apc@cblpe.ATT.COM (Alan Curtis) (06/23/87)
all readers of comp.risks: Society is at risk whenever they think they are secure when they are not. This moderation crap is one example. Ah, forget it. I cannot justify posting this article here please pardon me while I personally attack a low life on your group, but only cause I was requested to. I have attempted to direct all followups back to the group from which this came (where it doesn't belong either). My apologies if it doesn't work right. In article <4042@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> era@killer.UUCP writes: (aka --Mark) > >In article <492@cblpe.ATT.COM>, apc@cblpe.ATT.COM (Alan Curtis) writes: > >> 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. > >Okay, comp.risks. That's a moderated group, I'll bet your site has it. >Let's see you post to it directly. Here it is... >Well, just to make this sporting, don't just post anything to comp.risks, >post a personal attack on somebody like the ones that have been posted >about me. You ask for it. >In fact, go ahead and attack me by posting directly to comp.risks. Presumably you mean attack you IN a posting directly to comp.risks, and are not quite paranoid enough to believe that any posting to comp.risks is a personal attack on you, and your dumb ideas. [On re-reading your article; maybe not.] (rember, she wanted a personal attack) >So long as it is a personal attack, it will serve the purpose of illustrating >the risks to women on a network dominated by males. Males get away with >posting irrelevant personal attacks to soc.women because women have no power >in this society. If you can do the same thing in a group moderated by >a male, I'd like to see it. I just hope you can read it!! Gee, you should even feel real proud of yourself, for you "forced" a male (you think, based on my assumed name ...) to do something he would have rather not done! Congratulations! >I think you're bluffing, Alan, and that even if >you could do it, you'd never dare do the sort of things in comp.risks that >males do in soc.women all the time. I don't bluff. I guess you know (not to mention about a million net.people) Is anyone surprised that she is wrong? >> I find it quite interesting that you, of all people, would be > >(Begin HEAVY SARCASM.) (at least this time she says it outright...) > >Oh, right. After all, several MALES have "warned" people at least 50 times >that I'm FEMALE. A female, of all people, couldn't possibly be >qualified to comment about soc.women the way you are. >I'm well aware that being female is disadvantageous in a patriarchy, but >I didn't know it had been declared a crime or a sign of incompetence. Not "you of all people" since you are (currently) female, but "you of all people" since you are constantly whining about real males (that oughta get her) censoring/limiting you. >> so openly hypocritical! You are trying to force your ideas on all women! > >Oh, forgive me, Master. I didn't realize that expressing my ideas would >be interpreted as an attempt to force them on everybody else. Then clearly you did not either: 1) think about just what your ideas were/are 2) realize just what it is you really want. >When YOU >express an idea, it isn't invariably interpreted as an attempt to force >it on everybody else. I'd forgotten that the double standard rules. Gee, how you could forget them? Plus, it looks like you forgot to even finish your own stupid sentence. Gee, maybe you suffer from frequent memory troubles. Could this explain the differences in the stories we get from "the WELL" and you? >> If your only motive for wishing that soc.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?. >> What gives you the right to imply that only feminists are right? > >My abject apologies, Master. The men and women who think women are >naturally inferior and don't deserve equal rights could be the ones who >are correct--after all, they NEVER attempt to force their ideas on anyone. Ah, at last, I sign of hope! She actually said that some other side might be right! As an aside, I think you should complain (or whine) to "Guiness Book of World Records" since they obviously are contributing to your problems: they just said "We don't document miracles" when I told them about your paragraph >> You go as far as to imply (I think) that only a feminist female can >> determine postings that are 'not of concern to women'! > >Oh poor wretch that I am! Please don't beat me, Master. I simply forgot >that any male, or any female totally obedient to males, would be more >qualified to make judgments than a feminist. I didn't say more. You see, the word "more" would imply a "better" judgement, whereas the phrase "just as capable" implies an EQUALITY of judgements. Please spend some of your free time learning these differences before you attempt communicating further with a master. > I'm unworthy of your mercy. Now Guiness HIMself is interested, this is a true statment from MES herself. Oops, he says they can't prove that a bit or two hundred didn't get twiggled on the way. Sorry again. >Feminists would obviously be an illogical choice to moderate soc.women, >because they are concerned with the rights of women, not with keeping women >in their proper place. Of course you are right and I am wrong, Master. >As you say, Master, a woman concerned primarily with the rights of women, >would not be as capable of determining which postings don't concern women >a woman whose primary concern is pleasing men. Geesh, you even go on and on. Please, I urge you to learn the words that I (as master since you force that on me) use, so that you may someday unearth the meaning of my postings. >> Do you mean that soc.women should be changed to soc.feminist? > >If that's how you interpret my posting, then that must be what I meant >rather than what I said. Surely you are more qualified to interpret my >words than I, Master. Well, yes, but I would like to know what you meant, since your words seem to differ (somewhat!) in meaning from most people's. In summary, "more" is "greater"; "just as capable" is "equal." Please study hard. >> You obviously want to do just what you claim certain people on (in?) >> the WELL were doing: censoring! > >Yes, Master. Keeping irrelevant personal attacks out of soc.women would >be censorship, Master. It isn't appropriate for a group about women as >it is for rec.guns and mod.risks. I apologize for suggesting that ^^^^ you said comp.risks more, so I am trying that one. >netiquette, as observed in male-dominated technical groups, be enforced >in soc.women. You are correct, Master. Limiting denigration of women >would be censorship. Driving women out of soc.women by making personal >attacks on them is just free speech, and punishing women who try to defend >themselves is not censorship--REAL women know they exist just to be >subjected to personal attacks and know better than to try to defend >themselves. I agreed that moderation (if it worked) could be used to cut out personal attacks (like most of these last two articles!). I was attempting to convince you that it was not ness. to be a feminist to determine "personal attacks" in articles. >> Just rember that not everyone agress with you, nor should everyone agree, >> but everyone should be able to speak! >> >Yes, Master. I will remember, Master. I promise not to do it again, Master. >Please forgive me, Master. > >(END SARCASM) > >> I do agree that the personal attacks gotta go (on BOTH sides!), > >Can you give an example of a woman making an unprovoked personal attack >on a man? I must have missed it. Now, why, I wonder, would she suddenly slip in the word "unprovoked" when looking for women attacking men, when it was not there when she was looking the other way? It must be those double standard rules she mentioned before. Maybe, deep down, Mark is confused about the whole male/female thing? Just look at her name! >I do know that when a man makes an unprovoked personal attack on a woman, >anything but the most abject, conciliatory, submissive response by the >woman being attacked, is invariably interpreted as an "attack" on the attacker. Can you give an example of a man making an unprovoked personal attack on a woman? I must have missed it. (HINT: Don't waste your time, unless your site as a LONG history of articles, for the "unprovoked" part will be hard. In your case, it would likely have to include WELL articles too) >> but I do not see moderation (as in moderated group) as the solution. > >Well then, Alan, do you think there COULD be a solution? Would you care >to suggest one? I will. Here's mine: > > REVOLUTION NOW! > EQUAL RIGHTS NOW! > >--Mark Ethan Smith How about "mutual respect" How about "benifit of the doubt" How about "consideration of others" I have seen a lot of articles that got the author many a flame in which net.people assumed the author meant something they didn't. (wow, do I wish I had a better pronoun than "they" there!) Assume the worst and you will likely get it. Assume the best and you will likely get it. (exept at 3:00 am on an empty (nearly) highway - that is a shame but it applies to both male and female, but yes, more to female) I guess I eat crow if this doesn't make it to comp.risks I know I am gonna regret this in the morning.... Maybe I should forward my mail to /dev/nullo Ahem, obviously, this posting does not reflect anything close to any employers postition. does not reflect the normal postings i do will not be repeated (save for posting to soc.women) -- "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