era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (06/18/87)
I have contacted the B'nai Brith Anti-Defamation League regarding the
sadistic personal attacks on me by AbdulRahman Dennis Lomax of the Well
(Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link). My relatives died in the gas ovens and
death camps of Nazi Germany, and I never told AbdulRahman that I would
work for Nazis--in fact I had no idea that the Well was a fascist
propaganda organ when I signed up. They fraudulently advertised as a
free speech, public access BBS.
As for my "disappearance," from places where I am subjected to sadistic
personal attacks, when AbdulRahman made sadistic attacks on me in public
conferences on the Well, I retreated to my own conference, when AbdulRahman
attacked me in my conference, and refused to leave at my request unless
I issued a formal banning statement, in which case AbdulRahman threatened
to sue me, I retreated to a private conference, but I never threatened
to sue the Well, as AbdulRahman has many times, and I didn't "disappear,"--
they pulled my password. I do not, however, have any obligation to
remain anyplace where I am subjected to sadistic personal attacks.
As to my having a credit card, yes, I have a credit card. Unfortunately,
I was the only single woman without children at home on the Well at that
time, and AbdulRahman who claims to have been married more than once, has
several children, and is apparently behind in child support, made strenuous
efforts to get me to turn over my credit card. I don't care if AbdulRahman
makes sadistic attacks on me on every BBS and network in the world, I will
*not* repeat NOT turn over my credit card to AbdulRahman and that's final.
As for pronouns, when you refer to a glass in Spanish as el vaso, you
use the masculine or inclusive pronouns because the word vaso has a
masculine or inclusive ending and pronouns follow the noun, not because
glasses have penises. And when you refer to a cup as la taza, you use
the feminine or diminutive pronouns because the word taza has a feminine
or diminutive ending, not because a cup has a uterus and ovaries.
I have been told by people still on the Well, that AbdulRahman is
continuing to make personal attacks on women there, and that they don't
dare pull AbdulRahman's password because of AbdulRahman's threats to sue them.
Obviously they can and do control what people say, since they did pull
my password. Obviously, if the threat of a law suit will stop them, I
did not threaten to sue them as AbdulRahman has on several occasions.
Moreover, Well hosts get free time, in return for which they are asked to
be courteous. AbdulRahman has never been courteous and has never been
required to abide by host rules. As far as I know, AbdulRahman continues
to get free time because AbdulRahman does not have a credit card and
cannot pay for connect time on the Well.
I hope that someday soc.women can become a moderated group so that
netiquette can be enforced and personal attacks not permitted. But I
would not like to see a man or an anti-feminist woman host soc.women.
Even AbdulRahman admitted that the federal courts granted me the right
to my name and to equal terms of address, but it is obvious that AbdulRahman
does not respect the laws of this country any more than AbdulRahman
respects netiquette or Well rules.
I apologize for posting this to the world, but since the defamation
about me was posted to the entire world, I feel that I must post my
response accordingly. I waited until my anger had subsided, but it will
never completely disappear until the personal attacks on me cease and
that may never happen. I'd like Sherry, Pat, aMAZon, Ellen Eades, Cheryl,
Valerie, or any other of the strong feminist women in soc.women to moderate
the group, and I hope that a woman who is more concerned with equal rights
than with forcing women to conform to the traditonal oppressive role
society has historically imposed on women, will volunteer to moderate
soc.women, so ad hominem attacks and postings not of concern to women
could be refused and therefore would have to be posted to soc.men.
Too many women have left the net due to the hostile atmosphere in soc.women.
If we are to encourage women to enter the male-dominated field of
telecommunications, we will have to make it a less hostile place.
--Markapc@cblpe.ATT.COM (Alan Curtis) (06/19/87)
In article <3995@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu () writes: > >I hope that someday soc.women can become a moderated group so that >netiquette can be enforced and personal attacks not permitted. But I >would not like to see a man or an anti-feminist woman host soc.women. > >I'd like Sherry, Pat, aMAZon, Ellen Eades, Cheryl, >Valerie, or any other of the strong feminist women in soc.women to moderate >the group, and I hope that a woman who is more concerned with equal rights >than with forcing women to conform to the traditonal oppressive role >society has historically imposed on women, will volunteer to moderate >soc.women, so ad hominem attacks and postings not of concern to women >could be refused and therefore would have to be posted to soc.men. > >--Mark I find it quite interesting that you, of all people, would be so openly hypocritical! You are trying to force your ideas on all women! What gives you the right to imply that only feminists are right? You go as far as to imply (I think) that only a feminist female can determine postings that are 'not of concern to women'! Do you mean that soc.women should be changed so soc.feminist? If your only motive for wishing that .women become moderated is to stop ad hominem attacks, then why must the moderator be a feminist female? I think any person would be just as capable of screening out personal attacks as anyone else, so why a feminist?. You obviously want to do just what you claim certain people on (in?) the WELL were doing: censoring! Just rember that not everyone agress with you, nor should everyone agree, but everyone should be able to speak! I do agree that the personal attacks gotta go (on BOTH sides!), but I do not see moderation (as in moderated group) as the solution. As another footnote, why moderate the group, for the moderation system does not work. Name the group, and if my site has it active, I can post to it. Approved: USA is free! -- "Are you sure you won't change your mind?" | Alan P. Curtis "Is there something wrong with the one I have?" | AT&T,BTL,CB -----------------------------------------------------| apc@cblpe.ATT.COM Copyright (c) 1987. Use for profit not allowed. | !cbosgd!cblpe!apc
abd@well.UUCP (AbdulRahman Dennis Lomax) (06/21/87)
I urge all readers of this group to refrain from adding to this debate. Though I speak only for myself, our experience on the Well was that the words will multiply without resolution, regardless of facts or reason. Personally, I welcome email. AbdulRahman Lomax P.O. Box 667 Fairfax, CA 94930
faigin@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Daniel P Faigin) (06/23/87)
Isn't it amazing how something can get out of control when people do not read the article they are replying to. For example: >In article <3995@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu () writes: >> >>I hope that someday soc.women can become a moderated group so that >>netiquette can be enforced and personal attacks not permitted. But I >>would not like to see a man or an anti-feminist woman host soc.women. Now, look closely at what Mark said: ... would not like to see a man or an anti-feminist woman host soc.women. Mark did not say: "I want a faminist to moderate." Mark suggests (and quite reasonably) that it does not make sense to have someone moderate soc.woman who has the capability to be "anti-feminist." I am sure that Mark would not object to a NEUTRAL person of either gender (afterall, names do not imply sexual orientation... right?) serving as moderator. >>I'd like Sherry, Pat, aMAZon, Ellen Eades, Cheryl, >>Valerie, or any other of the strong feminist women in soc.women to moderate >>the group From what I've read in soc.women, not ALL of these women are rabid feminists. See who offers to moderate it. >>and I hope that a woman who is more concerned with equal rights >>than with forcing women to conform to the traditonal oppressive role >>society has historically imposed on women, will volunteer to moderate >>soc.women What is wrong with having someone concerned with equal rights moderating. Note that Mark said "concerned".. not "strongly for". It is understandable that Mark does not want someone who wants "the traditional oppresive role" for women to moderate. What is needed is equality of presentation of viewpoints. >>so ad hominem attacks and postings not of concern to women >>could be refused This is the purpose of any moderator. >> and therefore would have to be posted to soc.men. I disagree with this. Maybe some of the postings shouldn't be posted at all. Then, in article <492@cblpe.ATT.COM>, apc@cblpe.ATT.COM (55212-Alan Curtis) replies: >I find it quite interesting that you, of all people, would be >so openly hypocritical! You are trying to force your ideas on all women! >What gives you the right to imply that only feminists are right? Don't you just love people who skim articles, pick up one word, and then flame. Read what you are replying to closely before you post. Mark didn't imply this. Mark felt that a neutral party without gender bias (or even with a slightly pro-women bias) would be the best to moderate. You read in the feminism, Mark didnt say it. >You go as far as to imply (I think) that only a feminist female can >determine postings that are 'not of concern to women'! And only a programmer can determine what is appropriate for comp.sources.misc. Or a handicapped person on the handicapped newsgroup. Or a lawyer for misc.legal. C'mon. It is, however, unlikely that a man could determine what is approprate for a women (I know, I'm married and still can't always figure out what my wife wants :-)). It is similarly true that a traditional-role-oriented female may not approve of the feminist postings. >Do you mean that soc.women should be changed so soc.feminist? I think there is already a mail.feminist. And Mark did not suggest changing the name of the group. >If your only motive for wishing that .women become moderated is to stop >ad hominem attacks, then why must the moderator be a feminist female? Read what Mark said: ... would not like to see a man or an anti-feminist woman host soc.women. Not Anti-Feminist != Feminist >I think any person would be just as capable of screening out personal attacks as >anyone else, so why a feminist?. Read what Mark said: ... would not like to see a man or an anti-feminist woman host soc.women. Not Anti-Feminist != Feminist > >You obviously want to do just what you claim certain people on (in?) >the WELL were doing: censoring! > This is the old argument against moderation. Moderation, in any for, can be viewed, if one wishes as censoring. The net, in its wisdom, has established a precident for moderating various groups to improve the S/N ratio. I have not seen any censorship suits. >Just rember that not everyone agress with you, nor should everyone agree, >but everyone should be able to speak! And Mark never said they can't. But people, please, be polite :-) >I do agree that the personal attacks gotta go (on BOTH sides!), Oh no, the demon censorship rears its ugly head again. :-) >but I do not see moderation (as in moderated group) as the solution. What is, then. Certainly not net.flame (although now that you mention it... nah, it'll never work). Personal control -- c'mon -- you know that won't work. Maybe we'll just have to hunt 'em down. [I know I left that gun on the rack somewhere... OK Twit, eat burning lead! Whoops, wrong twit. Meant to kill the AI program :-)] >As another footnote, why moderate the group, for the moderation system >does not work. In your opinion. I think it works quite well. > Name the group, and if my site has it active, I can >post to it. Then your site has its news control files screwed up, or you are running and old version of news. >Approved: USA is free! Cheater. Yes, there are some bugs in the moderation system. HONEST people don't exploit them :-). Daniel -- Work : UNiSYS/DS/System Development Group (formerly System Development Corp) 2525 Colorado MD 91-01;Santa Monica CA 90406;213/829-7511 x6393 Home : 8333 Columbus Avenue #17; Sepulveda CA 91343 Email: (uucp) faigin@sdcrdcf.UUCP (arpa) faigin%sdcrdcf.UUCP@CAM.Unisys.COM
apc@cblpe.ATT.COM (Alan Curtis) (06/25/87)
In article <4702@sdcrdcf.UUCP> faigin@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Daniel P Faigin) writes: >people do not read the article they are replying to. For example: >>In article <3995@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu () writes: >>>would not like to see a man or an anti-feminist woman host soc.women. > >Now, look closely at what Mark said: >... would not like to see a man or an anti-feminist woman host soc.women. > >Mark did not say: "I want a faminist to moderate." Mark suggests >(and quite reasonably) that it does not make sense to have >someone moderate soc.woman who has the capability to be >"anti-feminist." I am sure that Mark would not object to a >NEUTRAL person of either gender serving as moderator. > Read it again: She says "not a man or an anti-feminist woman". She does NOT say "not a anti-feminist man or woman". This I take (along with everyone else I have asked) to mean: not a male AND not a female who is anti feminist. As for you being sure mark would accept a male moderator, I must question that. In fact, with further "discussions" with mark, a male is 100% not-even-considered out. >>>I'd like Sherry, Pat, aMAZon, Ellen Eades, Cheryl, >>>Valerie, or any other of the strong feminist women in soc.women to moderate >>>the group > >I've read in soc.women, not ALL of these women are rabid feminists. To me, the phrase "or other strong feminist women" implies that ----- mark considers these people as what you term "rabid feminists". This reinforces that idea that marks wants only a feminist moderator. >>>so ad hominem attacks and postings not of concern to women >>>could be refused > >This is the purpose of any moderator. Agreed, but any open minded women could determine what was of concern to women, as long as they had HEARD of the feminist theory. I truely open minded women wouldn't have had to have heard of the theory before starting to moderate, they would be illunited real quick. >Then, in article <492@cblpe.ATT.COM>, apc@cblpe.ATT.COM (55212-Alan Curtis) >replies: > >>I find it quite interesting that you, of all people, would be >>so openly hypocritical! > >Don't you just love people who skim articles, pick up one word, >and then flame. Read what you are replying to closely before you >post. I did, are you sure you did? I very carefully went over the posting, and even have had reasons (many) to read it many times over the past few days. I still stick by my interpretation. >Mark didn't imply this. Mark felt that a neutral party without >gender bias (or even with a slightly pro-women bias) would be the >best to moderate. You read in the feminism, Mark didnt say it. I still think she did. >And only a programmer can determine what is appropriate for >comp.sources.misc. Or a handicapped person on the handicapped >newsgroup. Or a lawyer for misc.legal. C'mon. It is, however, >unlikely that a man could determine what is approprate for a >women (I know, I'm married and still can't always figure out what >my wife wants :-)). It is similarly true that a >traditional-role-oriented female may not approve of the feminist >postings. > and thus also true that a feminist may not approve of the traditional-role-oriented (TRO) female postings. I agree it works both ways, thus making the search for moderator return a null set for the group as currently chartered. I see no reason to pick feminist (ie anti-TRO) over a anti-feminist (ie TRO) >>If your only motive for wishing that .women become moderated is to stop >>ad hominem attacks, then why must the moderator be a feminist female? > >Read what Mark said: >... would not like to see a man or an anti-feminist woman host soc.women. >Not Anti-Feminist != Feminist If you think women should have equal rights then you are a feminist. If you think women should not have equal rights, then you are anti-feminist. Thus, (I believe) "Not Anti-feminist == Feminist" >Read what Mark said: >... would not like to see a man or an anti-feminist woman host soc.women. >Not Anti-Feminist != Feminist I guess saying it twice should convince me? Din`t work on me, so I won't try it one you. Is there a better newsgroup for this discussion? I doubt this is the "right" one, but I can't think of a better one right now. -- "Are you sure you won't change your mind?" | Alan P. Curtis "Is there something wrong with the one I have?" | AT&T,BTL,CB -----------------------------------------------------| apc@cblpe.ATT.COM Kudos to stargate for redistribution rights | !cbosgd!cblpe!apc