lou@hoxna.UUCP (05/28/87)
In article <387@unisoft.UUCP>, jef@unisoft.uucp (Jef Poskanzer) writes: > > < jef's comments re curtis re MES deleted> > > >this person is nothing but a deliberate trouble-maker and attention hound. > > The above insinuation is revolting. What's most revolting is that he's making trouble and hounding attention in news.*, instead of soc.*, where it belongs. If I cared about this stuff, I'd carry soc.line_noise. So, why am I posting this? A suggestion: I think this whole brouhaha started over some questionable material in soc.women. Since having soc.women as an open group seems to result in an uncomfortable environment for its readers, and in spill-overs to other groups, I think soc.women should be *moderated*. Remember .women.only ? The moderator's job would be simple: No postings by men. Thus, no feminist vs. MCP flame wars. No cross-posted garbage. The women get a for,by,and about women newsgroup. Matter of fact, if it goes over, *I'd* volunteer for moderator. I mean this in all seriousness, and with no implied sexism or denigration of anyone. So flames>/dev/null. Lou Marco ps - Of course, people like MES would need a note from their SA attesting to their sex. Like for the Security mailing list....
rcj@clyde.UUCP (05/29/87)
In article <1446@hoxna.UUCP> lou@hoxna.UUCP ( L. Marco ) writes: }material in soc.women. Since having soc.women as an open group seems to }result in an uncomfortable environment for its readers, and in spill-overs }to other groups, I think soc.women should be *moderated*. Remember }.women.only ? The moderator's job would be simple: No postings by men. I suggested this when the renaming scheme started, got a good moderator acceptable to almost all factions (after a long search, I might add), but the problem turned out to be that the readers of soc.women overwhelmingly did NOT want their group moderated! The usual comment was that that was what the feminists mailing list was for. By the way, women posting only was never considered; even the feminists mailing list has male members. Lou, I agree this discussion shouldn't be here; if you're still interested in the idea drop me some mail and I'll send you the name and mailing address of the moderator I found to help you pursue the idea. The MAD Programmer -- 201-386-4295 (Cornet 232) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd allegra ]!moss!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua watmath ]!clyde!rcj
ems@apple.UUCP (05/29/87)
In article <1446@hoxna.UUCP>, lou@hoxna.UUCP ( L. Marco ) writes: > In article <387@unisoft.UUCP>, jef@unisoft.uucp (Jef Poskanzer) writes: > > > > < jef's comments re curtis re MES deleted> > > > > >this person is nothing but a deliberate trouble-maker and attention hound. > > > > The above insinuation is revolting. > > What's most revolting is that he's making trouble and hounding > attention in news.*, instead of soc.*, where it belongs. If I cared > about this stuff, I'd carry soc.line_noise. So, why am I posting this? > I would like to second this reaction. I don't know anything about the cause of this flamage. I don't know Mark E. Smith. I don't know what gender hesheit has (or does not have, or doesn't care about). I don't want to know anything about hisherit gender (or anything related to hisherit reaction to hisherit gender or other folks reaction to the reaction or ...) Can this garbage Please be moved back into soc.* so that news.* can have some rational content restored? > A suggestion: I think this whole brouhaha started over some questionable > material in soc.women. Since having soc.women as an open group seems to > result in an uncomfortable environment for its readers, and in spill-overs > to other groups, I think soc.women should be *moderated*. Remember From what little I have seen of Mark E. Smith's postings hesheit would find that an unacceptable restriction on hisherit's right to post whatever flamage came into hisherit's mind. While I generally find the idea of moderating news groups to be an anathema, I would support most anything that got the crud level down in this group ... > .women.only ? The moderator's job would be simple: No postings by men. Hmmm, just a side thought ... how long would a 'mens only' club (newsgroup) survive the feminist attack it would engender ? Why are men so willing to give women a space of their own, when women are so unwilling to reciprocate? I know this question really belongs in some other news group; but then so does this whole debate about MES... > Thus, no feminist vs. MCP flame wars. No cross-posted garbage. The > women get a for,by,and about women newsgroup. Matter of fact, if > it goes over, *I'd* volunteer for moderator. I mean this in all seriousness, > and with no implied sexism or denigration of anyone. So flames>/dev/null. > > Lou Marco > > ps - Of course, people like MES would need a note > from their SA attesting to their sex. Like for > the Security mailing list.... -- E. Michael Smith ...!sun!apple!ems 'If you can dream it, you can do it' Walt Disney This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)
gore@nucsrl.UUCP (05/29/87)
/ nucsrl:news.misc / lou@hoxna.UUCP ( L. Marco ) / 1:24 pm May 28, 1987 / >> >this person is nothing but a deliberate trouble-maker and attention hound. >> >> The above insinuation is revolting. > > What's most revolting is that he's making trouble and hounding >attention in news.*, instead of soc.*, where it belongs. [...] > >A suggestion: I think this whole brouhaha started over some questionable >material in soc.women. Since having soc.women as an open group seems to >result in an uncomfortable environment for its readers, and in spill-overs >to other groups, I think soc.women should be *moderated*. [...] But that would keep the noise out of soc.women, not out of the other groups. Jacob
benson@alcatraz.ksr.com (Benson Margulies) (05/31/87)
This is really quite a spectacle. Someone asks a sysop to pull mark's access to soc.women over a matter of so-called net ettiquette. That person might or might not have had a point. A discussion of the idea in net.misc is not an unreasonable result. The discussion moves here. A collection of selfrighteous flamers move their ready-at-the-drop-of-a-hat attacks on mark in here. (selfrighteous: omygodthenetisgodsgifttoallofusandifgodforbiditshouldgoaway itwillbetheendoftheworldsoletsstomponanyonewhodoesanythingcontroversialby ournarrowmindedstandards ) (usual disclaimer: I'm responding to what I've seen in this newsgroup, not anything that may have been said, done, aledged, or forged elsewhere or elsewhen.) Then the selfsame characters flame that mark is polluting news.misc. The attitudes on display here show that mark can't possibly add an increment of pollution to the net, at least on the subject of gender relations. When, and if, the people asking for this discussion to leave news.misc learn to stop tossing in gratuitous insults to mark, women, and feminists, then there is some chance that this discussion will go away. Until then, kiddies, find your j key. Because I for one consider it a net issue, not a soc issue, that people can in one line say "let's not talk about this in news.misc", and on the next say "feminists would never permit a men only newsgroup." I am in no position to speak for feminists in general, but I can tell you with great assurance that many feminists would be overjoyed to see men talking out their more unsavory beliefs where the feminists didn't have to see them. At the political principle goes: its the job of members of the opressing group to fix their heads, not the job of the oppressed to fix them for them. Benson I. Margulies Kendall Square Research Corp. harvard!ksr!benson All comments the responsibility ksr!benson@harvard.harvard.edu of the author, if anyone.