From declanm@netcom.com Sun Sep 17 10:26:05 1995 Return-Path: Received: from andrew.cmu.edu by mail4.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id KAA13891; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 10:19:13 -0700 Received: (from postman@localhost) by andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA04095; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 13:20:48 -0400 Received: via switchmail for fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 13:20:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 13:19:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from netcom.netcom.com (netcom.netcom.com [192.100.81.100]) by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA07255 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 13:18:58 -0400 Received: by netcom.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id KAA26427; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 10:15:46 -0700 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 10:15:45 -0700 (PDT) From: D B McCullagh Sender: D B McCullagh Reply-To: D B McCullagh Subject: Rimm Breaks Silence on alt.internet.media-coverage To: fight-censorship@andrew.cmu.edu cc: brian.randell@newcastle.ac.uk, psm@well.com Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Here Rimm mentions Thimbleby, the "Internet expert" who actually specializes in fax machine and handheld calculator interface design. Brian Randell's message, resent here on September 13 ("Rimm Study Cited at British Conference") noted that Thimbleby cited Rimm for support during an evils-of-Internet lecture. Peter Magnusson has written a critique of Thimbleby's paper, on which the lecture was based. Marty certainly sounds bitter here, but any post to alt.internet.media-coverage will get him flamed, and he knows that. Martha Siegel did the same thing on the same newsgroup earlier this month, presumably to use the exchange as fodder to promote her book -- now coming out in paperback. Can we expect anything less from Marty? -Declan --- >From mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu Sun Sep 17 09:59:16 PDT 1995 Article: 12951 of alt.internet.media-coverage Xref: netcom.com alt.internet.media-coverage:12951 comp.org.eff.talk:64300 Path: netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!simtel!news.kei.com!travelers.mail.cornell.edu!cornellcs!rochester!casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!mr6e+ From: Martin Rimm Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage,comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Greetings Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 01:11:13 -0400 Organization: Electrical & Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 43 Distribution: inet Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: po8.andrew.cmu.edu Comments, my friends? --------------------------------------------------------------------- NEWCASTLE, England (Reuter) - The Internet is fast becoming an electronic red-light district, distributing violent pornography and helping organize pedophile rings, a computer expert said Tuesday. But there is still no reliable way of detecting or intercepting disturbing messages or images to protect vulnerable users like children, Professor Harold Thimbleby told Britain's most prestigious annual science festival. ``Some people see the Internet and the World Wide Web as an important step toward democracy, education and peace, and of benefit to everyone from children to entire nations. They see Utopia in the electronic 'global village','' Thimbleby said. ``The reality is rather different from the vision. The Internet brings pornography and computer viruses; it tells you how to take drugs and make bombs,'' Thimbleby told the festival of the British Association, which promotes science in Britain. ``The Internet has been called a global electronic village. If so, most of it is a heavily used red-light district.'' Pornography, much of it far more graphic than that available in sex shops, was easily available. ``I have found text, film and sound material that I find extremely disturbing, for example involving instructions for killing minors,'' the professor of computing research said. Paedophiles and other groups use the net to organize rings and meetings for sexual and other encounters. ``Some bulletin boards were supposedly in aid of victims, but were also used to make new contacts and to share techniques of, for instance, child entrapment,'' he said. Thimbleby said the top eight most frequently used ``search words'' on the Internet related to pornography. His research also showed that more than 10 percent of shops on the Internet sold erotica, while around 10 percent of bulletin boards accessed in a random sample were pornographic. Current efforts to screen offensive material include self- censorship by sites on the net, who restrict access to adults, and software which can be installed on a computer to stop users like children getting hold of disturbing material. But none of the systems were foolproof, Thimbleby said. >From sethf@athena.mit.edu Sun Sep 17 10:01:08 PDT 1995 Article: 12958 of alt.internet.media-coverage Xref: netcom.com alt.censorship:66140 alt.internet.media-coverage:12958 alt.current-events.rimm-study:143 comp.org.eff.talk:64322 Path: netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news.sprintlink.net!newsserver.pixel.kodak.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!sethf From: sethf@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.internet.media-coverage,alt.current-events.rimm-study,comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Greetings from Martin Rimm Date: 17 Sep 1995 08:21:16 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 137 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <43glps$aq3@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: frumious-bandersnatch.mit.edu [newsgroups added] In article Martin Rimm writes: >Comments, my friends? Plenty. Although I don't think I qualify as your friend nowadays. This is the same sort of sensationalistic tripe that you tried to use to build up your con. Maybe he's better at it than you. But it's not going to rehabilitate or justify you. At best, you'll be thought of as a wanna-be panderer, not a pioneer. New people: check out these URL's for background: Critiques of the Rimm Study: http://www2000.ogsm.vanderbilt.edu/cyberporn.debate.cgi Record of the debate: http://www.cybernothing.org/cno/reports/cyberporn.html The home site of the study itself: http://TRFN.pgh.pa.us/guest/mrstudy.html > NEWCASTLE, England (Reuter) - The Internet is fast becoming >an electronic red-light district, distributing violent No historical evidence has been presented to justify this conclusion. He seems to suffer from the commonly-seen delusion that the Internet was somehow "pure", before some Great Degeneration (which of course requires massive censorship to Protect The Children). That's fiction. Before GIFs, there was a whole tradition of ASCII art. >pornography and helping organize pedophile rings, a computer >expert said Tuesday. He's just confused here. And BBS's are not the Internet. > But there is still no reliable way of detecting or >intercepting disturbing messages or images to protect vulnerable >users like children, Professor Harold Thimbleby told Britain's >most prestigious annual science festival. What phrasing! There's no reliable way of "detecting" the contents of every message, every book, every magazine, etc? There sure isn't! But this is slipped into the Protect The Children stock cry, which hides its great stupidity. > ``Some people see the Internet and the World Wide Web as an >important step toward democracy, education and peace, and of >benefit to everyone from children to entire nations. They see >Utopia in the electronic 'global village','' Thimbleby said. It's communication, not magic. He's overdosed on the Silicon Snake Oil (but actually this is a strawman setup for what comes next). > ``The reality is rather different from the vision. The >Internet brings pornography and computer viruses; it tells you >how to take drugs and make bombs,'' Thimbleby told the festival >of the British Association, which promotes science in Britain. It doesn't "bring" or "tell" you anything. This is again very stupid. The same thing could be said about learning how to read. "Some people think of reading as something which lets them understand our great laws. The reality is that reading "tells" them heretical ideas". This is really rather reactionary in the extreme. > ``The Internet has been called a global electronic village. >If so, most of it is a heavily used red-light district.'' Outright lie. The overwhelming majority of sites and messages don't have anything to do with sex. > Pornography, much of it far more graphic than that available >in sex shops, was easily available. Well, I haven't surveyed them, but again this seems wrong. The worst stuff I've ever seen in my life was actually at Evils of Pornography lectures. > ``I have found text, film and sound material that I find >extremely disturbing, for example involving instructions for >killing minors,'' the professor of computing research said. And you can order an assassination handbook (er, special forces training tactics handbook) from the US government, In fact, they distributed sabotage manuals as comic books for a while (for the _contras_ in Nicaragua). Great stuff :-). > Paedophiles and other groups use the net to organize rings >and meetings for sexual and other encounters. They also use the telephone and the mails. Pure scare-mongering. > ``Some bulletin boards were supposedly in aid of victims, >but were also used to make new contacts and to share techniques >of, for instance, child entrapment,'' he said. A smooth switch from the Internet to BBS's here. Hmm, who else do we know who used this sort of confusion to trick people? It's becoming a stock tactic. > Thimbleby said the top eight most frequently used ``search >words'' on the Internet related to pornography. Sigh. I don't know how many times I'm going to have to explain this bit of statistical trickery. Anything that ranks highly in these terms means it has to draws interest as an item appealing very widely, to more people than almost everything else. That is, it would have to be something that almost anyone can be interested in. Sex qualifies. All it means is that sex is a common to the human experience. This is not shocking or surprising, no matter how twisted it is stated. > His research also showed that more than 10 percent of shops >on the Internet sold erotica, while around 10 percent of >bulletin boards accessed in a random sample were pornographic. More phony research? What does it take to be a "pornographic" BBS? Having a few sexy GIF's around? These numbers sound cooked (hmm, who was also famous for cooking numbers to hype up results ...) > Current efforts to screen offensive material include self- >censorship by sites on the net, who restrict access to adults, >and software which can be installed on a computer to stop users >like children getting hold of disturbing material. > But none of the systems were foolproof, Thimbleby said. And it's a good thing, too. A foolproof system for controlling information is not something I would want in the hand of censors. Their definition of "disturbing material" typically includes anything relating to gays and lesbians, contraception, or safer-sex practices. And guess what? If a child is taught to read, there's no foolproof way of stopping them for reading what you don't want them to read either! I have no doubt we are going to be seeing a lot of this trash research in the coming Battle of the Net. I just hope it can be exposed for what it is, so it doesn't get taken seriously. -- Seth Finkelstein sethf@mit.edu Disclaimer : I am not the Lorax. I speak only for myself. (and certainly not for Project Athena, MIT, or anyone else). >From mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu Sun Sep 17 10:01:39 PDT 1995 Article: 12963 of alt.internet.media-coverage Xref: netcom.com alt.internet.media-coverage:12963 Path: netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!delmarva.com!udel!rochester!casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!mr6e+ From: Martin Rimm Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage Subject: Re: Greetings from Martin Rimm Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 07:57:28 -0400 Organization: Electrical & Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 25 Distribution: inet Message-ID: References: <43glps$aq3@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: po7.andrew.cmu.edu In-Reply-To: <43glps$aq3@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Excerpts from netnews.alt.internet.media-coverage: 17-Sep-95 Re: Greetings from Martin Rimm by Seth Finkelstein@athena. > nowadays. This is the same sort of sensationalistic tripe that you tried > to use to build up your con. Maybe he's better at it than you. But it's I am sure, Seth, that your comments are based on a careful analysis of his actual report. Moreover, I am sure you would not make the mistake of assuming that a media account of his report accurately reflects the report. I am also sure that your qualifications to assess the merits of his report are much higher, given that you have a B.S. and he has a PhD, and that he read his report at Britain's most prestigious science fair, according to the media account, which I did not independently verify. Then again, perhaps if you conducted a background "investigation" of this Professor, you might learn that he read the report in an Arab headdress, and that in his youth he conducted a study of watermelons in Queen Elizabeth's garden, concluding that they indeed had pits (though the cantelope industry vehemently denied this). Any one of these rumors, if confirmed, would immediately discredit his research. Go get him, Seth and friends. I know you all won't disappoint me. Marty From declanm@netcom.com Tue Sep 19 13:53:24 1995 Return-Path: Received: from andrew.cmu.edu by mail5.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id NAA22914; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 13:40:11 -0700 Received: (from postman@localhost) by andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA17545; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 16:40:56 -0400 Received: via switchmail for fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 16:40:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 16:38:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from netcom.netcom.com (netcom.netcom.com [192.100.81.100]) by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA06097 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 16:38:26 -0400 Received: by netcom.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id NAA00662; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 13:13:00 -0700 Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 13:12:52 -0700 (PDT) From: D B McCullagh Subject: Marty Denies Making Posts To: fight-censorship@andrew.cmu.edu cc: visigoth+@cmu.edu Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Now Marty is denying he made the posts to alt.internet.media-coverage. The time of his denial, by my calculations, coincides with the time he would have received a phone call from our own Lillie Wilson asking about the posts for the article that ran in today's Tribune-Review. I looked through the Andrew news spool directries, and the headers of each message is the same. Each post came from Marty's Andrew account. Attached at the very end of this message are some zephyrgrams from John Prevost (visigoth@cmu.edu), who knows a little more than I do about this. -Declan --- >From mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu Tue Sep 19 11:02:34 PDT 1995 Article: 13045 of alt.internet.media-coverage Xref: netcom.com alt.internet.media-coverage:13045 Path: netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!ub!galileo.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!mr6e+ From: Martin Rimm Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage Subject: Advisory to mainstream media observers Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 15:29:10 -0400 Organization: Electrical & Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 6 Message-ID: <4kLQW6O00WBMA6UGsb@andrew.cmu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: po2.andrew.cmu.edu I noticed several posts to this newsgroup which are alleged to have been posted by me from this account. This is simply incorrect. The posts were forged. Please do not assume that comments which appear to have originated from this account in fact originated from me. Marty Rimm >From paulp@nic.cerf.net Tue Sep 19 11:02:46 PDT 1995 Article: 13043 of alt.internet.media-coverage Xref: netcom.com alt.internet.media-coverage:13043 Path: netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!news.cerf.net!nic.cerf.net!paulp From: paulp@nic.cerf.net (Paul Phillips) Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage Subject: Re: Advisory to mainstream media observers Date: 19 Sep 1995 02:21:08 GMT Organization: http://www.primus.com/staff/paulp/useless.html Lines: 25 Message-ID: <43l9ek$pgi@news.cerf.net> References: <4kLQW6O00WBMA6UGsb@andrew.cmu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: nic.cerf.net In article <4kLQW6O00WBMA6UGsb@andrew.cmu.edu> Martin Rimm writes: >I noticed several posts to this newsgroup which are alleged to have been >posted by me from this account. This is simply incorrect. The posts were >forged. Please do not assume that comments which appear to have >originated from this account in fact originated from me. And we know that THIS post isn't forged because ... ? And we know you aren't just trying to deny responsibility for the previus posts after feeling stupid because ... ? Heard of PGP, Marty? I know you'd be thrilled about any effort to criminalize it, but that shouldn't preclude you from using it to verify the origin of posts purporting to come from you. People that are widely disdained often use it, as they are among the most likely to attract forgers. -PSP -- "You have no idea what a REAL hatchet job is: you don't _understand_ the meaning of savage. My lynching has been more savage and more personal than any other in the history of the Net." -- poor misunderstood Marty[r] Rimm, alt.internet.media-coverage >From rnewman@kalypso.cybercom.net Tue Sep 19 11:02:54 PDT 1995 Article: 13047 of alt.internet.media-coverage Xref: netcom.com alt.internet.media-coverage:13047 Path: netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.cybercom.net!kalypso.cybercom.net!not-for-mail From: rnewman@kalypso.cybercom.net (Ron Newman) Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage Subject: Re: Advisory to mainstream media observers Date: 18 Sep 1995 23:13:20 -0400 Organization: Cyber Access Internet Communications, Inc. Lines: 11 Message-ID: <43lcgg$ebd@kalypso.cybercom.net> References: <4kLQW6O00WBMA6UGsb@andrew.cmu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: kalypso.cybercom.net In article <4kLQW6O00WBMA6UGsb@andrew.cmu.edu>, Martin Rimm wrote: >I noticed several posts to this newsgroup which are alleged to have been >posted by me from this account. This is simply incorrect. The posts were >forged. Please do not assume that comments which appear to have >originated from this account in fact originated from me. How can we be sure that this message originated from you, Marty? -- Ron Newman rnewman@cybercom.net Web: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/home.html >From tskirvin@arh0062.urh.uiuc.edu Tue Sep 19 11:03:00 PDT 1995 Article: 13048 of alt.internet.media-coverage Xref: netcom.com alt.internet.media-coverage:13048 Path: netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!arh0062!tskirvin From: tskirvin@arh0062.urh.uiuc.edu (Tim Skirvin) Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage Subject: Re: Advisory to mainstream media observers Date: 19 Sep 1995 03:57:33 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Lines: 14 Message-ID: <43lf3d$kku@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> References: <4kLQW6O00WBMA6UGsb@andrew.cmu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: arh0062.urh.uiuc.edu Martin Rimm writes: >I noticed several posts to this newsgroup which are alleged to have been >posted by me from this account. This is simply incorrect. The posts were >forged. Please do not assume that comments which appear to have >originated from this account in fact originated from me. Use PGP. If you want security, that's about the only safe way. - Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@uiuc.edu) -- Skirv's Homepage >From sethf@mit.edu Tue Sep 19 11:03:30 PDT 1995 Article: 13059 of alt.internet.media-coverage Xref: netcom.com alt.internet.media-coverage:13059 Path: netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.mathworks.com!panix!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!sethf From: sethf@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage Subject: Re: Advisory to mainstream media observers Date: 19 Sep 1995 06:25:36 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 17 Message-ID: <43lnp0$1mq@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> References: <4kLQW6O00WBMA6UGsb@andrew.cmu.edu> Reply-To: sethf@mit.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: frumious-bandersnatch.mit.edu In article <4kLQW6O00WBMA6UGsb@andrew.cmu.edu> Martin Rimm writes: >I noticed several posts to this newsgroup which are alleged to have been >posted by me from this account. This is simply incorrect. The posts were >forged. Please do not assume that comments which appear to have >originated from this account in fact originated from me. "It was a forgery". This is the oldest trick in the net.book. Do you (Rimm or not) think anyone is going to take this seriously? Maybe the above is a forgery. I'll point out that last article certainly sounded like the Rimm I know. Are we going to be treated to a tactic of conflicting claims of forgery, in a futile attempt to substitute confusion for criticism? It won't work. -- Seth Finkelstein sethf@mit.edu Disclaimer : I am not the Lorax. I speak only for myself. (and certainly not for Project Athena, MIT, or anyone else). --- (visigoth@ANDREW) (strange.things) [19-Sep-1995, 14:56] (context) Here's the info from the message-id and filename for the first message. `MkKurli00iWPQ9Nmcy'': generated 17 Sep 1995 at 1:11:13 EDT from PCS30.ANDREW.C MU.EDU ([128.2.232.155]), pid 2407, ctr (mod 256) of 42. `AkKwHly00UfB81Opkt'': generated 17 Sep 1995 at 2:49:21 EDT from BB5.ANDREW.CMU .EDU ([128.2.10.205]), pid 363, ctr (mod 256) of 92. Unless he's very, very clever, there should be no way someone could fake the andrew authentication lines if it's from an andrew host. V (visigoth@ANDREW) (strange.things) [19-Sep-1995, 14:59] (context) Here's the second message: `EkL0ocW00iVDA182Y='': generated 17 Sep 1995 at 7:57:28 EDT from PCS27.ANDREW.C MU.EDU ([128.2.232.79]), pid 288, ctr (mod 256) of 41. `IkL1WUm00UfB02z4UN'': generated 17 Sep 1995 at 8:46:24 EDT from BB5.ANDREW.CMU .EDU ([128.2.10.205]), pid 764, ctr (mod 256) of 72. V (visigoth@ANDREW) (strange.things) [19-Sep-1995, 15:00] (context) And the last, which he claims is the only real one: `kkLUWja00UfBMLoRQE'': generated 18 Sep 1995 at 20:02:55 EDT from BB5.ANDREW.CM U.EDU ([128.2.10.205]), pid 6097, ctr (mod 256) of 215. `4kLQW6O00WBMA6UGsb'': generated 18 Sep 1995 at 15:29:10 EDT from PCS8.ANDREW.C MU.EDU ([128.2.35.88]), pid 1665, ctr (mod 256) of 46. Looks mighty similar, unless he's stupid enough to let other people use his account. ### From declanm@netcom.com Tue Sep 19 16:27:48 1995 Return-Path: Received: from po8.andrew.cmu.edu by mail3.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id OAA15709; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 14:35:23 -0700 Received: (from postman@localhost) by po8.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA06789; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 17:36:19 -0400 Received: via switchmail for fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 17:36:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 17:35:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from netcom22.netcom.com (netcom22.netcom.com [192.100.81.136]) by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA06744 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 17:35:29 -0400 Received: by netcom22.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id OAA16609; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 14:32:22 -0700 Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 14:32:21 -0700 (PDT) From: D B McCullagh Sender: D B McCullagh Reply-To: D B McCullagh Subject: Marty Admits He Made Posts To: fight-censorship@andrew.cmu.edu Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: I just found out from Lillie Wilson -- who wrote the Trib article quoting from Marty's posts -- that Marty admitted yesterday morning that the posts were his. He told this to Don Hale, CMU's VP for University Relations. Don passed on this message to the Trib, along with Marty's refusal to be interviewed. But by 3:30 pm yesterday, Marty posted saying the messages weren't his. Why? To establish plausible deniability after the article ran? Perhaps he'll claim that Don misunderstood him. -Declan