roundtable: Re: Letters from `Jlehm@aol.com'

roundtable: Re: Letters from `Jlehm@aol.com'

Re: Letters from `Jlehm@aol.com'

Krys Corbett Augustine (KC2429@student.law.duke.edu)
Fri, 3 Mar 1995 22:59:50 EST 

From: "Krys Corbett Augustine" <KC2429@student.law.duke.edu>
To: roundtable@cni.org
Date:          Fri, 3 Mar 1995 22:59:50 EST
Subject:       Re: Letters from `Jlehm@aol.com'
Message-Id: <56574FC6389@student.law.duke.edu>


I'm not sure I understand why this man is a threat. There are many 
people on the internet who don't necessarily back up any of their 
opinions with facts and who may not be especially kind in their 
responses.  Have the usual responses not worked? 

    Usual response are a) ignoring the posts you consider stupid or 
uninformed or rude, b) responding and saying why he is wrong.  

    This is not the first of this sort of problem. Do you remember 
the poster who repeatedly posted to thousands of unrelated newsgroups 
that the Halocaust had never happened? He was taken care of by people 
simply speaking to each other to warn of him and then by everyone 
deleting the messages.  

    I'm certain that the same thing would work.  Is there something I 
am missing? 

    Krys Corbett
    <kc2429@student.law.duke.edu>


> Date sent:      Fri, 3 Mar 1995 16:48:05 -0500
> Send reply to:  roundtable@cni.org
> From:           fga@world.std.com (Fred G Athearn)
> To:             Multiple recipients of list <roundtable@cni.org>
> Subject:        Letters from `Jlehm@aol.com'
> 
>      On 2/25 I forwarded with a brief comment something from
> FINS dealing with Star Schools in Iowa to a networking in
> education list called "cosndisc@list.cren.net".  I got back an
> individual unsigned flame that said it was from "Jlhem@aol.com".
>  
>      There was something fishy about it because, while it
> rambled on like Rush Limbaugh overdosed on coffee, there were
> none of the specifics you would expect if its writing had been
> triggered by what it claimed to be responding to.
>  
>      Just to give you the flavor, it starts out: "How typical of
> you liberal wacos who live and breath by the tax dollar." It
> goes on to denounce me and all my "tax dollar-sucking
> associates," and our "cancerous adgenda" which only has the
> aim of ensuring the "survival of your wimp job, what ever that
> may be."  As (Mr. ?) Jlehm sees it it is all just:
>  
>      "...more liberal political dirvel from you junior
>       Slick WIllies and his venal and corrupt wife!"
>  
>      I posted the whole letter to cosndisc with the comment that
> I felt like I thought I was tuned to NPR and had gotten Rush
> Limbaugh instead.  I got a personal reply from Mr. Jlehm
> telling me to "glue your radio to the Limbaugh station."
>  
>      Now I learn that on that same day Mr. Jlehm, seeming to
> speak in a very different voice and from a very different
> viewpoint sent Mr. Priest a warning about others on his
> "network" who might denounce his good work to Congress or to
> "Liddy and Limbaugh" and that this would add "fuel to your
> already blazing fire".  The seemingly-friendly warning speaks of
> the danger of "elimination of your funding".
>  
>      The only things that his letter to Priest has in common
> with his ones to me is an uncontroled but educated type of
> writing and a rather clever generic and non-specific quality
> which could let them be used in many situations.
>  
>      I think that it is clear that Mr. Jlehm is sending
> disingenuous individual provocations to posters to lists.
> It may be that he intends to start to do this on a systematic
> basis.
>  
>      It is very easy (too easy) get someone kicked off of aol
> and that would not realy stop someone who was motivated. In fact
> that might be the real goal of the provocation -- to have the
> "liberals" kick a "conservative" off the internet. Rush would
> realy pop his buttons over that and the general media is always
> hungry for "internet" stories.
>  
>      I hope this is a one-shot operation, but I fear I have
> seen signs of intentional and non-spontaneous provocation and
> disruption on other lists.  Dealing with cyber-age psy-opps may
> be a telecommunications policy issue whose time has come.
>  
>      What, if anything, beyond reposting with discussion, should
> be the response to such problems?
> 
> Fred Athearn
> Paradise Hill
> Bellows Falls
> VT  05101
> 
> (802) 869-2003 (voice) fga@world.std.com (E-mail)

[CNI Home Page]