gazit@seer.usc.edu (Salit) (11/21/89)
The following posting was rejected by the moderators of soc.feminism:
# A follow up to article article <6634@columbia.edu> by Travis Lee
# Winfrey was sent to soc.men and alt.flame.
I would like to use this rejection to open a discussion about
moderated news groups.
The idea of moderated newsgroups is that if an article is not appropriate
(not to the subject, too flamy, etc.) then the moderator has the right to
reject the article. IMO the moderator should *always* post a follow up
information because:
1) It's not a flame. (Just a *pointer* to a flame...)
2) It gives people who wish to continue the discussion in some
other newsgroup the ability to move it.
3) People can read the follow up and see if they agree with
the moderator's policy.
I would like to carry a discussion about these points in news.groups.
#########################################################################
Another subject that I would like to discuss is the moderation policy of
soc.feminism. The moderators rejected to above article
but accepted articles like:
$This is typical of the 80s style of rhetoric where image is more
$important than substance. The white male with the big mouth who is
$still in college acts as if his observations are superior to the quiet
$woman who has had over 12 years of job experience. I know I need AA
In *their* opinion there is no personal attack in the above lines...
I think that the moderators don't apply uniform standards. They posted
personal attack against me, but reject even a two lines pointer to
my article.
I would like to debate their policy in alt.flame.
Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test man's
character, give him power.
-- Abraham Lincolntittle@alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle) (11/21/89)
This is a little long. I included excerpts from Hillel's postings to reply to his accusations. I am one of the moderators of soc.feminism, so there is, of course, some bias; however, I have tried to be fair. To put a little context behind Hillel's posting, it is necessary to realize that the last 4 or 5 of his postings, he has asked us to put different newsgroups as followups (which we did) and/or commented at the end of his posting that he felt discussion should continue in another newsgroup (and these postings were accepted). This last posting which was rejected came on the tail end of a thread where he had already tried to redirect it elsewhere. And he cannot hold us responsible for the soc.feminism readers that refuse to take the thread elsewhere and direct their postings back to s.f. Hillel writes: |The moderators rejected to above article [a one liner statine where a followup is going] |but accepted articles like: | |$This is typical of the 80s style of rhetoric where image is more |$important than substance. The white male with the big mouth who is |$still in college acts as if his observations are superior to the quiet |$woman who has had over 12 years of job experience. I know I need AA | |In *their* opinion there is no personal attack in the above lines... Technically, there isn't. It's a generalized attack on "white males". If you go back to Hillel's postings, you will see many similar expositions of his that we also posted. Some examples (all culled from the (publically available) October Archive): ----- $From: gazit@lear.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) $Subject: Re: Affirmative Action is Temporary $Message-ID: <15796@duke.cs.duke.edu> $ $>Should we simply give up, realizing that no solution is truly fair, thus $>writing off as hopeless the current imbalance and praying that everything $>works out on its own after two or three generations? I say we must fix the $>problem now, for not doing anything is also unfair. $ $Do you know how to solve the problem? $ $Why don't you start you experiment in one state and if it works (fat $chance...) move on? Why is it so important to you that if your sociological $theory is wrong you would screw up *everybody*? ----- $From: gazit@lear.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) $Subject: Re: how to bash feminism without really trying $Summary: You don't hear our suggestions because you keep your ears closed... $Message-ID: <15799@duke.cs.duke.edu> $ [In reply to Richard Shapiro] $When you have several people with similar qualification, $hire the one with the *lowest* current income. $ $If the feminist claim that a woman with the same qualification as a man $earns less then a law like this will give the same results as AA. $ $This idea was not very popular between the feminists, I hope that you're $smart enough to guess why... ----- $From: gazit@lear.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) $Subject: Re: Is Affirmative Action Sexist? $Message-ID: <15828@duke.cs.duke.edu> $ $In article <8910200344.AA29498@uunet.uu.net> writes: $>However, as one begins to think about the problem, there $>are certain taboos. For instance, one can conclude that, $>in a highly competitive society which also maintains rights $>of inheritance and other strong familial connnections, it $>is almost certain that inequality between categories of $>families will persist for many generations. $ $Let's assume that what you say is true (fat chance...) do you $see the main stream of feminism as part of the solution? [...] $>much. Most specifically, the power of existing elites may $>not be seriously disturbed. $ $The poor Jews who came 60 years ago succeeded in the American society. $The asians refugees who come today seem to have a similar success. $But people who know all the political theory can ignore these facts... [...] $>Thus, the surface fix which may work for racial minorities may $>not work for women, because it demands acceptance of an existing $>structure of things which some of them may be unwilling, or $>unable, to accept. $ $Would mind to start writing *clearly*? $How many is "some of them"? What can't women accept? ----- Hillel writes: |I think that the moderators don't apply uniform standards. They posted |personal attack against me, but reject even a two lines pointer to |my article. Hillel is, of course, unaware of the number of articles we have rejected that contained personal attacks on him. Of which there have been a good number. Soc.feminism is a place for debate and discussion, not a clearinghouse for listing the destination for arguments. And, as I have already mentioned, Hillel had already made it clear he was trying to move the discussion somewhere else. |I would like to debate their policy in alt.flame. I think this alone speaks volumes... I refuse to become engaged in a flame war. --Cindy -- "Why do they call it a word processor?" | ARPA: tittle@glacier.ics.uci.edu "Well, you've seen what a food processor | UUCP: ucbvax!ucivax!tittle does to food, haven't you?" | BITNET: cltittle@uci.bitnet
rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (11/21/89)
In article <1989Nov20.114024.22394@paris.ics.uci.edu> tittle@alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle) writes: > [several examples of flame-like language from Hillel, all of which > were accepted by the moderators] >Hillel writes: >|I think that the moderators don't apply uniform standards. They posted >|personal attack against me, but reject even a two lines pointer to >|my article. > >Hillel is, of course, unaware of the number of articles we have >rejected that contained personal attacks on him. Of which there have >been a good number. It's also worth pointing out something else here. The last time I checked, Hillel was the NUMBER ONE post'er to soc.feminism. Nobody had more articles or more total words. Obviously there's no personal prejudice against him. As Cindy points out, they have published articles by him which, by his own standards, could be regarded as inflammatory. I don't understand why he's suddenly crying "foul!". The official policy of the moderators is to accept any reasonable discussion of feminism. It seems to me that they've patiently and reliably stuck to the charter by adopting a VERY broad meaning of "reasonable". I don't see any lack of uniformity of standards here; they've simply chosen not to accept an article which was not any kind of discussion about feminism (reasonable or otherwise).
williamt@athena1.Sun.COM (William A. Turnbow) (11/21/89)
In article <21323@usc.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: >The following posting was rejected by the moderators of soc.feminism: ...........[deleted text].... -------------- When soc.feminism first came out I tried to read and post rational middle of the road replies. I quickly found most of my responses being dropped on the floor. I also learned that if I submitted it enough times, due to the random rotation of their moderation, I might eventually get a submitted response printed. It wasn't worth it. They didn't want middle of the road rhetoric, or fairness in dealing with men. As the quoted article you included exemplifed, they wanted a forum for man-bashing without men being allowed to participate (except for those men who had been through retraining and were willing to man-bash as well). The solution was and is still simple. Press 'u'. -wat- --- An it harm none, do what you will.
rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (11/21/89)
In article <128159@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@sun.UUCP (William A. Turnbow) writes: > They didn't want middle of the road rhetoric, or fairness in dealing >with men. As the quoted article you included exemplifed, they wanted >a forum for man-bashing without men being allowed to participate (except >for those men who had been through retraining and were willing to man-bash >as well). This is utter fantasy, and more than a little paranoid. Perhaps Mr Turnbow believes that feminism equals man-bashing; perhaps he believes this makes him "middle of the road"; perhaps he believes in Santa Claus. Well and good. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with soc.feminism, a group which has seen more (MANY more) anti-feminist articles than pro-feminist ones. The only bashing has been in your imagination, Mr Turnbow. Some of us know better than to be so terrified by feminism. Guess we've been "retrained", eh?
tittle@alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle) (11/21/89)
In article <128159@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, williamt@athena1 (William A. Turnbow) writes: |In article <21323@usc.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: |>The following posting was rejected by the moderators of soc.feminism: |...........[deleted text].... |-------------- | | When soc.feminism first came out I tried to read and post rational |middle of the road replies. I quickly found most of my responses |being dropped on the floor. I also learned that if I submitted it |enough times, due to the random rotation of their moderation, I might |eventually get a submitted response printed. It wasn't worth it. There was trouble at the beginning with getting articles. We were testing out for the first time software to enable multiple moderators. We posted a number of explanations during the shake-out period as to what was going on. I don't believe there is a problem any more -- we have not had any complaints about missing articles for some time now. | They didn't want middle of the road rhetoric, or fairness in dealing |with men. As the quoted article you included exemplifed, they wanted |a forum for man-bashing without men being allowed to participate (except |for those men who had been through retraining and were willing to man-bash |as well). Insofar as Hillel is one of the major posters to soc.feminism, unless you wish to designate him as a man-basher, I suggest that your perception is inaccurate. --Cindy -- So many worlds, so much to do, | ARPA: tittle@glacier.ics.uci.edu \ So little done, such things to be | BITNET: cltittle@uci.bitnet /\ --Tennyson | UUCP: {sdcsvax|ucbvax}!ucivax!tittle
mhnadel@gryphon.COM (Miriam Nadel) (11/21/89)
In article <21323@usc.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: >The following posting was rejected by the moderators of soc.feminism: > ># A follow up to article article <6634@columbia.edu> by Travis Lee ># Winfrey was sent to soc.men and alt.flame. > Hillel is leaving a few things out here. Specifically, he wrote an article about affirmative action and requested that followups be directed to soc.men. Travis decided to continue the discussion in soc.feminism; since his article was relevant to soc.feminism and did not contain personal attacks, it was posted. (He did state his dissatisfaction with soc.men. However, a personal attack is an attack against a person, not a group; hence, the comment was left in.) Hillel wrote a very lengthy article in response to this. In fact, this article was not rejected; rather, a rewrite was requested. Specifically, I asked him to remove approximately 100 lines of metadiscussion about where to have the discussion, speculation about Travis's politics, and general discussion about capitalism. Metadiscussion is specifically contrary to the netiquette guidelines and does nothing to further the discussion and talk.politics.misc exists for those who wish to argue about whether capitalism necessarily leads to insider trading. I also pointed out that posting to a newsgroup is not primarily intended to be a means of discussion between two individuals and if he were that concerned with specifically debating Travis, the appropriate thing to do was to send e-mail. The other moderators can verify this as they received a copy of my response to Hillel requesting the rewrite. >I would like to use this rejection to open a discussion about >moderated news groups. > >The idea of moderated newsgroups is that if an article is not appropriate >(not to the subject, too flamy, etc.) then the moderator has the right to >reject the article. IMO the moderator should *always* post a follow up >information because: > >1) It's not a flame. (Just a *pointer* to a flame...) >2) It gives people who wish to continue the discussion in some > other newsgroup the ability to move it. >3) People can read the follow up and see if they agree with > the moderator's policy. > This argument with Hillel is not unique to this particular posting. It has come up with him in connection to two other articles. I (and at least one other moderator) think it inappropriate to post articles that merely point to a followup having been sent to another newsgroup because they are information free metadiscussion. Those who are concerned with what we've rejected and what we haven't are welcome to look at the archives of soc.feminism. I also see no problem with Hillel mentioning at the top of an article in soc.men that the article was rejected for soc.feminism. >Another subject that I would like to discuss is the moderation policy of >soc.feminism. The moderators rejected to above article >but accepted articles like: > >$This is typical of the 80s style of rhetoric where image is more >$important than substance. The white male with the big mouth who is >$still in college acts as if his observations are superior to the quiet >$woman who has had over 12 years of job experience. I know I need AA > >In *their* opinion there is no personal attack in the above lines... > I can't see how this is a personal attack, unless you're offended because you're *the* white male with the big mouth who is still in college. In fact, it isn't even an attack against white males - it is more a criticism of a behavior than of any person or group. >I think that the moderators don't apply uniform standards. They posted >personal attack against me, but reject even a two lines pointer to >my article. > Since you haven't troubled to check the archives, you might not realize that there have been several articles rejected because they contained personal attacks against you. Your desire to discuss this in alt.flame might suggest a reason that you've had more articles rejected due to personal attacks than anyone else. Miriam Nadel -- Not one of the 54% of Americans who think mowing the lawn is risky. mhnadel@gryphon.COM <any backbone site>!gryphon!mhnadel nadel@aspen.aero.org
mhnadel@gryphon.COM (Miriam Nadel) (11/21/89)
In article <128159@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@sun.UUCP (William A. Turnbow) writes: > > When soc.feminism first came out I tried to read and post rational >middle of the road replies. I quickly found most of my responses >being dropped on the floor. I also learned that if I submitted it >enough times, due to the random rotation of their moderation, I might >eventually get a submitted response printed. It wasn't worth it. > When soc.feminism first came out, the program that randomly mails postings to moderators was very experimental. (My impression is that it is now down to "somewhat" experimental.) Consequently, a large number of articles were apparently sent to the bit bucket instead of to any moderator. I do not know of any political bias on the part of the program which was causing the problem and, in fact, people on all points of the political spectrum were rather fed up. (Me too! It's more fun to have postings even if there are occassional controversies to cause headaches.) The problems with the moderation mechanism appear to have been ironed out. If someone does submit something and does not either see it posted or get a rejection notice within a reasonable period of time (allow for propagation delays and, at least in my case, sometimes getting stuck in a 13 hour meeting at the other end of town :-) and not getting to my mail for a day), the thing to do is to send a note to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu and we will attempt to track down what happened. Miriam Nadel -- Not one of the 54% of Americans who think mowing the lawn is risky. mhnadel@gryphon.COM <any backbone site>!gryphon!mhnadel nadel@aspen.aero.org
gazit@romeo.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (11/21/89)
In article <1989Nov20.114024.22394@paris.ics.uci.edu> (Cindy Tittle) writes: >had already tried to redirect it elsewhere. And he cannot hold us >responsible for the soc.feminism readers that refuse to take the >thread elsewhere and direct their postings back to s.f. The readers have the right to ignore my articles, put me in a KILL file etc. I asked you to tell them where they can find my article in case *they* were interested. You refused to do it under the banner of "that's the readers decision"... >Technically, there isn't. It's a generalized attack on "white males". >If you go back to Hillel's postings, you will see many similar >expositions of his that we also posted. Some examples (all culled My opinion is different, and I'm willing to debate the subject in an appropriate non-moderated news group. I don't think that news.groups is the right place, but I'm open to other offers. Let's assume that you are right. What does it prove? It proves that you published flamy articles from several posters but you refused to post one line follow up. >Soc.feminism is a place for debate and discussion, not a clearinghouse >for listing the destination for arguments. 1) Please note that other moderated groups have no problem about directing inappropriate follow-ups. The follow-ups from sci.military to talk.politics are a good example. 2) I took the article that you had rejected to some other place. It was *your* decision that the article was not appropriate. I said "OK, I'll take it to some other place, but I want the readers know about it". You decided that you don't want to post the follow-up *and* you don't want the readers to know that it exists in some other group. WHY? >--Cindy Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "I don't know what to do -- I don't like soc.men, it's way too busy, flame-filled, is very blaming, and has interminable discussions about guns, vans, war, etc. I unsubscribed a long time ago, and I just checked to make sure the same small clique of yahoos are posting there." -- An appropriate article from soc.feminism.
learn@igloo.scum.com (Bill Haroldmegrhondapooh Vajk) (11/21/89)
In article <21323@usc.edu>, gazit@seer.usc.edu (Salit) writes: > I think that the moderators don't apply uniform standards. They posted > personal attack against me, but reject even a two lines pointer to > my article. Did you really expect THEM to "Lower Their Standards" for your form of justice ? :-) Bill.etc
oliver@unc.cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver) (11/22/89)
In article <21323@usc.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
[He doesn't like it that something he posted was rejected]
You really have no cause for complaint. The bottom line is that
a moderated news group is a censored group, and the moderators
censor as to their whim. That whim may or may not be accurately
described in the group's charter -- it doesn't matter as long as
the moderator believes that he or she is doing the right thing.
When you submit to a moderated group, you are applying for permission
to post, and have no rights in the matter. If you don't like
their decisions, then don't post to the group. Moderated groups
are and "us" vs "them" phenomenon. It's a conversation between
"us", without having to listen to "them." "Them" is defined
as that class of people who don't post like we want them to post.
This is not a condemnation of moderated groups -- I read a number
of them. But you must remember that open discussion is not
possible, and is not desired by the moderators or by most of the
readers. Basically, it doesn't matter what justification is
given for rejecting an article; if you don't meet the moderator's
wishes in a post, you don't meet the moderator's wishes. It's
as simple as that. The only reason to bother with a justification
is if you are planning to modify your thoughts to bring them
into accord with the moderator's desires.
Bill Oliverwilliamt@athena1.Sun.COM (William A. Turnbow) (11/22/89)
In article <48571@bbn.COM> rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes: > >This is utter fantasy, and more than a little paranoid. Perhaps Mr >Turnbow believes that feminism equals man-bashing; perhaps he believes >this makes him "middle of the road"; ----------- I know what was there when the group was first created. There was alot of hostility toward men, and extra filters were applied toward postings by any man. The group was created because out of an emotional outburst against men posting in soc.women -- and how some women would like a safe forum to discuss woman things among themselves. Now the flavor of the group may have changed since then, but that was definitely the impression I got at the time. As for my opinions on feminism, I notice that people in soc.feminism have mentioned Drawing Down in the Moon. In chapter 12, p339, she quotes another man who was organizing men together for spiritual purposes: "...'the continual lumping together of all men as the enemy' which he had previously only identified as a 'separatist movement' is very prevalent throught the feminist movement.' It goes on to tell about the effects on the men exposed to such, but that isn't appropriate here [of course I wonder about the appropriateness of the topic at all, but -- "Oh well..."]. -wat- --- An it harm none, do what you will.
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (11/22/89)
In article <21323@usc.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: >The following posting was rejected by the moderators of soc.feminism: > ># A follow up to article article <6634@columbia.edu> by Travis Lee ># Winfrey was sent to soc.men and alt.flame. > >I would like to use this rejection to open a discussion about >moderated news groups. The issue should be placed in context. Gazit is a religious anti-feminist who specializes in sophistry and personal insult, and a frequent contributor to the cesspool known as alt.flame. In my opinion, none of the messages he has ever submitted to soc.feminism deserved to be passed on to the group, and the moderators have done the net a disservice by permitting such inane crap to appear in their group. That they finally reached their limit should come as a surprise to no one. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "The Diabolonian position is new to the London playgoer of today, but not to lovers of serious literature. From Prometheus to the Wagnerian Siegfried, some enemy of the gods, unterrified champion of those oppressed by them, has always towered among the heroes of the loftiest poetry." - Shaw, "On Diabolonian Ethics"
maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak) (11/22/89)
In article <48571@bbn.COM> rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes: >In article <128159@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@sun.UUCP (William A. Turnbow) writes: >> They didn't want middle of the road rhetoric, or fairness in dealing >>with men. As the quoted article you included exemplifed, they wanted >>a forum for man-bashing without men being allowed to participate (except >>for those men who had been through retraining and were willing to man-bash >>as well). > >This is utter fantasy, and more than a little paranoid. Perhaps Mr >Turnbow believes that feminism equals man-bashing; perhaps he believes >this makes him "middle of the road"; perhaps he believes in Santa >Claus. Well and good. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with >soc.feminism, a group which has seen more (MANY more) anti-feminist >articles than pro-feminist ones. The only bashing has been in your >imagination, Mr Turnbow. Thanks, Richard. I agree. The fact is that there was a small problem initially in the moderation process, which resulted in some articles being dropped. I have not been moderating, although I was proposed as a moderator, for reasons I won't go into, and the other moderators have picked up my share of articles. There have been no problems that I have been aware of since the first few weeks of the group. People are told WHY their articles are rejected. Men are not only allowed to participate, they are, as Richard says, the majority posters. Hillel has been a heavy poster, and can hardly complain that he is being discriminated against from what I can see. Valerie Maslak
maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak) (11/22/89)
In article <128202@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@sun.UUCP (William A. Turnbow) writes: >In article <48571@bbn.COM> rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes: >> >>This is utter fantasy, and more than a little paranoid. Perhaps Mr >>Turnbow believes that feminism equals man-bashing; perhaps he believes >>this makes him "middle of the road"; >----------- > >I know what was there when the group was first created. There was >alot of hostility toward men, and extra filters were applied toward >postings by any man. The group was created because out of an emotional >outburst against men posting in soc.women -- and how some women would >like a safe forum to discuss woman things among themselves. Now the flavor This does not resemble any of my recollections of the founding of the group. "Safe forum" was an issue in various discussions of the erstwhile group soc.women.only....it has never come up re soc.feminism. Moderation was an obvious solution to the heat that the subject of feminism generates, but personal attacks are not accepted no matter who they come from, male or female. A cursory examination of the contents of the group would show Mr. Turnbow that if his articles were rejected, it was not because he is (or appears to be at any rate) male. I have no idea what "extra filters" Mr. Turnbow is talking about. There were none discussed in ANY of the discussions about the group that I participated in. Valerie Maslak
maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak) (11/22/89)
In article <10657@thorin.cs.unc.edu> oliver@unc.cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver) writes: >In article <21323@usc.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: >[He doesn't like it that something he posted was rejected] > >You really have no cause for complaint. The bottom line is that >a moderated news group is a censored group, and the moderators >censor as to their whim. That whim may or may not be accurately >described in the group's charter -- it doesn't matter as long as >the moderator believes that he or she is doing the right thing. Precisely because of the likelihood that the moderators would be accused of censorhip on political or philosophical grounds, ALL articles to soc.feminism are archived, whether they are actually approved by a moderator for posting or not. The moderators of soc.feminism have bent over backwards to be fair and impartial. Valerie Maslak
gazit@lear.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (11/22/89)
In article <22520@gryphon.COM> mhnadel@gryphon.COM (Miriam Nadel) writes: >This argument with Hillel is not unique to this particular posting. It has >come up with him in connection to two other articles. I (and at least one >other moderator) think it inappropriate to post articles that merely point to >a followup having been sent to another newsgroup because they are The claim that a pointer carries no information is wrong from data-structure point view. >information free metadiscussion. Metadiscussion?! That's how you call an two-lines article with no follow-up? A very interesting definition I must say...
gazit@lear.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (11/22/89)
In article <5973@unix.SRI.COM> maslak@unix.UUCP (Valerie Maslak) writes: > Precisely because of the likelihood that the moderators would be >accused of censorhip on political or philosophical grounds, ALL >articles to soc.feminism are archived, whether they are actually >approved by a moderator for posting or not. The moderators of My claim is different: The moderators have the right to reject any article they like. If they reject an article the debate can still go on in another group. By refusing to tell the readers that there is a follow-up they reduce the probability for an on-line continuing debate in *another* newsgroup. I agree that the article will be two weeks later in the archive, I just can't see what difference does it make.
oliver@unc.cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver) (11/23/89)
In article <5973@unix.SRI.COM> maslak@unix.UUCP (Valerie Maslak) writes: >In article <10657@thorin.cs.unc.edu> oliver@unc.cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver) writes: >>In article <21323@usc.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: >>[He doesn't like it that something he posted was rejected] >> >>You really have no cause for complaint. The bottom line is that >>a moderated news group is a censored group, and the moderators >>censor as to their whim. That whim may or may not be accurately >>described in the group's charter -- it doesn't matter as long as >>the moderator believes that he or she is doing the right thing. > > Precisely because of the likelihood that the moderators would be >accused of censorhip on political or philosophical grounds, ALL >articles to soc.feminism are archived, whether they are actually >approved by a moderator for posting or not. The moderators of >soc.feminism have bent over backwards to be fair and impartial. > You miss my point. I did not state that the moderators were "fair" or "unfair," by whatever criteria you decide to use as a judge of fairness (obviously, Hillel Gazit did not agree with those criteria). Whether or not you are "fair" has nothing to do with whether or not you are a censor. If you reject articles on the basis of content, or demand that the content be changed to agree with your specifications, then you are a censor by defintion. As Miriam Nadel wrote in her justification of rejecting the article: Hillel wrote a very lengthy article in response to this. In fact, this article was not rejected; rather, a rewrite was requested. Specifically, I asked him to remove approximately 100 lines of metadiscussion about where to have the discussion, speculation about Travis's politics, and general discussion about capitalism. Thus, the article would be accepted only if unacceptable political statements were removed and only if the direction of discussion stayed along approved paths, however defined by the moderator. Again, I stated that Mr. Gazit has no basis for complaint. I have no doubt that you believe that you are fair in your decisions as to what to allow and not allow in your newsgroup. My only point is that the question of "fairness" is rather unimportant -- since you define what is and isn't "fair" by what you censor, then all of your actions are by definition "fair." As I also stated, I am not opposed to moderated groups, and I do not oppose soc.feminsm. If Mr. Gazit does not like how your group is censored, he is free to post to other groups instead. However, you should not claim that the group is not censored. That is hypocrisy. And if you claim that your group is not censored on the basis of political statements, then you contradict the moderator who demanded the changes be made, specifically on the basis of political statements. And you should not claim that I stated that the group is not "fair." That is an untruth. I stated that, as far as Mr. Gazit's complaint was concerned, it did not matter whether the group was "fair" or not. A "fair" censor is no less a censor for being fair, just as a "benign" dictator is no less a dictator for being benign. Bill Oliver Not one of the 52% of Americans who believe that warrantless searches are justified to combat drugs . [Harper's Index, Dec '89] (apologies to Ms. Nadel)
williamt@athena1.Sun.COM (William A. Turnbow) (11/23/89)
Valerie --
You stated that rejection letters were sent back to the the authors
for anything rejected. If this has always been the case -- I never
received anything back -- then the problem with extra filters may
have been based on the faulty software other have already mentioned.
Yes, I looked through the group recently, and couldn't find any
evidence of man-bashing. The flavor of the group does seem different
now than what I remembered.
Finally, I may be paranoid, but that doesn't mean they are not out
to get me! Sorry if I stomped on anyone's toes based on my memories
of past topics and troublesome X-version moderation software.
-wat-
--- An it harm none, do what you will.brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (11/24/89)
Moderators are not here to give you an audience. We volunteer our time to give the readers of our groups something with a better signal to noise ratio. It is for those readers that we volunteer our time, and if we don't serve them well, they can unsubscribe. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) (11/26/89)
In article <51943@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >Moderators are not here to give you an audience. We volunteer our time >to give the readers of our groups something with a better signal to noise >ratio. It is for those readers that we volunteer our time, and if we >don't serve them well, they can unsubscribe. They can also post to a non-moderated related group (or misc.misc) or offer to moderate another newsgroup themselves. I suppose one could offer to moderate/create a group in ALT, too. There are many options. Terry -- INTERNET: tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS CC-NET: 33802::tjw UUCP: {decwrl!decvax!idis, allegra, bellcore}!pitt!unix.cis.pitt.edu!tjw And if dreams could come true, I'd still be there with you, On the banks of cold waters at the close of the day. - as sung by Sally Rogers
charleen@deimos.ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna) (12/01/89)
In article <9038@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: > >The issue should be placed in context. Gazit is a religious >anti-feminist who specializes in sophistry and personal insult, and a >frequent contributor to the cesspool known as alt.flame. Coming from you, Timmy, that's a bloomin' character reference. Charleen