era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (03/12/88)
Ever notice that in rec.humor you can avoid offensive postings because there is a warning in the header, but in soc.women there is no freedom of speech, and you cannot choose what you wish to read and avoid abusive postings, because the headers deliberately do not contain warnings? Ever wonder why? The answer is that the techies who wrote the usenet software, maintain it, are the majority of net readers, and are the only ones with the power to enforce standards, are not willing to enforce any standards in noise groups, or to permit technical status to a group involving women or human rights. These are the same kind of guys who take time off from developing nuclear weapons to molest children or harass women, but are mostly incapable of human relationships. And the offensive postings are not always from sexist males. Sometimes they are from lesbian sadomasochists, women who emulate only one aspect of stereotypical male behavior, that is, the absolutely worst behavior of the absolutely worst men in society, those who abuse women, in order to prove how women-identified they are, and because men will not permit them equality in any other arena. If you can't avoid abuse here, I don't believe you can avoid abuse in any other aspect of your life. And there is absolutely no way to enforce the same standards here that are enforced in comp. and rec. groups because the patriarchy considers computers and recreation worthwhile but does not consider women worthwhile. Well, you can always use your 'n' key to avoid abusive postings, IF you were warned by the header, which is NEVER the case in this group. And there is no way to establish a group where women would not be subjected to abuse, because the techies are so good at breakins, forgeries, using pseudos and copying people's writing styles, etc. They're good at it because nothing is more important to them than abusing women. In the Spring/Summer '88 issue of _Changing Men_, John Stoltenberg, cofounder of Men Against Pornography, explains that, "You can't fight homophobia and protect the pornographers at the same time." Stoltenberg defines porn as the exploitation and eroticism of sexual discrimination, and argues that you cannot fight homophobia while leaving male supremacy and misogyny in place. I've often wondered why people defend porn with such hysteria, but are not equally angry when the rights of women are denied. Maybe they could live very well without women, so long as they had porn, but cannot survive in a world where women exist unless they have porn to perpetuate stereotypes and make them feel superior. --Mark
spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) (03/12/88)
In article <7614@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (Mark Ethan Smith) laments: > >The answer is that the techies who wrote the usenet software, maintain >it, are the majority of net readers, and are the only ones with the >power to enforce standards, are not willing to enforce any standards >in noise groups, or to permit technical status to a group involving >women or human rights. > >These are the same kind of guys who take time off from developing >nuclear weapons to molest children or harass women, but are >mostly incapable of human relationships. Ooops, you forgot to mention that we beat old people, ridicule the handicapped, and direct an international movement to enslave women and minorities. We also kick puppies and kittens and spit on our parents. Yeah, that's the ticket! We even litter sometimes -- on purpose! Once again, Mark, you alone with your unbiased, clear vision of reality have seen to the heart of the matter. We are exposed at last! (Oh my, that was obviously a thinly veiled sexist comment, yet more proof of the vile cunning of the international male conspiracy!). Gee, I'm so embarassed that Mark has recognized the true nature of the majority of people maintaining and using the net and that I'm one of them. We're obviously cruel, evil, sick individuals -- why, we don't agree with MES! Now that we're exposed, we'll have to call the cabal together to find another way to deny Mark an account. There is no way to discredit those balanced, rational, fact-filled postings Mark makes so often, so we must deny Mark the forum to make them! After all, the net *is* real life, and we don't want any more postings showing how Mark has discerned our true nature, right? I'd abase myself and my colleagues more, but I've got to go molest some children and degrade some women (and vice versa). It's the only way I can relax -- I get so peevish trying to teach those juniors and seniors how to use semaphores and critical sections so they can construct fusion devices for their homework. If only I didn't alienate every human being I've ever met.... maybe it's the sadomasochistic lesbians I hang out with? (See, another thinly veiled dangler remark!) -- Gene Spafford Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004 Internet: spaf@cs.purdue.edu uucp: ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spaf
mazur@inmet (Beth Mazur) (03/13/88)
# And the offensive postings are not always from sexist males. Sometimes
# they are from lesbian sadomasochists, women who emulate only one
# aspect of stereotypical male behavior
Like the lesbian masochist said "Beat me, whip me", and the lesbian sadist
said "no"?
--
Beth Mazur
{ihnp4, ima, mirror}!inmet!mazur
mazur@inmet.combrunner@sri-spam.istc.sri.com (Thomas Eric Brunner) (03/13/88)
In article <7614@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (Mark Ethan Smith) writes: > <lots of stuff about how rotten people are, motivation for design of current and past news software, etc, deleted> > >These are the same kind of guys who take time off from developing >nuclear weapons to molest children or harass women, but are >mostly incapable of human relationships. > >--Mark Dear Mark, There are two of us on the net (Bay Area) who are in real life accused of molesting children, our own in fact, by our former spouses. To you the issue is a play thing, to us it is not. We don't get to see our kids, ever. I assume that you are trying to think of the vilest behavior, citing weapons, molestation, and sexual harassment. To be frank, using a child as an object to injure via custody denial seems more depraved to me than the acts of an uncontrolled, ill mind, male or female. Please try again to make what ever socio-software point you have, without making the tastless gaff you blithly tossed off in cross posting to news.admin. Do also see Gene's remarks. If you wish to persist in making public allegations that the "backbone cabal" are child molesters, I want you to know that at least two people on the net will be deeply and personally upset. -- (if UK, reverse domains). \teb spam's news administrator in gds' absence (Germany)
wnp@killer.UUCP (Wolf Paul) (03/14/88)
In article <7614@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (Mark Ethan Smith) laments: > >The answer is that the techies who wrote the usenet software, maintain >it, are the majority of net readers, and are the only ones with the >power to enforce standards, are not willing to enforce any standards >in noise groups, or to permit technical status to a group involving >women or human rights. > Whatever your opinion of the "techies", if they are, as you say, the majority of net readers, then it is perfectly normal in a democracy that they should be the ones to enforce standards. Also, keep in mind that without the techies and their usenet software (not to mention UNIX itself, and the hardware, etc -- all created by techies) there would be no USENET. Further, it is the techies who have to defend USENET to their employers' accountants, and it's nearly impossible to convince an accountant that a noise group is as useful as a technical discussion group. I am sure that CompuServe, Genie or the Source would be quite willing to carry such groups, and there everybody pays their own bills. -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: ihnp4!killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 INTERNET: wnp@EESDES.DAS.NET or wnp@dcs.UUCP TLX: 910-280-0585 EES PLANO UD One Austrian's Opinion: Waldheim must go!
jfh@killer.UUCP (The Beach Bum) (03/14/88)
In article <3681@killer.UUCP> wnp@killer.UUCP (Wolf Paul) writes: >In article <7614@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu >(Mark Ethan Smith) laments: >> >>The answer is that the techies who wrote the usenet software, maintain >>it, are the majority of net readers, and are the only ones with the >>power to enforce standards, are not willing to enforce any standards >>in noise groups, or to permit technical status to a group involving >>women or human rights. >> > >Also, keep in mind that without the techies and their usenet software >(not to mention UNIX itself, and the hardware, etc -- all created by techies) >there would be no USENET. >-- >Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 also, keep in mind it is the us techies, with our over-inflate salaries, being greedy and keeping all this money to ourselves by paying $200 a month phone bills out of our own pockets (rpp386 is supported by _me_, not my company), and spending hundreds of dollars on modems. and because we don't have any time for women or human rights, we spend hours and hours cleaning disk, juggling files, and screwing around with weird modems just so _you_ can fill them up, create new files, and tie up the phone lines. mark, if the `techies' really wanted you off the net, you'd be gone in a minute. the downstream feeds from violet and killer could expire all of your articles with very little effort. or the site administrators on violet and killer could compile news facist and just keep you out the easy way. or the administrators could leave the security on news nice and loose so a command like cd /netnews/news/soc/women ; rm `grep -l '^From: era@killer'` would simply remove your articles from the local machine. but instead, charlie and others have taken time out to look for people who have harrassed you, and insured that you will always have an account. - john. -- John F. Haugh II SNAIL: HECI Exploration Co. Inc. UUCP: ...!ihnp4!killer!jfh 11910 Greenville Ave, Suite 600 "You can't threaten us, we're Dallas, TX. 75243 the Oil Company!" (214) 231-0993 Ext 260
john@jclyde.UUCP (John B. Meaders Jr.) (03/15/88)
In article <7614@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes: > And the offensive postings are not always from sexist males. Sometimes > they are from lesbian sadomasochists, women who emulate only one > aspect of stereotypical male behavior, that is, the absolutely worst > behavior of the absolutely worst men in society, those who abuse > women, in order to prove how women-identified they are, and because > men will not permit them equality in any other arena. > You know Mark (or whatever the hell your name is) I am sick of reading your off the wall tirades. You are a sick individual and should be locked up in a mental institution forever. You attack anybody be they male, female, or perhaps primate (:-)). Give us all a break and go jump off the Golden Gate Bridge. Is there anybody your sick, paranoid mind doesn't perceive to be against you? Hell, if anybody says anything against you it's a damned conspiracy. (It's a communist plot against poor old Mark, waaahhh). > And there is no way to establish a group where women would not be > subjected to abuse, because the techies are so good at breakins, > forgeries, using pseudos and copying people's writing styles, > etc. They're good at it because nothing is more important to them > than abusing women. > > --Mark Who wants a group where your sick ass will be the moderator? Does anybody else want to be subjected to Mark's mindless, blithering attacks? In closing, Mark, I think you are the craziest bitch who has ever set foot on this planet. The rest of the world would applaud your incarceration in a mental institution away from all usenet access for the rest of time. Please flame silly woman (or "it" as the case may be), since I think it would highly entertaining to conduct warfare with you.
wv@whuts.UUCP (DUNCAN) (03/16/88)
In article <127@sulaco.UUCP> john@jclyde.UUCP (John B. Meaders Jr.) writes: >Mark, I think you are the craziest bitch who has ever set foot on this planet. >The rest of the world would applaud your incarceration in a mental institution >away from all usenet access for the rest of time. Please flame silly woman >(or "it" as the case may be), since I think it would highly entertaining to >conduct warfare with you. I think it's pretty obvious who has a problem here. Could you please direct this to email or something? Bill Duncan !ihnp4!whuts!wv
matt@oddjob.UChicago.EDU (Stop calling me Fred) (03/16/88)
Mark E. Smith has lost an adherent. I used to think Mark was an
abrasive person with some good points to make. Now I think Mark is
living in some other world.
era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (Mark Ethan Smith) writes:
) Ever notice that in rec.humor you can avoid offensive postings
) because there is a warning in the header, but in soc.women there
) is no freedom of speech, ...
This is eiher a non-sequitur or a new meaning of "freedom of speech".
Whom exactly has been prevented from speaking freely in soc.women?
) ... and you cannot choose what you wish to read
) and avoid abusive postings, because the headers deliberately do not
) contain warnings? Ever wonder why?
Doesn't selecting on the basis of author work?
) The answer is that the techies who wrote the usenet software, maintain
) it, are the majority of net readers, ...
You cannot possibly subscribe to the same reality that I do if you
think that the majority of net readers have helped to write or
maintain the usenet software.
) ... and are the only ones with the power to enforce standards, ...
NOBODY has the power to enforce standards, unless they can forbid
all usenet access to all violators. For instance, if standards were
enforceable in news.admin, your article could not have been posted
there.
) ... are not willing to enforce any standards
) in noise groups, or to permit technical status to a group involving
) women or human rights.
Wake up - there are groups that have what you call "technical status"
and which do involve women; women who are unix-wizards, women who
study AI, women who use C, Prolog, or Lisp, and so on.
I think you are disgruntled because you didn't get to create the
newsgroups you wanted. (I am one fascist repressive male pig-dog
taking time off from developing nuclear weapons who voted FOR one of
your two newsgroups. What do you make of that?) Why not do what
many others in your situation have done? Create a mailing list.
________________________________________________________
Matt University matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu
Crawford of Chicago {astrovax,ihnp4}!oddjob!mattpaul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (03/16/88)
I suppose it's time. Time to confess my techie roots, my affection for Tom Lehrer's "Masochism Tango", my long-time association with the Conspiracy to Rape and Pillage Everyone (CRAP). Mark has found me out. Her simplistic world-view has for once stumbled upon the truth: Men are really the Evil Empire, hell-bent on world domination through a better USENET. But I digress. It's time for me to get back to the schoolyard and whip some children for not selling their quota of crack to sado-masochistic trans-sexual lesbians. Paul Pomes Univ of Ill, CSO
bob@acornrc.UUCP (Bob Weissman) (03/16/88)
Can we all please stop following up and replying to postings of a
purely inflammatory nature? It only enourages the flamer to flame
all the more.
I believe -- read "hope" -- that if we all stop paying attention to
immature, inflammatory rantings, the ranter will eventually lose
interest.
We all agree that such postings are juvenile and worthless; to post
a message saying so is preaching to the choir.
"Just Hit 'n'".
--
Bob Weissman
Internet: bob@acornrc.uucp
UUCP: ...!{ ames | decwrl | oliveb | apple }!acornrc!bob
Arpanet: bob%acornrc.uucp@ames.arc.nasa.govsteve@slovax.UUCP (Steve Cook) (03/16/88)
in article <7614@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, era1987@violet.berkeley.edu says: > Xref: slovax soc.women:14965 soc.motss:4767 soc.men:4860 news.admin:1728 > > The answer is that the techies who wrote the usenet software, maintain > it, are the majority of net readers, and are the only ones with the > power to enforce standards, are not willing to enforce any standards > in noise groups, or to permit technical status to a group involving > women or human rights. > > These are the same kind of guys who take time off from developing > nuclear weapons to molest children or harass women, but are > mostly incapable of human relationships. > > --Mark So much hate is not good for the soul. Just what do you consider a techie?? Obviously in your mind they are all men. A little bit of gender stereotyping on your own ??? No wonder you changed your name. And obviously every woman in the world is perfectly capable of carrying on human relationships - only men are incapable of such an act. Thankfully your ideas do not represent even a tiny minority of the people in the world, else hate would surround us all. -- Steve Cook Hah... try to find me at {psivax,ism780}!logico!slovax!steve or at {hplsla,uw-beaver}!tikal!slovax!steve I dare you to, RDA will disavow all knowledge of me.
kjohanns@dasys1.UUCP (Karen Johanns) (03/16/88)
In article <127@sulaco.UUCP>, john@jclyde.UUCP (John B. Meaders Jr.) writes: > > > You know Mark (or whatever the hell your name is) I am sick of reading your > off the wall tirades. You are a sick individual and should be locked up in > a mental institution forever. You attack anybody be they male, female, or > perhaps primate (:-)). Give us all a break and go jump off the Golden Gate > Bridge. Is there anybody your sick, paranoid mind doesn't perceive to be > against you? Hell, if anybody says anything against you it's a damned > conspiracy. (It's a communist plot against poor old Mark, waaahhh). > > Who wants a group where your sick ass will be the moderator? Does anybody > else want to be subjected to Mark's mindless, blithering attacks? In closing, > Mark, I think you are the craziest bitch who has ever set foot on this planet. > The rest of the world would applaud your incarceration in a mental institution > away from all usenet access for the rest of time. Please flame silly woman > (or "it" as the case may be), since I think it would highly entertaining to > conduct warfare with you. While i would agree that there is much to take exception to in the original article posted by Mark, an article like this does much to prove that some of the points that Mark has taken may very well be correct. Not in the norm, but correct, perhaps. I mean after all, a person who in the content of just one article would: 1)Call a woman a bitch (if you take exception to articles written by Jews, Blacks, or Asians, do you call them silly kikes, spades, and slants?) 2)Suggest that Mark commit suicide (the probable end result of jumping off the Golden Gate bridge) 3) Assume that the entire world would be happy if Mark were to be incarcerated in a mental institution (I must have been in the ladies room when ya'll came to this consensus) 4) Invite her to engage in "warfare" with you on the net (my, aren't we bad?) Suggests that, lesbian sadomasochists aside, Mark may just have a point when she talks about sexist males who don't know how to behave crashing into soc.women and creating an uproar. Your article had a parallel tone to Marks,' and proved nothing except the premise that he can be right sometimes about the conduct of men on the net. -- Karen Johanns Big Electric Cat Public Unix {bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!kjohanns "Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore."
jenkins@cs.purdue.EDU (Colin Jenkins) (03/17/88)
In article <3412@dasys1.UUCP> kjohanns@dasys1.UUCP (Karen Johanns) writes: [In response to an ill-advised article by john@jclyde.UUCP (John B. Meaders Jr.)] >While i would agree that there is much to take exception to in the >original article posted by Mark, an article like this does much >to prove that some of the points that Mark has taken may very well >be correct. Not in the norm, but correct, perhaps. I wasn't thrilled with Meaders' posting either, however it should be pointed out that the original poster insisted that her ignorant claims about men WERE the norm, which is incorrect. If she hadn't taken a stab at these people in what should be recognized as THEIR newsgroup (consistant with the popular soc.women criteria) and cross posted it all over the place, no one would be flaming in soc.women. >I mean after all, a person who in the content of just one article >would: [Lots of good points] Well, Meaders' gave as good as was gotten. That doesn't make it right, but it shouldn't come as a surprise either. If you bully someone and take a stab at them you need to be ready to take the heat. Unfortunately, the readers of soc.women don't deserve to suffer the heat. Criticising the attacked as an aggressor rather than pointing the finger at the attacker isn't going to be conducive to maintaining the peace though. I would suggest that all such postings be ignored. Both people are looking for someone to upset, and judging by the responses (not just yours, Karen) they were succesful. If you give them what they want, they will probably just continue their inane insults waiting for more to take the bait. >Karen Johanns Colin
trudel@topaz.rutgers.edu (Jonathan D.) (03/17/88)
In article <7614@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes: > power to enforce standards, are not willing to enforce any standards > in noise groups, or to permit technical status to a group involving > women or human rights. By default, a noise group contains noise. To expect anything else from them is pointless. If, however, you or anyone else, wish to form a moderated forum to discuss women's issues, you are welcome to propose such a group. The guidelines for creating a new group ARE available to all. I'm surprised that you, Mark, neglected to mention the feminist mailing list. Why not? You WERE an active member. It is run by a woman, so you shouldn't be fearful of censure by men. There you already have a place where women can post without fear of direct intimidation. Why not use it? > And there is no way to establish a group where women would not be > subjected to abuse, because the techies are so good at breakins, > forgeries, using pseudos and copying people's writing styles, > etc. Once again, I mention the mailing list. Heather is a great moderator. Heather is wonderful at keeping the abusive and nasty people at bay. Jon
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith, Knowledgian) (03/19/88)
trudel@topaz.rutgers.edu (Jonathan D.) writes:
< I'm surprised that you, Mark, neglected to mention the feminist
< mailing list. Why not? You WERE an active member. It is run by a
...
...
...
< Once again, I mention the mailing list. Heather is a great moderator.
< Heather is wonderful at keeping the abusive and nasty people at bay.
Uh, if Heather keeps abusive and nasty people at bay, then how will
Mark get on the mailing list? Many of the postings of Mark seem to
be nasty and abusive.
--
Tim Smith tim@ism780c.isc.com
"History is made at night. Character is what you are in the dark"bcs212@vader.UUCP (03/21/88)
In article <3412@dasys1.UUCP>, kjohanns@dasys1.UUCP (Karen Johanns) writes: > In article <127@sulaco.UUCP>, john@jclyde.UUCP (John B. Meaders Jr.) writes: > > > > > You know Mark (or whatever the hell your name is) I am sick of reading your > > off the wall tirades. You are a sick individual and should be locked up in > > a mental institution forever. You attack anybody be they male, female, or You know, this silliness has been going on for about 3 weeks right now... I think we should come up with a mutually agreeable meeting place, say - how about Wrestlemania IV at Trump's Plaza in Atlantic City, hand out Uzis and oh, six or seven clips, and let you blow each other away (film at 11). Isn't about time that everyone realizes that there are people out there who try to play by the unwritten rules of common decency and that there are others who don't give a damn and try to be patently offensive for the sheer pleasure of raising the blood pressure of others. Personally, I don't care what you all do with or to each other. As I recall, by "n" and "K" keys work quite well here in the wonderful world of vnews. However, while you're ripping each other and the cooperative network that made all this ripping possible, how about taking the conversation elsewhere, OK ??? It may be hard to believe, but I'm administering news as part of my job, not for a giggle. I read news.admin to learn how to do my job better so I can keep the above mentioned job and put food on the table. I don't have the time or the inclination to read this stuff any more. It was funny at first, then mildly amusing, now it's getting a little sily isn't it ? Move your tirades to an appropriate group (please). Vince
CXH@PSUVMA.BITNET (03/22/88)
BRAVO!!!!! HIP! HIP HOOOORAH!!!!!!!! WELL SAID, I COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT
BETTER MYSELF!!!!!!! LOCK UP THE SICKOgds@spam.istc.sri.com (03/23/88)
Mark, if you are the recipient of harrassment from male netnews administrators, and you firmly believe that they are abusing their spouses, children, etc., I suggest you take it up with the police and/or the employers of said administrators, with carefully gathered evidence. If you are correct in your beliefs, these persons will be legally removed from the net and/or the public, and will no longer be a threat to the rest of us. Otherwise, just complaining about it on the net, with seemingly unfounded accusations, is a waste of net bandwidth, and will undoubtedly provoke those who disagree with you to engage in flames with you, provoking others to flame, ad nauseam, whether these flames are deserved or not. In addition, it won't solve anything. --gregbo
era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (03/25/88)
In article <338@dsinc.UUCP>, bcs212@vader.UUCP writes: > > However, while you're ripping each other and the cooperative network > that made all this ripping possible, how about taking the conversation > elsewhere, OK ??? It may be hard to believe, but I'm administering new s > as part of my job, not for a giggle. I read news.admin to learn how t o > do my job better so I can keep the above mentioned job and put food on > the table. I don't have the time or the inclination to read this stuf f > any more. It was funny at first, then mildly amusing, now it's gettin g > a little sily isn't it ? In <23395@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> in soc.women, robinson@ernie.berkeley.edu (Michael Robinson) writes: >As you've said, this is a public forum, a well-established public forum , and >one which has a definite focus and purpose. The question I raise is sh ould >this forum, as a public forum, tolerate those participants who object t o the >existance of a forum with such a focus and purpose, and whose objective it >is to disrupt or destroy this forum? In <8033@cisunx.UUCP> sppst@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu.UUCP (Sean P. Palmer) writes: > remember "Public" == Free Speech. Even though people may disagree >with others, we have no right to tell them to stop saying it....or >even where to stop saying it. Telling someone this is flat out WRONG. Bit of a difference of opinion here, eh chaps? Vince, I can see how deliberate disruptions can try your patience when you are getting paid to administer news. Can you see how they can try the patience of those whoo are PAYING to access news? --Mark