dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (04/06/84)
Nonsense! The list doesn't separate women from net.women. Women who are part of the list have also posted things to net.women recently - I suspect that the ones who posted before continue posting, and the ones who didn't post before continue not to. So what have you lost by the existence of the list? I get the strong impression that you believe that someone should either be willing to defend their views to the world, or be silent entirely. Why can there be no middle ground? Are there not things which you would discuss with a group of friends but would not proclaim to the world at large? And it isn't difficult, at least in theory, to "filter out the hostile ones", since 1) the hostile ones are likely to complain about the existence of the list rather than ask to be added to it ( ;-) ), and 2) one person handles distribution of articles, so it is trivial for her to reject an article from someone or to cease forwarding mail to that person altogether if she feels it necessary.
phil@amd70.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (04/06/84)
> From: mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP > > It is true that there are men on the mailing list also. The separation > is in one direction only. It does not separate men from the mailing list > but it seems to separate almost all women from net.women! Reason being that > almost all articles on net.women written by women are from a small number who > write regularly. No one's forcing anyone to do anything. If a person prefers to use one media over another, it must be because that media appears to be meeting the needs of that person better. As much as one may wish that others fill one's own wishes, they will probably fill their needs first. > The discussions which go on on the mailing list will reach a much smaller > group of people many of whom are not hostile or `irrational' flamers. > As the mailing list is expanded, it will be harder and harder to filter out > the hostile ones. With a moderated mailing list it is very easy to determine who submits and/or receives. > Isn't the mailing list at least a bit like staying > in the house for the fear of the rapist? Isn't this newsgroup like discussing calculus with first graders? -- Phil Ngai (408) 988-7777 {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amd70!phil
inc@fluke.UUCP (Gary Benson) (04/06/84)
Will somebody please include me on the "mailing list" for net.women.only? Our system administrator has decided not to let fluke recieve net.women.only, and as aregular reader and sometimes submitter to net.women, I have been very curious about the activity in .only. TIA -- From the ever smiling, .). ever happy fingers of: V Gary Benson + + John Fluke Mfg. Co. ILLEGITIMI NON CARBORUNDUM !fluke!inc + +
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (04/08/84)
Just had to put my two cents in...
I don't think one should expect to be *invited* to the mailing list. Are
any of us so special that we deserve such an invitation? Just ask - don't be
bashful.
Don't ask me, though, because I'm not on it. Nor do I want to be. The
reason is that I can't for the life of me take USENET seriously when I see
what gets submitted to it. It's just cheap (???) entertainment. That doesn't
mean I don't think people believe what they write, just that ultimately
it accomplishes nothing. People who regard USENET as a great experiment in
international communications I regard with amused tolerance.
Can a mailing list really be any different? What is a mailing list but
USENET with the obnoxious and iconoclastic left out? The former is good,
but the latter is a pity, and there's still plenty of room for the usual
silliness (including my own). No, thanks.
enjoying the open spaces,
Jeff Winslowcmgiuliani@watrose.UUCP (cmgiuliani) (04/09/84)
The mailing list is a private club. Nothing more and nothing less.
Membership seems to be decided by the existing members, with a strong
bias in favour of women and a strong bias against anyone given to a lot
of flaming.
The above is just my guess. Since I am not a member of the club, I don't
know much about it.
Nor do I wish to join the club.
Carlo @ the U of Waterloo
P.S. Haven't we beaten this to death by now?johans@mprvaxa.UUCP (David Johanson) (04/10/84)
discussions are extremely interesting to both myself an my wife. thanx in advance David johanson (mprvaxa!johans)
johans@mprvaxa.UUCP (David Johanson) (04/10/84)
<for those file eaters out there... I forgot to do this in my last submission> I would also like to added to this or any WOMENS ISSUES mailing list. I've found that both my wife and I enjoy have discussions on some of the issues raised in this group thanx in advance David Johanson (mprvaxa!johans)
mokhtar@ubc-vision.CDN (Farzin Mokhtarian) (04/11/84)
***
I never said that the mailing list is `seperatist'. I did say that it
causes seperation of the sexes. There is a difference between the two. Not
trying to be picky with words but one should be careful when a minor change
in wording can greatly increase the number of misinterpretations by people
who read it (some misinterpretation will always be there no matter how
careful one is).
It is true that there are men on the mailing list also. The seperation
is in one direction only. It does not seperate men from the mailing list
but it seems to seperate almost all women from net.women! Reason being that
almost all articles on net.women written by women are from a small number who
write regularly.
The discussions which go on on the mailing list will reach a much smaller
group of people many of whom are not hostile or `irrational' flamers.
As the mailing list is expanded, it will be harder and harder to filter out
the hostile ones (That is only if one assumes that a border line can be drawn
between hostile and not hostile. A lot of time could be wasted disputing that!)
Really
hostile flamers can be ignored if their comments don't deserve an answer and
besides, if there is flaming, there will also be support or constructive
criticisms from the net. Isn't the mailing list at least a bit like staying
in the house for the fear of the rapist?
Farzin Mokhtarian