From declanm@netcom.com Tue Aug 15 09:45:16 CDT 1995
Article: 11119 of alt.internet.media-coverage
Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage,comp.org.eff.talk
Path: news.io.com!news.tamu.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news.kei.com!eff!news.duke.edu!agate!library.ucla.edu!info.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!declanm
From: declanm@netcom.com (D B McCullagh)
Subject: Marty Rimm -- ENRAGED at Sen. Exon
Message-ID:
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 1995 19:39:33 GMT
Lines: 352
Sender: declanm@netcom.netcom.com
Xref: news.io.com alt.internet.media-coverage:11119 comp.org.eff.talk:59473
Following is correspondence between Marty Rimm and Seth Finkelstein, of
MIT's Student Association for Freedom of Expression, an anti-censorship
group.
My favorite part is where Marty says he's "enraged byond description"
at the U.S. Senate's attempts to censor the Internet, and that he's
concerned senators "will wave my study around Congress as evidence."
Another good section is where Marty says that his "worst nightmare"
happened when anti-porn feminist Catherine MacKinnon called his study
"a landmark, and gloats over every page. The very people you despise
publicly praise your work with superlatives beyond description."
Anyone else have any personal favorites?
-Declan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 1994 18:52:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Martin Rimm
To: sethf@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: Pornography
Cc:
In-Reply-To: <2p36im$14e@panix2.panix.com>
Distribution: world
Excerpts from netnews.soc.feminism: 20-Apr-94 Pornography by sethf@MIT.EDU
> Yup. _The Kinsey Report_ is quite old. But I would examine your
> methodology and inferences VERY carefully.
>
> > Do you think such information could be used constructively?
>
> Yes. But it could also be misused, destructively ("look at all
> the perverts in our midst, we must root them out"). And if it's poor
> information, it's just political nonsense.
Thanks for the response. My initial post was far too rhetorical and
people made all kinds of inferences from it. I am doing two projects
simulataneously. The first downloads not 100,000 GIFs but the
descriptive lists of these GIFs as provided by the adult BBS. The
analysis merely says that x% of the images contained anal sex, x% oral,
x% watersports, etc. This is a study in itself and is not very
interpretive. There are some fascinating economic consequences here,
which I can offer when I'm finished. But I never imagined that I would
make any kind of personal interpretation and say Gee, too much S & M! We
ought to ban this. The second in fact parallels your suggestion that
such information can be used constructively or destructively. I am very
excited about this because I am showing how such information can be used
destructively. I just feel more comfortable in the jungle (I'm a vet)
and I just assume that if people like Katherine MacKinnon want to use my
stats to argue that women are too often on their knees swallowing male
urine then she can certainly do so. The truth is, most studies are
ignored, so I can't say I expect very much.
You seem to have a good grasp of what's going on. I might be interested
in corresponding with you about how to go about this statistical
analysis (although I do have a lot of help at CMU). Be in touch.
From: Martin Rimm
To: sethf@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: help!
Cc:
In-Reply-To: <9501250118.AA24908@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
Excerpts from mail: 24-Jan-95 Re: help! by sethf@MIT.EDU
> Law journal? I thought a stats journal had accepted it. That
> brings up a question, why is this sociological and statistical study
> being published in a law journal. Now, the immediate suspicion that
> leaps to mind is "because it's really a "why we should make pornography
> on the net illegal" study". I'll assume this is wrong, but I think you
> should be aware that it's a question you might have to deal with -
> especially from people who think your study is the reason the CMU ban
> was instituted.
I'm surprised at your tone, but I'll venture an answer. Personally, I am
interested in the generic marketing aspects of online information, in
how businesses will use computer networks in the coming years to sell
their goods and services. This is made clear in the paper.
My approach has been eclectic. I take a little marketing, a little
sociology and psychology, a little statistics, a little
telecommunications, and a moderate amount of law. I have worked with six
faculty in these areas (one of whom taught at MIT for two decades).
A law journal is a neat way to go when your approach does not easily
fall into a single discipline. Personally, I think most disciplines
narrowly limit themselves. Certainly, life is more eclectic than most
academic journals. The law journal is a wonderful opportunity to move
around.
In the article, I take no position or make no argument about the
regulation of porn. I expect others will do that from all sides. My goal
is to present accurate data. This is difficult enough.
As far as censorship at CMU, I have publicly critisized the
administration, and will continue to do so. They used me as a scapegoat
for some peculiar agenda.
Thanks for forwarding my request.
Martin
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(mr6e@andrew.cmu.edu) Martin Rimm Phone: 412-268-2480
College of Engineering Fax: 412-268-6421
Carnegie Mellon University
5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh PA 15213
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 21:16:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Martin Rimm
To: sethf@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: Tone and presentation
Cc:
In-Reply-To: <9501250154.AA18857@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
Thanks for your comments. I guess I can only do my best and hope I live
to see the end of it. Your comments were more generic in that you are
suggesting that almost anyone would get into trouble were he to do a
study.
Excerpts from mail: 24-Jan-95 Tone and presentation by sethf@MIT.EDU
> I have a deep fear that when I actually read that article, I'll
> think "SUCKER! You were taken! For every legitimate Kinsey, there are a
> thousand wanna-be MacKinnon's". I hope not, but it's a nightmare.
Well I must confess I also have a fear that you'll feel that way. I
didn't know there are a 1,000 wanna be Mackinnons - I usually duck when
her name is mentioned.
Seth, I'll give it to you straight: MacKinnon is going to have a field
day with the data, because at least from her point of view, she thinks
it vindicates her. She thinks that just because people download
bestiality pics and the like that that means men want to go out and
abuse or rape women. My study does not offer one shred of evidence about
effects. Another scholar, Carlin Meyer, will argue that people are
fascinated by the "taboo," but that doesn't mean they act on such
fascinations.
So let me ask you a question, maybe you can help: how does one present
the popularity of the paraphilias without appearing to be a hypster? Or
let me ask it another way: what kind of questions would you like to see
answered?
Data is data, Seth. In essence, I count the number of images and
downloads, and present the numbers. People can do whatever they want
with such data.
Martin
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(mr6e@andrew.cmu.edu) Martin Rimm Phone: 412-268-2480
College of Engineering Fax: 412-268-6421
Carnegie Mellon University
5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh PA 15213
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 15:37:04 -0500 (EST)
From: "CIT Dean's Office"
To: sethf@MIT.EDU
Subject: help
Cc:
I would like to solicit your assistance for the wording of an important
paragraph in the introduction to my study. I need to be objective and
maintain neutrality. However, I need to make it clear from the beginning
what my study does _not_ tell us, and I also would like to subtley hint
at my objection to using this data to censor net traffic. I am enraged
beyond description at Senator Exon's "Decency" Bill, and I am concerned
he will waive my study around congress as "evidence." Here is a draft of
the gist of it:
"This study does not address the effects of such imagery on consumers.
No data was available which offered insight as to _why_ consumers
download such imagery, e.g. for erotic purposes or out of curiosity, or
what consumers do with them after download. Thus, this study, taken by
itself, may not provide sufficient information concerning legislation of
potentially obscene materials."
I don't like the above but it's just a start. I'd really appreciate your
taking a crack at making some important points about what a study of
consumption habits _cannot_ tell us. I am asking you because you have
thought about pornography a great deal and you obsviously understand
computer networks and statistics.
Please keep our correspondence in confidence.
Martin
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 11:10:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: "CIT Dean's Office"
To: sethf@MIT.EDU
Subject: riddle me this...
Cc:
All right, Seth, you're me: you spend thousands of hours gathering and
sorting raw data. You count the number of files, the number fo
downloads. You develop a linguistic parser to classify the pictures with
good accuracy, reliability and validity. You don't do anything fancy
with statistics, you just add up the numbers and report them in your
study.
Let's take it one step further: you like to write. You think academics
write boring prose. You despise most academic journals. So you write in
a popular style, with energy and verve. Some people think your style is
fascinating, others think it is alarming. Like Jerry Falwell and Andrea
Dworkin.
You consider yourself a renegade artist; you think the Marquis de Sade
was a genius. Most Americans, on the other hand (if they heard of him)
would call him a pervert, and throw him to the sharks. You announce to
the world a New Marquis has emerged on computer networks. Your study is
published in Washington, a city renown for its mental masturbation.
Your worst nightmare (you know who Seth) calls it a landmark, and gloats
over every page. The very people you despise publicly praise your work
with superlatives beyond description. The very world you feel at home in
wants to shoot you, the messenger, for "vindicating" the old dame from
Ireland.
Riddle me this, Seth: what would you do? What would you say?
You told me your worst nightmare was to read my study (you will in six
weeks) and see that you defended a freak, a crusader. You never asked me
about my worst nightmare: it just came true three days ago.
Date: Sun, 7 May 1995 14:37:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Martin Rimm
To: sethf@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: FAQ needed
Cc:
In-Reply-To: <9505070201.AA18528@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
References: <9505070201.AA18528@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
I'm in good spirits - I just got word from the editors that one of the
law professors writing a response to our study really did a GREAT job of
arguing AGAINST censorship because it does NOT help advance the concerns
of women. (The prof. is female, if this matters). I feel a lot better
because now I don't have to feel my work is a catalyst to censorship.
When people ask me what I think, I'll just refer them to carlin's
article.
Today is a good day, Seth.
Martin
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(mr6e@andrew.cmu.edu) Martin Rimm Phone: 412-268-2480
College of Engineering Fax: 412-268-6421
Carnegie Mellon University
5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh PA 15213
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 05:56:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Martin Rimm
To: sethf@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: busy?
Cc:
In-Reply-To: <9505110556.AA15177@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
References: <9505110556.AA15177@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
4-5 days, but I was also going to ask if in a footnote we can state,
"The research team at Carnegie Mellon is unavailable for comment. Waco
media folks should seek an interview with Seth instead...."
By the way: do you think our timing is good? Are we getting a little
late? Or is all this concern priming the pump?
Martin
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(mr6e@andrew.cmu.edu) Martin Rimm Phone: 412-268-2480
College of Engineering Fax: 412-268-6421
Carnegie Mellon University
5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh PA 15213
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Sat, 13 May 1995 08:02:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Martin Rimm
To: sethf@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: comments appreciated - limiting access to minors
Cc:
In-Reply-To: <9505130958.AA23914@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
References: <9505130958.AA23914@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
As always, I appreciate your comments. They are solicited because I
believe what we produced offers a high degree of integrity.
You made a similar comment once before about the tone. I have thought
about it and I think how you react depends on you. I Know you haven't
seen the whole thing so perhaps it is a contextual problem. But many
people have read this and said, "That's fascinating." We never suggest
that pornography is evil or it needs to be controlled. In the footnote I
sent you, we wanted to explore the issue of limiting access to minors.
We do not endorse things we talk about - this note was unusual for us to
write, which is why I sent it. I send you the bad or wierd stuff that I
am not sure about! That way you have a chance to rip it apart and maybe
encourage me to cut it. See?
As far as the library argument, I think you are highly partisan here. We
are trying to present objective data and not make an argument.
I must confess I was mad at you for overreacting when I initially
informed you that we are publishing in a law journal. Your reaction
automatically assumed that if we published in a law journal we would be
making arguments to ban the stuff. It never occured to you we might be
arguing the opposite.
Again, how you discuss our study is a reflection on you. You could read
it and in two months when you are discussing it on newsgroups and maybe
to the press you could say intelligently, "Yes, I read the study, and
nowhere in it did I see reason to ban anything." Or you could get angry
because we dropped a footnote about the technical issues of limiting
access to minors and you could call us freaks. But whatever you do, it's
up to you.
Date: Sat, 13 May 1995 16:52:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Martin Rimm
To: sethf@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: comments appreciated - limiting access to minors
Cc:
In-Reply-To: <9505132035.AA18452@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
References: <9505132035.AA18452@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
Well, let's see what happens when it gets published. I suspect the
reaction might turn out to be farcical - the world is ending because
Debbie is sucking a horse and Jack is watching her do it! ... nuclear
weapons, world politics, environmental disasters might just have to wait
... I need a place to hide!
###
From declanm@netcom.com Tue Aug 15 09:46:38 CDT 1995
Article: 11180 of alt.internet.media-coverage
Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage,comp.org.eff.talk
Path: news.io.com!news.tamu.edu!xenon.brooks.af.mil!natinst.com!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!declanm
From: declanm@netcom.com (D B McCullagh)
Subject: Re: Marty Rimm -- ENRAGED at Sen. Exon
Message-ID:
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <4041fk$hff@empire.texas.net> <405l54$9h7@shell2.best.com>
Distribution: inet
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 18:39:29 GMT
Lines: 20
Sender: declanm@netcom.netcom.com
Xref: news.io.com alt.internet.media-coverage:11180 comp.org.eff.talk:59614
In article <405l54$9h7@shell2.best.com>,
Bryant Durrell wrote:
>My favorite part is the bit where he says it's OK to post his
>private email. Or at least, that would have been my favorite
>part, but I guess it got trimmed.
This was at the top of the message:
I've decided to release to you all my personal correspondence
with Martin Rimm. I do this with great trepidation, as this involves a
practice (keeping email private) which is an extremely sensitive
matter of network ethics. Yet upon reviewing this material, I believe
several statements by Rimm are fraudulent. With Congressional
involvement, the situation may well be literally unprecedented. So I
have come to view this correspondence as potential evidence bearing upon
an ongoing fraud and confidence game. I send it to you in that regard,
and ask that you treat it in that fashion.
-Declan
From declanm@netcom.com Tue Aug 15 09:52:50 CDT 1995
Article: 11164 of alt.internet.media-coverage
Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage,comp.org.eff.talk
Path: news.io.com!news.tamu.edu!xenon.brooks.af.mil!natinst.com!news.dell.com!swrinde!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!declanm
From: declanm@netcom.com (D B McCullagh)
Subject: Re: Marty Rimm -- ENRAGED at Sen. Exon
Message-ID:
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <405819$hhp@cnn.princeton.edu>
Distribution: inet
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 17:00:24 GMT
Lines: 474
Sender: declanm@netcom.netcom.com
Xref: news.io.com alt.internet.media-coverage:11164 comp.org.eff.talk:59598
In article <405819$hhp@cnn.princeton.edu>,
David A. Wagner wrote:
>Thanks so much for striking a blow for net privacy and liberty.
>
>With friends like these, who needs enemies?
It's a tricky ethical question, and one that wasn't made lightly. Perhaps
you need more context -- read the last few messages.
-Declan
---
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 22:37:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: "CIT Dean's Office"
To: sethf@MIT.EDU (Seth Finkelstein)
Subject: Re: EFF Analysis of Communications Decency Act as Passed by SenateCc:
In-Reply-To: <3sigm2$iv@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
References: <3s8vfm$r9i@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
<3sigm2$iv@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
Distribution: inet
We made the cover of TIME to hit the stands Monday. If you have a
chance, you can watch me on Nightline Monday evening.
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 11:16:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Martin Rimm
To: sethf@MIT.EDU
Subject: study
Cc:
Well, did you read it? Are you angry? Do you need a copy?
Cheers,
Marty
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 13:24:28 -0400
Message-Id: <9507021724.AA21116@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
To: mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: study
> Well, did you read it? Are you angry? Do you need a copy?
I'm trying to get a copy of it. MIT doesn't subscribe to the
Georgetown journal.
I must say I'm quite disturbed from what I've been reading. I
saw you on NightLine, and I have the Time article. But I'm trying not to
fly off the handle over sound-bites (if I do, you can just say you were
misquoted/misrepresented/misused/etc).
================
Seth Finkelstein
sethf@mit.edu
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 13:49:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Martin Rimm
To: sethf@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: study
Cc:
In-Reply-To: <9507021724.AA21116@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
References: <9507021724.AA21116@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
Try Harvard in about two weeks, or send me your address and I will
personally mail you a copy.
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 22:32:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Martin Rimm
To: sethf@MIT.EDU
Subject: web site
Cc:
I have succeded finally to secure permission to post the entire study on
the Web. It should be up within a week. Please feel free to let everyone
know.
Cheers,
Marty
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 22:42:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Martin Rimm
To: sethf@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: web site
Cc:
In-Reply-To: <9507030238.AA22985@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
References: <9507030238.AA22985@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
I have enough of a trusting relationship to offer to send you our
response to Ms. Hoffman's "critique." If I send the, can you agree to
keep them in confidence?
Cheers,
Marty
From: sethf@MIT.EDU
Received: by frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.7) id AA23650; Mon, 3 Jul 1995 00:47:01 -0400
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 00:47:01 -0400
Message-Id: <9507030447.AA23650@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
To: mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: web site
> I have enough of a trusting relationship to offer to send you our
> response to Ms. Hoffman's "critique." If I send the, can you agree to
> keep them in confidence?
Thanks, but I don't want to have any confidential information.
I'm in enough of a quandary as it is. I'm quite concerned as to where
this whole issue will end up - this study could wind up being the
_Seduction of the Innocent_ of the Net (do you get the reference? That
was the book that figured prominently in the censorship of comics). I
knew it would be big ... but this big? (_Time_, _Nightline_, etc). The
next step, according my prediction, is Congressional hearing for sure
(on the scale of next year or two). The preliminaries already happened.
If I think the study good science, I'm still going to be busy
making sure it doesn't turn into an excuse for net censorship. If I'm
appalled, then I'll be scathing. I think, for both our sakes, it would
be best for you never to send me confidential information. Various
investigations are going on, information may be revealed via other
sources, and I wouldn't want you to suspect I'd leaked it.
I'll let you know when I've put together the MIT Student
Association for Freedom of Expression web page on this. It'll start out
>from only publically available material, such as Usenet postings. You're
welcome to have a Right of Reply to the material on it, in the form of
material addressing the other material.
================
Seth Finkelstein
sethf@mit.edu
id AA19253; Tue, 4 Jul 95 23:20:22 EDT
From: sethf@MIT.EDU
Received: by frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.7) id AA22271; Tue, 4 Jul 1995 23:20:21 -0400
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 23:20:21 -0400
Message-Id: <9507050320.AA22271@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
To: mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: Study on WWW
I'm now working on the section of the WWW archives of the
MIT Student Association for Freedom of Expression which will contain
material about your study. Tentatively, it's at
http://www.mit.edu:8001/activities/safe/safe/writings/pornography/cmu-study
I've just put a few items in it, and haven't announced it yet.
I'll probably write a brief summary and announce it tomorrow evening.
================
Seth Finkelstein
sethf@mit.edu
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 01:26:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Martin Rimm
To: sethf@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: WWW page devoted to your study at MIT
Cc:
In-Reply-To: <9507050512.AA22107@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
References: <9507050512.AA22107@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
A lot of people at your school have read the study and are very
impressed with it.
Marty
From: sethf@MIT.EDU
Received: by frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.7) id AA21952; Wed, 5 Jul 1995 01:41:55 -0400
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 01:41:55 -0400
Message-Id: <9507050541.AA21952@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
To: mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: WWW page devoted to your study at MIT
> A lot of people at your school have read the study and are very
> impressed with it.
News to me. Can you tell me who they are? They must all not be
friends of mine, because none of them have given me a copy or sent me a
message. I'd hope at least one of them would have thought of me :-(.
Anyway, do you have any objections to the page? Anything you
want to send? So is there any problem with announcing it?
================
Seth Finkelstein
sethf@mit.edu
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 01:55:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Martin Rimm
To: sethf@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: WWW page devoted to your study at MIT
Cc:
In-Reply-To: <9507050541.AA21952@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
References: <9507050541.AA21952@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
Do whatever your little heart desires, Seth.
From: sethf@MIT.EDU
Received: by frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.7) id AA17661; Wed, 5 Jul 1995 02:06:52 -0400
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 02:06:52 -0400
Message-Id: <9507050606.AA17661@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
To: mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: WWW page devoted to your study at MIT
> Do whatever your little heart desires, Seth.
I desire to be fair. Which is why I *haven't* flamed off the
handle on this issue, even though every sign I see disturbs me more.
What more can I do?
================
Seth Finkelstein
sethf@mit.edu
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 07:37:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Martin Rimm
To: sethf@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: WWW page devoted to your study at MIT
Cc:
In-Reply-To: <9507050606.AA17661@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
References: <9507050606.AA17661@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
Excerpts from mail: 5-Jul-95 Re: WWW page devoted to you.. by sethf@MIT.EDU
> I desire to be fair. Which is why I *haven't* flamed off the
> handle on this issue, even though every sign I see disturbs me more.
> What more can I do?
The more I see, the less disturbed and calm I am, because their
"criticisms" are stupid, misinformed, and easily dismissed.
From: sethf@MIT.EDU
Received: by frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.7) id AA18460; Fri, 7 Jul 1995 06:55:02 -0400
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 06:55:02 -0400
Message-Id: <9507071055.AA18460@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
To: mr6e+@andrew.mit.edu
Subject: Note on net reaction to study
> The more I see, the less disturbed and calm I am, because their
> "criticisms" are stupid, misinformed, and easily dismissed.
If you'll recall, I strongly warned you about intense net
reaction, and suggested that you have the material available on-line.
How can people make informed comments if they can't easily peruse the
material and first hear about it from sensational press accounts?
I see that you propose to have it on WWW, but it hasn't
appeared yet.
================
Seth Finkelstein
sethf@mit.edu
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 09:50:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Martin Rimm
To: sethf@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: Note on net reaction to study
Cc:
In-Reply-To: <9507101112.AA14526@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
References: <9507101112.AA14526@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
Sorry, Seth, I have been swamped. I was going to fedex you a copy but
kept thinking the study would be on the Web anyday. Hopefulyl this is
the case.
Marty
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 03:02:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Martin Rimm
To: sethf@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: "The Pornographer's Handbook"
Cc:
In-Reply-To: <9507140657.AA16643@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
References: <9507140657.AA16643@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
What are you doing up so late? Want me to call? I need a #.
Marty
To: mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: "The Pornographer's Handbook"
> What are you doing up so late? Want me to call? I need a #.
I don't always keep business hours, especially when the weather
is very hot, as it is now.
I'd just like an answer. Did you write that?
================
Seth Finkelstein
sethf@mit.edu
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 13:06:26 -0400
Message-Id: <9507141706.AA16740@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
To: mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: "The Pornographer's Handbook"
Did you send me a message? I didn't receive it.
================
Seth Finkelstein
sethf@mit.edu
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 1995 15:04:12 -0400
Message-Id: <9507151904.AA16158@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
To: mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: Hello?
Hello? Have you decided to stop responding to e-mail from me?
================
Seth Finkelstein
sethf@mit.edu
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 21:11:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Martin Rimm
To: sethf@MIT.EDU (Seth Finkelstein)
Subject: Re: Speranza Clarifies Porno Handbk One
Cc:
In-Reply-To: <3ug6jf$jsc@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
References: <3ua8ml$5gg@news.cais.com> <3uas4p$t1b@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <3ufacg$54p@nkosi.well.com>
<3ug6jf$jsc@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
Well, be consistent, am I pro or anti?
Marty
From: sethf@MIT.EDU
Received: by frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.7) id AA18237; Wed, 19 Jul 1995 09:17:56 -0400
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 09:17:56 -0400
Message-Id: <9507191317.AA18237@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
To: mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Speranza Clarifies Porno Handbk One
> Well, be consistent, am I pro or anti?
What is inconsistent about the theory that you write what you
think will give the best results in that context, be it pro or anti?
Now I wouldn't hazard a guess as to your personal feeling on the topic.
What does the stock manipulator really think about the value of the
company he's pushing?
You are *quite* aware of the political implications of what you
write. You can't claim ignorance or misuse - you yourself said:
You will notice that throughout this manual, I have never used
the word "pornography," or even "smut," as you sometimes read in the
popular press. Instead, I have invoked the euphemism, "Adult
Entertainment." This is one of the most crucial principles of your
craft, and you will exercise it liberally.
And never let your critics refer to you as a
"pornographer." You are an "adult entertainer."
But in your study, you were assiduous in using all the
loaded terms such as "pornography", "pornographer", etc, and even
sneered at the naming of the Usenet groups alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.*
as "euphemistic".
Earlier in our correspondence you presented yourself as simply
interested in this topic. Now it's coming out that you're up to your
ears in all sorts of unethical and exploitative practices, and have a
pattern of similar conduct dating back to when you were 16! Making deals
with the Department of Justice to pay you so as to better prosecute the
people who gave you your data?! Have you no shame!
You've been conning people for years, and I think you conned me.
And you tell ME to be consistent?
================
Seth Finkelstein
sethf@mit.edu
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 10:01:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Martin Rimm
To: sethf@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: Speranza Clarifies Porno Handbk One
Cc:
In-Reply-To: <9507191317.AA18237@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
References: <9507191317.AA18237@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Marty
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 10:22:33 -0400
Message-Id: <9507191422.AA20871@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
To: mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Speranza Clarifies Porno Handbk One
> Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
This seems to be your primary way of dealing with exposure -
flat-out denial.
Tell me, what is "signifying nothing" in my message?
Do you deny you wrote "The Pornographer's Handbook"?
Do you deny the passage I quote?
Do you deny that it represents a full understanding of the
politics of the terms you used?
Do you deny association with a grant request to the Department
of Justice to be paid to help them prosecute your very own sources! (I
can't express how amazing this is!)
Do you deny you formented a similar controversy in Atlantic City
over gambling?
This signifies quite a lot to me.
================
Seth Finkelstein
sethf@mit.edu
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 12:00:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Martin Rimm
To: sethf@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: Speranza Clarifies Porno Handbk One
Cc:
In-Reply-To: <9507191422.AA20871@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
References: <9507191422.AA20871@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
Me thinks thou dost protest too much.
Marty
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 12:06:05 -0400
Message-Id: <9507191606.AA18207@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
To: mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Speranza Clarifies Porno Handbk One
> Me thinks thou dost protest too much.
Same tactic. I'm unimpressed. Are you going to address my
questions or not?
================
Seth Finkelstein
sethf@mit.edu
###