BETTER than the SUPER BOWL (MacRae vs. Conrad)

Ed Conrad (
Wed, 08 Jan 1997 07:02:49 GMT

On Tues., Jan. 7, 1997, Andrew MacRae (
wrote to in response to Ed Conrad's posting entitled,
``Why Andrew MacRae's opinion LACKS CREDIBILITY," and
Ed Conrad now responds to at least a part of Andrew's response:

Andrew MacRae's response
-- ``Re: Why Andrew MacRae's opinion LACKS CREDIBILITY (LONG)" --
can be found on

Please go there first, then return here, which is why I've dubbed my
response to his response:

>>>> ED'S TURN AT BAT (finally!)

On Tue, 07 Jan 1997, Andrew MacRae (
wrote a long and windy (hot air) response to my posting and, the way
I figure it, it's probably going to require a 14-part series to answer

All I can do is try (although I fear my response might be somewhat


>: In article <>,
>: Ed Conrad wrote:

>: Why did you switch providers, Ed? This is your chance
>: to set the record straight. People were speculating quite a bit
>: over the Christmas holiday.

The fact is, Andrew, Prolog (PenTelData based in Palmerton, Pa.)
had terminated my services -- unjustly and quite improperly when all
factors are taken into consideration.

Joann Norwood, Customer Service, informed me in an Email dated Nov.
27, 1996 that it had been receiving ``multiple complaints from users
of our service . . . from sci.groups . . . of harassment. Please
review the FAQs before posting . . .
``Any further complaints will result in the immediate termination of
your service. Please contact this office if you have any questions."

I phoned Ms. Barwood twice, on two different days, but both times
was told she was out of the office.

I left a message for her to return my call the first time, which she
failed to do. The following day I was told she wouldn't be in until 1
p.m. so I left another message, stressing that my phone call was
urgent and emphasizing the importance that she return the call
immediately upon receiving the message. She never did.

I simply wanted to explain that the sci.groupers were ganging up
on me -- as indeed they have been, and still are. But, most
importantly, I wanted to point out that if Prolog were to check the
dates of postings by various individuals, it would quickly learn that
the very people who were complaining about being harassed actually had
been responsible in a large way for institigating it.

Ms. Barwood never had the courtesy to return either call, so I never
had an opportunity to explain anything to her (to explain to her

Lo and behold, two weeks went by and I received a snail-mail letter
from Prlog, dated Dec. 13, 1996, in which Ms. Barwood wrote:


Re: Termination of Account #007790
User Name: Ed Conrad

Dear Mr. Conrad:

This is to advise you that your above referenced account has been
terminanted for the following reasons:
Usernet abuse;
Flame bait;
Multiple complaints have been received.

Please contact our office if you have any questions regarding this

I phoned Prolog's office and asked for Ms. Barwood but this time was
asked who wanted to speak to her. Only then was I told she wasn't in.

I called back and once again had to say who was calling, then was told
once again that she wasn't available.

I wanted to inform Ms. Barwood that Prolog was playing the role of
both judge and jury in this matter. It had terminated my account
without even giving me an opportunity to defend myself, to present my
side of the story.

I also wanted to ask her why the Email warning had mentioned
harassment but that the letter informing me of the termination of my
account suddenly accused me of ``Usenet abuse" and ``Flame bait."

I believe Prolog is out of line and presently am seriously pursuing
legal action against PenTelData for violating my First Amendment
rights of free speech.

It is not that Prolog, or any other server, can terminate a client's
services but it must be done according to defined procedures of
operation -- some rules of law -- which unfortunately apparently are
still unclear and rather vague on the Internet.

Common courtesy by Prolog, in Ms. Barwood's warning letter via Email,
would've been to mention all of these alleged ``abuses." This
certainly was NOT the case.

By outrageously terminating my account, Prolog failed to operate above
board in its dealing with a loyal, bill-paying client who apparently
had caused it no problems duirng the first year or so, since it never
had any cause to issue any previous warnings .

It sort of reminded me of the sad, deplorable state of affairs
involving the publishing fiasco pitting the incredibly powerful
scientific establishment against Immaneul Velikovsky in 1950.

Even before Velikovsky's stirring, sensational book, ``Worlds in
Collision," was published, academicians and scientists -- denizens of
today's ``sci.groups" -- threatened the MacMillan publishing house
that it would exercise its forceful influence to assure that colleges
and universities across the country would refuse to purchase its
scientific textbooks if it didn't (1) cancel its plans to publish the
book, or (2) rid itself of the title if the presses had begun rolling.

Gutless MacMillan bowed to the intimidation and, even though ``Worlds
in Collision" was greeted with wide acclaim and meteorically rose to
No. 1 on the New York Times' Best Seller List, it transferred the
publishing rights, free of charge, to rival publisher Doubleday (not
a publisher of scientific textbooks).
>>> The followings will be a permanent fixture
>>> at the tail end of all 14 parts of this series
>>> of responses to Andrew MacRae's tearjerker:

>: Andrew MacRae's get-tough paragraph:
>I now expect some sort of public acknowledgement
>that you have erred. I know an apology is too much
> to ask for, but your usual tactic of slinking away and
>hoping people forget about your insults is not acceptable in
>this instance. The error is too obvious and the accusations
>too serious. Please defend your accusations or withdraw
>them, preferably before another month has expired.

You do not deserve an apology and definitely will not get
You are no better than the rest of the pathetic crew of pseudo
scientists I have had to deal with over these past 15-16 years,
the majority totally defiant of the advice about honest scientific
investigation offered so eloquently by good ol' Thomas Alva Edison:

>> ``The right to search for the truth
>> implies also a duty; one must not
>> conceal any part of what one has
>> recognized to be true."

My two specimens, which you had examined and tested in your
laboratory, are indeed petrified bone. Nothing you can EVER say
or do will turn them into rocks or concretions.


Meanwhile, I once again remind you of the editorial in The
Princetonian in February 1964, responding to the deplorable tactics
that had been employed by the academia in opposition to Velikovsky's
eye-opening masterpiece, ``Worlds in Collision":

>> ``What the Velikovsky affair made crystal clear . . .
>> is that the theories of science may be held not only
>> for the truth they embody, but because of the vested
>> interests they represent for those who hold them."

> Ed Conrad (
> Home page (actually Ted Holden's):
> and

> Disclaimer: I, Ed Conrad, am solely responsible for any statements
> that I make which for some strange reason always seem to ruffle
> a lot of scientific feathers.