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 Lincoln