just a short sneak preview! I don't know about you, but *I* can't
wait! I'm getting MY television fixed right away!!! Get ready for the
Arbitron ratings for the USENET fall season!

(Many thanks to Mikki, Pooh, Dorothy, Jack, and Ken Kaufman for their input.)
--
"But George is a nice guy, underneath it all."
"Everybody's a nice guy, underneath it all. What we become when the world is
through messing us over is something else."
Rich Rosen bellcore!pyuxd!rlr

Google Home - Advertising Programs - Business Solutions - About Google

©2004 Google

Posted by mikki at 11:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From: cc@ucla-cs.UUCP (cc@ucla-cs.UUCP)
Subject: Re: Definition of HASA and SASA

View: Complete Thread (2 articles)

Original Format
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Date: 1986-10-09 14:13:29 PST
In article <32@uw-atm.UUCP> harry@uw-atm.UUCP (Harry Edmon) writes:
>As one entering late into the fray, I would like to know what HASA and
>SASA are.

Funny you should ask, Harry... Just recently an explanation was posted,
but with the new semester and group reorganization I might as well
repost parts of it:

=====
HASA -- Heathen and Atheist SCUM Alliance, open for membership to anyone
who feels they qualify.

(Inspired by Mikki's comment after a long 3-way flame war between her,
Glenn Thain and me, "It's nice to know that us, heathen and atheistic SCUM
can agree on something". "SCUM" was kept in upper case)

Original (founding) members:
Mikki Barry -- Heathen SCUM
Glenn Thain -- Heathen SCUM, "S" division commander
Oleg Kiselev -- Atheist SCUM (that's me! :-)

Since then, we have had at least 20 people join in: atheists, pagans of
all flavors, agnostics, New Age Christians, people who have their own
ideas about gods and spirituality and who can be called "heathen scum"
by the fanatics of any sort, in this group -- mostly fundamentalists Christians
and the like.

EVERYONE is invited to join and/or show their support! Join now and get a
10% discount on Nirvana 8-).

Please announce your solidarity with us via the net (publicly) or in
private (e-mail). Unfortunately, currently I am an account-less non-entity,
so I can no longer keep a list of our membership (;-), so maybe Mikki
or Glenn wil want to take it over?

REQUIREMENTS: a brain, an independent oppinion, integrity; sense of humor
is desirable; willingness to stand up for your beliefs and, MOST
IMPORTANT, an OPEN MIND are essential.

DUES: A posting every once in a while that expresses YOUR points of view
and YOUR opinions.

BENEFITS: That good feeling you get when you know that you belong.

RESTRICTIONS: Ray Frank is EXPRESSEDLY denied membership in HASA due to
lack of ALL of the above prerequesites.

Oleg Kiselev
HASA, "A" division founding member.

Posted by mikki at 03:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From: Mikki Barry (ooblick@unirot.UUCP)
Subject: Re: Name Changing

View: Complete Thread (3 articles)

Original Format
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Date: 1986-09-28 11:18:00 PST
In article <433@unc.unc.UUCP> gauchs@unc.UUCP (Susan E. Gauch) writes:
>I'll probably get flamed for being a married type person posting
>to soc.singles, but what the heck.

I'm married too. But I post to net.singles because it seems that in
a lot of ways, I am far more "single" than some who lack the piece
of paper. Haven't been flamed yet, but if soc.singles really want
me to go away, I will.

>The decision was easy because my number one priority was to have the
>same name as my husband. When we got married, we became members of
>the same family, and I wanted our names to reflect that.
>We could have hyphenated our names, but that seemed like twice the
>work, and then both of us would feel weird instead of one.

Why didn't he change his to yours then?

>I never considered keeping my maiden name. Here's the part that I
>expect flames on.
>I find it confusing when a woman keeps her own name. It gives me
>the same sort of feeling as when a man decides to not wear a
>wedding band. I wonder if there is a lack of true commitment.

I wonder if you can really make such generalizations. And I wonder
what you mean by "true commitment". If I have to give up a part of
myself that a man does not in order to achieve "true commitment",
you can keep it.

As for wedding bands, I feel perfectly committed to my husband without a
"property rights" sign attatched to him (or to me). If either of us want
to wear a wedding band, fine (in fact, I do. I like them). But don't
make the bad assumption that either name changing, or gold rings has
ANYTHING to do with level of commitment.

>In conclusion, I think that every woman/couple has to make their own
>decision, but I thought I'd make an argument on the side of changing -
>it's not always just a sign of trying to conform to society.

It's not? Then why didn't he change his name? Why didn't you both choose
a neutral name? And why are you trying to equate *your* name change with
commitment level?

Yes, it is a personal decision. Frankly, I don't care one way or the
other. But I really resent people trying to measure my marriage by the
fact that I did NOT change my name.

Mikki Barry

Posted by mikki at 10:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Just to prove I've been around awhile :-)

From: Mikki Barry (barry@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU)
Subject: Re: My deflowering

View: Complete Thread (20 articles)

Original Format
Newsgroups: talk.bizarre
Date: 1986-09-03 10:07:15 PST
In article <1134@bu-cs.bu-cs.BU.EDU> sam@bu-cs.UUCP (Shelli Meyers) writes:

>Lisa, Lisa, Lisa. You underestimate your own taste in food! Whipped
>cream is *outstanding*! Jello's viscosity makes it interesting for
>some uses, but a full appreciation can be had by *combining* the two
>in mass quantities. We'll check that theory at the Boston net.party.

Oh but how glorious it would be to combine jello with whipped cream.
It does *sooo* well with Austrailian beer (of which there was much
at worldcon)

>In the meantime, can somebody tell Henry and I how to make ooblick?

If you really have to ask, you will ruin your reputation. What if the
ooblick in question doesn't want to be made?

Mikki Barry

unirot!ooblick
barry@mit-eddie

Posted by mikki at 10:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Back before I learned enough to understand that nobody gave a good damn about anything said on usenet except to see their own words, I wrote this

Before I learned any better not to bother to try to talk to people about this subject, I posted this:

From: Mikki Barry (barry@mit-eddie.UUCP)
Subject: Re: RE: Mikki Barry is a Pro-Lifer

View: Complete Thread (14 articles)

Original Format
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Date: 1985-03-25 10:43:39 PST
Matt, Matt, Matt. Don;t you understand you won't change my opinion? But
since you brought up a few points directed to me in particular, I will
address them:

1. I contribute to Planned Parenthood, a group that in my city does NOT
perform abortions, but DOES councel women as to proper birth control
methods and pregnancy help. Yes, they do refer women to clinics
if they decide (after counceling) to have an abortion.

2. Yes, there are times when it would be best FOR THE FETUS to be aborted.
Try severe birth defects for one.

3. How many clinics would you like me to name for you before you admit that
not all clinics that do abortions make all their money from them?

4. You attitude that a pregnant woman is stupid upsets me. It may come
as a severe shock to you, but a pregnant woman is perfectly capable of
making rational decisions. Go ask a few to figure out math problems
if you don't believe me. Women have brains with which to make decisions
concerning pregnancy. Who are you to say they do not?

5. Pickets at the NH health center I went to for ob/gyn shoved pictures of
6 month old miscarried fetuses in my face when I went inside for a pap
smear. It upset me because I realized that these people actually believed
that the picture they held was a first trimester abortion, and they may
also cause someone else to believe it. It also made me wonder how many
people were going into the clinic for routine checks as opposed to the
target group of women going in for abortions.

6. Can a pro-lifer tell a pro-choicer not to preach? Which one of our
opinions is drawn from religion? Certainly not mine.

We could go on forever, arguing back and forth and not changing a damn
thing. If you don't like abortion, that's of course your right. Send
in your money to pro-life groups, picket clinics, call your congresspeople.
It won't change anything. Abortions will happen anyway as they have for
thousands of years. I am simply advocating stopping the problem of unwanted
pregnancies before abortion is even thought about. If you disagree, and
believe unwanted pregnancies should not be stopped, that's a different
discussion.

Mikki Barry

Posted by mikki at 03:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)