liz@umcp-cs.UUCP (08/19/83)
I'd like to propose a new group. When I first started reading news, I just assumed that net.women would be mostly women discussing issues of concern to women. What I found was interesting, but not exactly mostly women discussing concerns of women. In fact, it seemed like almost all men contributing to the discussion. While there have been more women contributing articles as of late, the forum is still not one in which I feel free to discuss some of the things I'd like to discuss, and I know I'm not alone in feeling this way. Let's put it this way. You know how net.singles is almost all singles discussing things about singles? Can we have a group which is just for women? Let's have a net.women.only! -- -Liz Allen, U of Maryland, College Park MD Usenet: ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz Arpanet: liz.umcp-cs@Udel-Relay
mason@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Mason) (08/21/83)
The obvious reason there are a lot of male people contributing to net.women is
that there are a lot more male people on the net than female people. It seems
to me that the ratio in net.women is about 2:1 female:male but I could be wrong.
The other, more important reason is that most of the articles are
really about people and human-value issues rather than "women"'s issues
Perhaps more appropriate would be a net.people for the current net.women
articles, leaving net.women for the things you wish to talk about.
The nature of the whole net concept is so open that I don't
understand how you plan to have a net.whatever where you will feel comfortable
submitting. If people start to use a group for something in particular, then
either people will read it, or they won't. If it is very specific, then it
will tend to attract a limited, specific audience (how many people who are
not single (or contemplating/envying it) read net.single?). If you start to
submit articles different from the current orientation of a group, either the
tone of the group will change, showing that you have raised a valid point, or
you will be flamed to death. (Another reason I like net.women is that it is
quite accepting of any topic.)
(It's also possible to get lots of activity and flames, in which case it
really IS time for a new group.)
But, if you think it's that important, let's move all this general
interest stuff to net.people and leave net.women to women only stuff!
(sorry, but I really don't understand (& I'm sure I'll get flamed for it))
-- Gandalf's flunky Hobbit -- Dave Mason, U. Toronto CSRG,
{cornell,watmath,ihnp4,floyd,allegra,utzoo,uw-beaver}!utcsrgv!mason
or {decvax,linus,lsuc,research}!utzoo!utcsrgv!mason (UUCP)debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) (08/22/83)
No! For one thing, the idea of a newsgroup which imposes a priori restrictions on the people who can read/contribute to it seems disagreeable. To my knowledge, no group (not even net.singles) is "for XYZ only" (this is exclusive, of course, of local groups for limited geographical distribution). And what issues, may I inquire, are SO sensitive that having males contribute their views hampers the discussion?
stanwyck@ihuxr.UUCP (08/22/83)
This brings me to the point of needing to express a feeling I have
been fighting with for a while.
<<<<< FLAME ON >>>>>
WHY IS IT OK FOR {BLACKS, WOMEN, ANY-OTHER-"MINORITY"} TO HAVE
A SPECIAL GROUP FOR THEM WHICH MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL POPULATION
MAY NOT JOIN, BUT IF MALE WASPS TRY THE SAME THING IT IS
PREJUDICE??
<<<<<FLAME TURNED DOWN SOME >>>>>
I have seen over the last several years the growth of a number
of widely accepted groups pressuring for the advancement of
particular groups. These groups have included racial groups
(polish people, black people, hispanic people, amer-asians, etc)
as well as womens groups, groups of the elderly, etc. It seems
that any so-called minority (note that women are not in fact
a minority in our population) can have some group pushing for
itself, but everytime some white (unidentifiable genetic background)
male suggests that white men in general should do likewise, all
the other groups immediately shout "prejudice!". Do not we as
white men have the same rights as any other member of society,
or must white men continue to be the second class citizens of
our society, without equal rights in the judicial and political
processes?
don stanwyck : ..!ihnp4!ihuxr!stanwyck : 312-979-6667 : btl @ naperville, ilrh@mit-eddie.UUCP (Randy Haskins) (08/22/83)
Due to the low proportion of women on the net, I think a women-only newsgroup would die a cruel death. -- Randwulf (Randy Haskins); Path= genrad!mit-eddie!rh or... rh@mit-ee (via mit-mc)
ginger@ssc-vax.UUCP (08/22/83)
"the forum is still not one in which I feel free to discuss
some of the things I'd like to discuss, and I know I'm not
alone in feeling this way."
Here is my vote for net.women.only! There are many subjects of
interest to women which the men who dominate this newsgroup would
probably find silly, tiresome, or otherwise objectionable -so the
subjects are never raised. Even "liberated" women get a bit in-
timidated by articles from men with attitudes like this:
--------------------------------------------------------
Conclusions: If it really makes a difference to you
whether I say 'he', 'she', or 'it' in a generic context,
then you're probably narrow-minded, bigoted, or insecure,
in which case I probably wouldn't care about your opinion,
or want your drivel using filespace on my machine. Go
suck your thumb.
--------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps, as someone suggested, many of the discussions common to
net.women would be more appropriate in a "net.people". But I
think we would still need a net.women.only. The purpose need not
be to reject input from men, but simply to make it CLEAR that it
is a forum by, for and about women -and that men who object to
the content are welcome to restrict themselves to using all the
rest of the net.
PLEASE don't misunderstand us, guys! We *LIKE* you, but this is
an issue that had bothered some of us women for quite a while,
and (thanks to Liz) we finally found the nerve to mention it.
Ginger Grover
ssc-vax!gingerguy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (08/23/83)
I have seen over the last several years the growth of a number
of widely accepted groups pressuring for the advancement of
particular groups. These groups have included racial groups
(polish people, black people, hispanic people, amer-asians, etc)
as well as womens groups, groups of the elderly, etc.
Poles are a "racial group"?
It seems that any so-called minority (note that women are not in fact
a minority in our population) can have some group pushing for
itself, but everytime some white (unidentifiable genetic background)
male suggests that white men in general should do likewise, all
the other groups immediately shout "prejudice!". Do not we as
white men have the same rights as any other member of society,
or must white men continue to be the second class citizens of
our society, without equal rights in the judicial and political
processes?
What? How are white men second class citizens without equal rights in the
judicial and political process? (And how does this connect with the
formation of organizations to support other groups?) White males are, as a
group, better paid than other groups. We (yes, we; as a white male I don't
feel like a second class citizen) have more opportunity for advancement, have
society more responsive to our concerns (if domestic violence were mostly a
case of wives assaulting husbands, you can bet there would be strong action
against it), etc.. The groups you refer to are shortchanged by society in
a way that white males are not. As such, most attempts by white males to
set up such groups seem to be attempts to regain lost privilege.
One purpose of net.women.only would be to provide a forum for women to
discuss issues important to them without having to defend the importance of
these issues from the attacks of males not in a position to realize their
importance.
Guy Harris
{seismo,mcnc,we13,brl-bmd,allegra}!rlgvax!guyjim@grkermit.UUCP (Jim Morton) (08/23/83)
uh huh, right. And all the males on the net wouldn't even *think* of reading (or submitting) anything in net.women.only...
liz@umcp-cs.UUCP (08/23/83)
Hmmm. Let me try to say this again. I think the "only" part in the group name is a little strong, but since there is already a net.women and there are so many men on it... Let me make the analogy with net.singles again. net.singles is >for< singles while net.women is >about< women. What I'd like is a group >for< women. Actually, I like net.women -- I just want something else/more. As far as keeping men off is concerned: I don't think there's any way to keep men from reading the group. I would kind of like to keep men from submiting a lot of articles to the group, but even that would be difficult. I would at least like to have a group where most of the articles were by women. As far as contents goes: I don't think it would be any more personal than other news groups -- the net is far too public in nature for that. It'd just be a place for women to discuss things and get feedback from other women without needing to justify the discussion or the existence of a problem. Actually, a lot of it could well be boring for the men out there, anyway. (When's the last time you men worried about makeup or monthly cramps?) Partly, I'd just like to get to know some of the women out there and find out how they feel being a woman in such a male dominated profession -- what problems they have run into and how they have solved them. Does this help to clarify where I'm coming from? Part of this (I admit) could be done on net.women, but there are so many men in that group... For the women out there: What do you all think? I haven't gotten much response from you. Do you feel a need for such a group? Is it worth trying? Do you think it's appropriate? What kinds of things would you like such a group for? (Submitting this article cautiously -- expecting flames I won't be able to douse...) -- -Liz Allen, U of Maryland, College Park MD Usenet: ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz Arpanet: liz.umcp-cs@Udel-Relay
rascal@verdix.UUCP (08/23/83)
I know networking is growing in popularity, but I think net.women.only is taking things a bit to literally. (Seriously, I don't vote no.) Steve Scalpone sequel!verdix!rascal tektronix!ogcvax!rascal
rh@mit-eddie.UUCP (Randy Haskins) (08/23/83)
about white males not having a group: everyone loses from this. White males lose because they feel isolated and ganged-up-on. Everyone else loses because STILL A LOT OF POWER IN THIS COUNTRY IS HELD BY WHITE MALES. (Sorry, but it's a fact.) When they remember how militant everyone else is, it tends to make them white-male-supremecists. -- Randwulf (Randy Haskins); Path= genrad!mit-eddie!rh or... rh@mit-ee (via mit-mc)
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (08/23/83)
There is precedent for restricted groups, e.g. btl.all is there only for Bell Labs employees, and since proprietary things can be discussed, we damn well make sure nobody outside BTL reads it, even if they are interested. In the case of a net-wide group for women, I don't see a way to prevent men from reading it short of creating a new women.all newsgroup class, making a new "women" group in /etc/group, and putting all women in that group. Then /usr/spool/news/net/women/only (or whatever) could be mode 770, group "women". This seems like overkill, and nothing forces any given machine to cooperate. As to only allowing women to post, you could make it a moderated newsgroup. net.announce is nearly ready to start, and if you picked a name like net.mod.women, only the moderator could post to it. You'd need a moderator, and probably a bug fix to 2.10 on the moderators machine. And of course the moderator could be fooled by some man claiming to be a woman or forging the approval stamp, but let's hope the net is above that. Mark Horton
thanh@rlgvax.UUCP (Thomas Thanh Ngo) (08/23/83)
...but Jim, I don't think that you can possible miss anything for *not* reading net.women.only since it's only for ...women only, you *know*. Just wonder how many men out there ever think about ...sex transplant to be qualified to contribute to such net group? ...you die only once ...
braddy@houxl.UUCP (08/23/83)
and shall we also have a net.men.only? David..
ecn-ec:ecn-pc:ecn-ed:vu@pur-ee.UUCP (08/24/83)
Say, how do you recognize a news submitter as a male for female ? Obviously or can't say anything from a login name like qdo, rh, ken, or vu. So ? pur-ee!vu
ecn-ec:ecn-pc:ecn-ed:vu@pur-ee.UUCP (08/24/83)
How about net.women.men.only for men dicussing women's issue ? (No idee noire. Don't flame at me. Purdue is going to terminate my account anyway.) Hao-Nhien Vu.
barbaral@tekig1.UUCP (08/24/83)
I am Chinese American. At my college, there was an Asian American Club, as well as a sorority for Asian Women Only. I support these groups in their function of helping other Asians feel comfortable in a primarily white environment. Many of the Asians on campus were raised in Chinatown type environments, predominately Chinese people. When they came to college, they felt like everyone was staring at them, etc. I was involved informally counselling some of my Asian peers. I refused to join either of the above clubs, for they seemed to take on the attitude that Asians are better than any other race, almost a case of reverse discrimination. If we Asians (or any other minority group) want others to accept us as equals, we do not accomplish that by putting ourselves above them....discriminating against them as they have discriminated against us!!! Also, these minority organizations often seem to isolate the minority, rather than integrate them with the rest of the people. Many of my Asian friends involved in the clubs only had Asian friends, and their only social activity was with the clubs. I'm still a bit unsure of my stance on these types of groups, especially since I'm an engineer, and there are women's engineering type groups around, formal ones, such as SWE, as well as informal support groups. Like many issues in life, I don't think it's all spelled out in black and white. I've been to some get togethers that are very supportive and helpful. I've been to other women's get togethers that sit there and say that "all men are screwed" for two hours. So I guess it really depends on the women involved. In summary, I support minority groups only to the extent that they help the people involved, but not to the extent that they are putting themselves above others, or isolating themselves from others.
ntt@dciem.UUCP (Mark Brader) (08/24/83)
Liz Allen (...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz) writes, in part:
As far as keeping men off is concerned: I don't think there's any
way to keep men from reading the group. I would kind of like to
keep men from submiting a lot of articles to the group, but even
that would be difficult.
For "difficult", read "impossible". The net is a very free country.
I would at least like to have a group
where most of the articles were by women.
As far as contents goes: I don't think it would be any more personal
than other news groups -- the net is far too public in nature for
that. It'd just be a place for women to discuss things and get
feedback from other women without needing to justify the discussion
or the existence of a problem.
So it's only valid to discuss whether the issues you discuss are real issues,
if the person doing so is a woman? That's sexist. I admit there are a lot
of unliberated men who will denounce good things, but I don't see that only
men will do so, nor that only good things will be denounced. Even if what
you say you want was possible, I don't think it would work.
(Of course, since I'm a man, I suppose I'm laying myself open to a charge
of denouncing a good thing by reason of being a man. I think it's sexism
I'm denouncing.)
Actually, a lot of it could well
be boring for the men out there, anyway. (When's the last time
you men worried about makeup or monthly cramps?) Partly, I'd just
like to get to know some of the women out there and find out how
they feel being a woman in such a male dominated profession -- what
problems they have run into and how they have solved them.
I think net.women IS the place for these. If I don't want to read about
monthly cramps, I can use the n key. I AM interested in the last topic.
It would be nice to start a convention for net.women like the (spoiler)
convention of net.movies and others, and the (rot13) of net.jokes, where
senders identified their sex in the subject line. However, the problem
(with all these, really) is that the "f" command tries to replicate the
subject, and women and men will naturally follow each other up (as here).
Mark Brader (not speaking for) NTT Systems Inc., Torontoajmitchell@watdaisy.UUCP (A. Jay Mitchell) (08/25/83)
Maybe I should suggest a newsgroup like: net.men.twenties.student.grad.compsci.Canada so that I can coverse about topics really close to my heart. Give me (and others) a break! Net.singles is NOT "for" singles; it is "about" singles. Net.women is the same. Anyone interested in the issues should be able to relate his ideas without feeling that he is in intruding. If not enough women submit articles, creating net.women.only won't solve the situation. (By the way, notice that I used HE/HIS as genderless pronouns!)
sarah@rdin.UUCP (sarah) (08/25/83)
cFb<*A
Here's a vote against net.women.only. I don't think a semi-public forum
like the net is the place for such an exclusive group. Also, I think
net.women has already established itself as a group by, for, and about
women. Besides, how do you propose to keep men from reading it and
submitting to it in a public system like this? And if you don't propose
to keep men from reading it and submitting to it, then why create it
when we already have net.women?
Sarah Groves--New York--philabs!rdin!sarahrh@mit-eddie.UUCP (08/27/83)
I submit to you that this group will eventually be overrun by men since that is the nature of men. I will probably even do some damage, even though I'll try not to. I think the ratio of men to women on the net is such that we will find that in this newsgroup too the majority of articles will be submitted by men. Sorry. -- Randwulf (Randy Haskins); Path= genrad!mit-eddie!rh or... rh@mit-ee (via mit-mc)
guy@rlgvax.UUCP (08/28/83)
#R:verdix:-13800:rlgvax:-103101:37777777600:1911
rlgvax!guy Aug 25 20:05:00 1983
I have seen over the last several years the growth of a number
of widely accepted groups pressuring for the advancement of
particular groups. These groups have included racial groups
(polish people, black people, hispanic people, amer-asians, etc)
as well as womens groups, groups of the elderly, etc.
Poles are a "racial group"?
It seems that any so-called minority (note that women are not in fact
a minority in our population) can have some group pushing for
itself, but everytime some white (unidentifiable genetic background)
male suggests that white men in general should do likewise, all
the other groups immediately shout "prejudice!". Do not we as
white men have the same rights as any other member of society,
or must white men continue to be the second class citizens of
our society, without equal rights in the judicial and political
processes?
What? How are white men second class citizens without equal rights in the
judicial and political process? (And how does this connect with the
formation of organizations to support other groups?) White males are, as a
group, better paid than other groups. We (yes, we; as a white male I don't
feel like a second class citizen) have more opportunity for advancement, have
society more responsive to our concerns (if domestic violence were mostly a
case of wives assaulting husbands, you can bet there would be strong action
against it), etc.. The groups you refer to are shortchanged by society in
a way that white males are not. As such, most attempts by white males to
set up such groups seem to be attempts to regain lost privilege.
One purpose of net.women.only would be to provide a forum for women to
discuss issues important to them without having to defend the importance of
these issues from the attacks of males not in a position to realize their
importance.
Guy Harris
{seismo,mcnc,we13,brl-bmd,allegra}!rlgvax!guyken@turtleva.UUCP (Ken Turkowski) (08/29/83)
A newsgroup is created for those who are interested in it, not for
those who are invited. If I'm interested in women's issues, I'll read
net.women.
Ken Turkowski
CADLINC, Palo Alto
{decwrl,amd70}!turtlevax!kenlauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (08/29/83)
Hey! This "net.women.only" sounds like a *really* FUN group to me! Where do I sign up? (Chuckle). Seriously (?) since I have a rather "confusing" name gender-wise, they might not realize that I was male for awhile, and who knows what fun might be possible? It sounds to me like we should try to get good ol' "John Norman" (the author of the horrid "Gor" books) to join the net and participate in net.women.only. His views toward male/female relationships would seem to be at the complete opposite end of the spectrum from the view we were quoted from net.women.only. Just think of the useless new traffic that could be generated. Rot, rot, and more rot. --Lauren--
pdl@root44.UUCP (Dave Lukes) (08/30/83)
An open reply to don stanwyck (..!ihnp4!ihuxr!stanwyck):
I doubt that many poles, blacks, hispanics, amer-asians women, etc. would
DARE shout `prejudice' at a male WASP for fear of being beaten-up, raped, etc..
Even in these enlightened times, racism and sexism still abound.
The reason why we need groups pushing for {blacks, foreigners, women ...}
is that there is still plenty of reason for their existence.
There is a group still around today which have as their aim the righting of
(imagined) anti-white discrimination dating from the Civil War
(I hope I don't have to pollute the phone lines by mentioning their name).
And, before anyone accuses me of being a UK chauvinist, we has similar problems.
It is usually members of these sort of groups that go around shouting
``anti-white discrimination'' at the tops of their voices
(N.B. I'm not saying Don is in any way connected with such filth, just
that it makes me nervous when people start sounding off like that).
Notice also that the existence of white, male orientated groups IS
reason to be nervous, for the simple reason that they are likely to propogate
the sort of macho racism and sexism that we all (I hope) have come to hate.
Also, what's this about being `second class citizens of our society' ??
I've heard plenty of complaints of discrimination but WHITE MALES ???
Please cite a few specific examples, I'll be fascinated to hear about them.
Dave Lukes (...!vax135!ukc!root44!pdl)
P.S. I'm white and happy with it, but often embarrassed by other whites.ken@turtleva.UUCP (Ken Turkowski) (08/30/83)
I noticed our system somehow received a control message to create the group net.women.only. In the same exclusionary spirit, I will send out messages shortly to create net.men.only, net.gays.only, net.studs.only, net.nymphos.only, net.freaks.only, net.birchers.only, net.nazis.only, net.radicals.only, net.labor.only, net.commie.only, and suggestions for other sensitive sects. :-> Ken Turkowski
honey@allegra.UUCP (09/01/83)
i'm with you lauren! where do i sign? wendy
mason@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Mason) (09/02/83)
No..I think net.men.only is too general..we need net.white.male or better yet
net.white.anglo.saxon.protestant.male where we could talk about the real things
in life: beer, football, broads (in that order of course).
I hope this is taken as the facetious nonsense it is meant as :-) !!!
Seriously, if there is interest in net.women.only, (as shown by some support
on the net) let's create it (or redirect net.women in that direction and
create net.human) and get on with more interesting topics.
-- Gandalf's flunky Hobbit -- Dave Mason, U. Toronto CSRG,
{cornell,watmath,ihnp4,floyd,allegra,utzoo,uw-beaver}!utcsrgv!mason
or {decvax,linus,lsuc,research}!utzoo!utcsrgv!mason (UUCP)thomas@utah-gr.UUCP (Spencer W. Thomas) (09/02/83)
Look, the &^%$ group has been created. How about getting this discussion OUT OF net.news.group. It has been beat to death. The only thing wrong with net.women.only is the NAME. So go away, huh? =Spencer
jeff@tesla.UUCP (Jeff Frey) (09/24/83)
What a waste of net resources! Judging from the most popular topics on net.women.only, if we had a net.MEN.only it would contain profound comments on: 1. Jockey shorts vs. boxer shorts 2. Hot Rocks 3. shaving. I wonder how many women read that group; seems like an awfully small spectrum of opinion (and even less of fact) Jeff
debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) (01/25/84)
ihu1g!smann (Sherry Mann): > Net.women.only was formed then to set certain guidelines on > what would be discussed (or in this case, who would do the > discussing). This worked very well with net.motss, another > issue that raises strong emotional responses in people. I did > not agree with the need for net.women.only, but am not > surprised that the guidelines (no men should post to the group) > are frequently ignored. If net.motss can effectively set > guidelines that moral judgements not be posted to the group, > then there is no reason why net.women.only cannot effectively > set guidelines. There IS a difference between the guidelines regarding net.motss and those regarding net.women.only: net.motss was formed to cater to the concerns of a certain group, and having homophobes vent their spleen didn't serve this purpose in any way; net.women.only was formed to cater to the needs of women, so presumably we have (implicit) guidelines saying misogynists aren't to rant and rave there. In both these cases, the reason for having these guidelines is clear: "let's get on with meaningful business without wasting time screaming at each other". I can't see the analogy between this and the guidelines that restrict men from posting to net.women.only SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE MALES! The presupposition appears to be that if a person is male, he cannot, IPSO FACTO, have anything meaningful to contribute to a discussion on matters of interest to women. That's a pretty strong assumption, isn't it? (When considering the global population of males, it's tempting to point to all the gynecologists and hairdressers out there ...!) Restricting read/write access to a group on such grounds as colour/race/sex seems to me to be taking a step backwards: I can't see any logical refutation - given the hypothesis that only women can contribute to net.women.only - to groups such as net.whites.only (in South Africa they call it "apartheid"), net.blacks.only, net.men.only ... Criticize articles for what they *SAY*, if you will, not what the contributor *IS*. I dare say I'll get flamed for this! Oh well ... -- Saumya Debray Dept. of Computer Science SUNY at Stony Brook {floyd, bunker, cbosgd, mcvax, cmcl2}!philabs! \ Usenet: sbcs!debray / {allegra, teklabs, hp-pcd, metheus}!ogcvax! CSNet: debray@suny-sbcs@CSNet-Relay
phil@amd70.UUCP (01/26/84)
"Restricting read/write access to a group on such grounds as colour/race/sex
seems to me to be taking a step backwards: I can't see any logical
refutation - given the hypothesis that only women can contribute to
net.women.only - to groups such as net.whites.only (in South Africa they
call it "apartheid"), net.blacks.only, net.men.only ..."
There is a difference. Consider that Eddie Murphy can make
all the "kill the white man" jokes he wants and people think
it funny (including me) while it is considered poor taste
to make "nigger" jokes.
The difference is that the white man is in power. In the case
of net.women.only the key phrase would be "the man is in power".
(I see nothing wrong with net.blacks.only if there were demand.)
Besides, I'm tired of reading about circumcision in net.women.only.
--
Phil Ngai (408) 988-7777 {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amd70!phildavid@bragvax.UUCP (David DiGiacomo) (10/30/84)
This is Sunny Kirsten (sun!sunny) 's explanation of net.women.only: >The group is not a fraud. > >The group net.women is for discussion of subjects of interest to women. > >The group net.women.only was formed to allow some women some space to chat >without being dominated by the men, but again, the men intruded and >prevented any woman-space. [??] > >Therefore an underground mailing list was created for a moderated group >whose focal interest is feminist issues. A FEW men are included. > >net.women.only is the last vestige reminding us what assholes men are >with their itchy rmgroup fingers, and their dominant attitudes to control >everything! Back off! It still serves for women to request to be >included. Their replies are answered by mail, not by news. Get it? >Please go play in net.women, >and stay out of net.women.ONLY ONLY, get it? Geesh!! I get it, but is this a reasonable use for a news group? I think a "women-only-request" mailbox would be more appropriate. (Of course I would be happy to set up such a mailbox here at bragvax.) Why should articles like the following be shipped to Korea? Geesh!!, indeed! >Please add me to the mailing list too. >I'd like to be added, too.. >Please add me to the list too! >Add another one! But where's the list? >Please add me to the mailing list (if it does exist!). Thanks. >Please add me to this hidden list if it exists. I must >admit I was baffled by the lack of submissions to the >mailing list... -- David DiGiacomo, BRAG Systems Inc., San Mateo CA (415) 342-3963 (...decvax!ucbvax!hplabs!bragvax!david)