lsefton@Apple.COM (Laurie Sefton) (10/28/89)
I voted on sci.aquaria, and this is what I received in response:
From gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov Fri Oct 27 16:53:17 1989
Received: from elroy.jpl.nasa.gov by apple.com (5.59/25-eef)
id AA29600; Fri, 27 Oct 89 16:53:12 PDT
for lsefton
Received: from gryphon.UUCP by elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (4.0/SMI-4.0+DXR)
id AA01186; Fri, 27 Oct 89 16:06:36 PDT
Received: by gryphon.COM (smail2.5)
id AA20567; 27 Oct 89 10:47:46 PDT (Fri)
To: elroy!apple.com!lsefton@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov
Subject: sci.aquaria
Date: Fri Oct 27 10:47:43 1989
Message-Id: <8910271047.AA20567@gryphon.COM>
From: richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton)
Status: R
Now why would you want to vote no ? Is this you chuq ?
I've received and recorded your no vote.
Could you please look at an article I posted in alt.aquaria,
sci.misc, sci.bio and news.groups wich I feel makes a
compelling argument for sci.aquaria as an adjunct to,
not a replacement for, rec.aquaria.
It's entitled ``a bunch of stuff'' and has article ID 21387@gryphon.COM
Regards,
Richard Sexton
***********************
Well, Mr. Sexton you *are* the sexist pig, aren't you? Or do you think that
Chuq would forge votes? I can damn well think on my own, and as for your
information, as if that syphilitic wad of scum you call your brain could
even register information, I think that sci.aquaria is a incredibly stupid
idea.
Are you discounting *all* the no votes that come from women? Poor little
things just don't know what they're talking about, huh? Need the big strong
men to tell them how to vote, huh?
You're a chauvinist slug, Mr. Sexton.
Laurie Sefton
--
lsefton@apple.com {amdahl,sun,ames,pyramid}!apple!lsefton
disclaimer: My views, not Apple'sdianeh@gryphon.COM (Diane Holt) (10/29/89)
In article <35995@apple.Apple.COM> lsefton@Apple.COM (Laurie Sefton) writes: >Keywords: sexist pig Whether he is or not, it certainly isn't evidenced by the e-mail you got in response to your "no" vote. >I voted on sci.aquaria, and this is what I received in response: [ letter deleted ] I would suspect that the letter you got was a "canned" response that all "no" voters are getting, and that the (obvious joke) of "Is this you chuq ?" is included as part of that -- which means you get it whether your name is Laurie Sefton or _Larry_ Sefton. That's about as UNsexist as you can get. Look, there's enough *real* sexist thinking in the world without your getting so paranoid that you see it where it isn't. >Chuq would forge votes? I can damn well think on my own, and as for your >information, as if that syphilitic wad of scum you call your brain could >even register information, I think that sci.aquaria is a incredibly stupid >idea. Nice little string of epithets there -- shoulda crossposted it to alt.flame. Just out of curiosity -- why is it important to you to think sci.aquaria is "a[n] incredibly stupid idea"? What are you getting out of voting against it? Do you currently read alt.aquaria? Would you refuse to read aquaria-oriented articles if they're in sci, but be more than happy to read them if they're in rec? If so, why? If you aren't an aquarist, what is your interest in all this? >Are you discounting *all* the no votes that come from women? Richard did not "discount" your vote -- it was, as was stated in his letter, duly noted and recorded. His letter seemed nothing more than one last shot at trying to get a "no" voter to reconsider, based on information provided in the article he referenced. You were obviously free to not do that, so what's your problem? >Poor little things just don't know what they're talking about, huh? Need >the big strong men to tell them how to vote, huh? Jesus, take it easy, will you? It's this sort of reaction to *nothing* that causes reactions to *real* incidents to be floffed off as just so much more unsubstantiated complaining. You're doing a disservice to those of us who try to point to *actual* cases of sexist thinking and behaviour. >You're a chauvinist slug, Mr. Sexton. Not supported by your reprint of his e-mail. (I have no idea if he insists on opening doors or not, but I do know he won't offer to take your packages or help you up the stairs when you've just smashed your shin into some stupid chaise-lounge by his pool. Equalist? -- or just rude? -- you decide.) Diane Holt (dianeh@binky.UUCP) "Boo-doo-doop-a-doo-boop. Boop."
dav@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (William David Haas) (11/02/89)
In article <21618@gryphon.COM> dianeh@binky.UUCP (Diane Holt) writes: >In article <35995@apple.Apple.COM> lsefton@Apple.COM (Laurie Sefton) writes: >>Keywords: sexist pig > > >I would suspect that the letter you got was a "canned" response that all >"no" voters are getting, and that the (obvious joke) of "Is this you chuq ?" I think its time for Richard to post all the people who voted yes so that those of us who think the group belongs in rec.* can send them a note asking why they voted yes and point them to article ........ So whats the current vote anyway?