From: cza@troy.uucp (22141-akgun)
Subject: Re: What kind of people are Turks?
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Navesink, NJ
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 21:05:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.093405.634@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning) writes:
>
>Mutlu lost his account at AT&T because he forged an address that belonged to
>another company, namely sarp@aic.com, a registered domain belonging to a
>company called Analysts International, and used it to post post his usual
>inflammatory and insulting material. When the Sys Admin at AIC found someone
>was making unauthorised use, he, the sysadmin, posted an apology to the net
>pointing out that these (the Mutlu) postings didn't come from aic.com.
>
>The result? Mutlu attacked him in his usual style referring to him as 
>'gum brain' and various other insults, the sysadmin lodged a formal complaint
>with AT&T, which was the source of these forgeries, and Mutlu lost his account.
>
>Mutlu brought all this on himself by his stupid forging, 
>no one, other than
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the people whose domain was being forged, used AT&T against him.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>

I am not aware of this story.  it might be the case that
AIC was the last drop to spill the bucket of water.  
I want to belive this "no one other than whose domain was
being forged, used AT&T against him" part but I cannot.  Why do you 
think he had to use his own means and get tangled up with AIC at the 
first place to reach the usenet?  However, you seemed to know a lot (as 
insider information I would say) what happened to Mutlu's account 
in AT&T.  Were you taking any part as "no one" in ganging up affair on 
Mutlu too?  The only think I remember from the message by AIC sys. 
administrator was the declaration that Mutlu was not their 
user and the node that Mutlu adopted as his machine did not belong 
to them.  Postmaster did not accuse him using their machines by 
forging anything.  Only dispute was the domain name "aic.com" which 
was registered by the company "AIC" not by Mutlu.  I know why Mutlu 
wanted to use this name (he told me at that time).  Initials were 
important to him for a personal reason.  I don't know how big crime 
has that been when Mutlu was in the position to show no malicious 
intend in his part (based on what I have heard from him when I met 
Mutlu last April in Chicago).  He also told me the names who were 
constantly complaining to his postmaster even he was not crossposting 
nowhere near today.  I think (I am not so sure 100%, I may recall wrong
what Mutlu told me), you were in that list given to Mutlu by AT&T 
postmaster as major complainers on what Mutlu posts and his style.  
If I am wrong your being in that list, I will take every word back
what I am about to say now.  However, if you complained, I don't 
understand why you say "no one" used AT&T against Mutlu postings.
I recall that you were dealing with his style very well in
your responds.  Also, I am sure you could ignore him via KILL files
if you did not like his style.  I also remember your rebel rousing 
anouncements in this very network to teach people how Mutlu can be 
silenced via complaints to his postmaster.  I even responded to one 
of them too.  

SInce you have the information above which was not a public information
(at least to my knowledge and Mutlu has never revealed publicly how his
AT&T account close), it is a strong evidence that you were in touch 
either with AT&T postmaster or with AIC's postmaster.  I bet you were 
defending Mutlu's right to post if you were talking those postmaster 
on his behalf.  Of cource this is my assumption.  That is why I asked 
the question above.  If, either or both postmasters explained how 
Mutlu's posting privilege was suspended (I certainly missed this 
revelation), I will take my accusation back and apologize.

C. Akgun