Message-Id: <m0idSCb-0000GUC@jhereg.osa.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 90 12:55:01 CST
From: avatar@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Timothy Fay)
To: orbit!umcvmb.missouri.edu!mathrich
Subject: A Visit From...
Cc: orbit!zaphod.uchicago.edu!harelb orbit!sgi.com!dave@ratmandu.csd

...the Secret Service.  The following is an account of an interesting
incident that happened to me this morning.  You may make reference to
this note, but please do not re-post it anywhere, and please do NOT
mention my real name, "Avatar," or "trag."  As I say in my note, these
are dark days.  Read on:

                =====================================

I had a most interesting visit today.  An agent from the U.S. Secret
Service came to my door this morning to discuss one of my recent posts
on P-Net.

Apparently, according to the Agent, someone out there in Crazyfornia
sent the following post, anonymously, to their local office, which was
then FAX-ed up to their Minnesota office: 

 : Message-ID: #15985.pnet51.chatter/general 16 lines, 907 chars.
 : From: avatar (..........., Minneapolis, MN)  Tue, 6 Nov 90 00:19:01 CST
 : Comment: to #15964 (pnet01!trag)
 : Subject: Re: Challenges/Military Action
 :
 : trag (............, Ocean Beach, CA) writes:
 : >
 : >In general, you seem to base your arguments on the presumption that
 : >military action is bad. Most would counter, "But so what. That's
 : >obvious."  Yet it seems to me that the more "obvious" something is,
 : >the more we need to question it.  Is the military truly "evil"? If
 : >so, in what way?  And what assumptions are those arguments based on?
 : 
 : Military action invariably creates lots of dead people.  And, in this
 : age of "total war," most of those dead are usually civilians and
 : other non-combatants.  So yes, in general, I view military action as
 : bad.  But my critiques of recent actions are based more on the
 : political and economic motivations _behind_ military actions, rather
 : than the actions themselves.  That's why you won't see me throwing
 : cans of piss on soldiers, but if I get within armshot of George
 : Bush, I may not be responsible for my actions.  :-)

First off, to the poor fink who sent the anonymous note to the Secret
Service: The little symbol at the end of my message, the ":-)", is a
generally-accepted Usenet code for "humor" or "sarcasm."  No, I have no
intention of harming the President.  If nothing else, it would leave us
with Dan Quayle in charge--a fate I would not wish on any nation (that
last line was apparently of particular concern to the Secret Service).

Second, if you had a problem with anything I said on P-Net, you should
have discussed it with me "in person."  The result of your "snitching"
served only to waste my time, and the government's time, and if they
know your identity I'm sure the government would now like to have a
chat with _you_.  If I ever find out who you are, you can count on a
getting a visit from my lawyer, as well.

I have no idea what your purpose was.  If your goal was to intimidate
me, you have failed, miserably, and have only proved the extent to
which supporters of military action in the Gulf will go in order to
stifle dissent and silence criticism of our government.  To the rest of
you reading this, take note:  This act of intimidation could just as
easily be used against any of you.  Your First Amendment rights are no
longer guaranteed.  These are dark days, indeed.


 UUCP: {crash tcnet}!orbit!pnet51!avatar
 INET: avatar@pnet51.orb.mn.org
			=============================
 "If civilization owes a debt of gratitude to the self-sacrificing sports-
men who have cleared the Adirondack region of Catamounts and savage trout,
what shall be said of the army which has so nobly relieved them of the
terror of the deer?"    -Charles Dudley Warner