learn@chinet.chi.il.us (bill vajk) (12/23/88)
In article <25629@sri-unix.SRI.COM> Valerie Maslak writes: < Bill, < In the referenced article, you threaten to drop distribution of < soc.women if the group treats anyone differently on the basis of < sex. (This based on the call by a poster for another "experiment" < in soc.women whereby men are asked not to post for a brief period.) < But I promise you, if YOU as a site administrator start treating < the newsgroup soc.women differently than any other soc group, < by denying it distribution or somehow censoring it, you < will have a legal fight on your hands. That is an abuse of power < pure and simple, and discriminatory to boot. < This is not an issue to joke about. I am sending this to news.admin < as well as news.groups so that the backbone is on notice of your threats. < I think you've gone too far this time. < Valerie Maslak I had written an article last night about not needing to remove soc.women from igloo, as the group will collapse under its own weight. If it survives at all, it will be something different, and not what the intent of the "experiment" is either. Frankly, it took little to nudge me into changing my mind again, as you just have. On the basis of your threat here, I am immediately removing soc.women from site igloo. I expect to see you in court very soon ? On the other hand, you would do well to reconsider your threats. Unless you create a "Sue Bill Vajk for his views and reactions" legal aid fund and receive several thousands of dollars from contributions, you'll be making a sacrificial choice for your children, one that any *good* parent would never undertake. If those supportive of your endeavors have any brains at all, they should want to see the exact laws and a basic layout of the legal arguments you expect to present to a court before spending their hard earned dollars on your frivolity. Of course, one never knows. They might send you money without thought, and write it off as entertainment watching you make a fool of yourself. To kick matters off, it might be wise for you to contact your attorney to advise you on the viability of your case, but do as you will, I will be prepared. Are you having a good time yet Valerie ? I added alt.flame to the distribution, as that's where this sort of nonsense belongs anyway. My future postings to you on this matter will receive at.flame as the only distribution. -- Bill Vajk | I'm gad I like what I like and you like what you like, learn@chinet | and that you listened to me and I listened to you, and | each of us gained something for that. -Ward Christensen-
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (12/23/88)
1) What Bill Vajk does is completely meaningless. If he drops soc.women, big
deal. He doesnt feed anyone. Net effect = 0. REAL sites, BIG sites, that
have REAL downstream sites who they feed would have some impact if they
drop soc.women, yet they do it, don't tell anyone, yet still somehow
no great loss is incurred. Vajk id just goading you people. As jfh
pointed out, I'd think you'd WANT Vajk to drop soc.women.
2) Sue somebody about the net ? Right. Be famous. Be the first on your
block. Knock yourself out.
--
``Wake me up when it's time to go to sleep''
richard@gryphon.COM {b'bone}!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.nasa.govimp@crayview.msi.umn.edu (Chuck Lukaszewski) (12/24/88)
In article <7248@chinet.chi.il.us>, learn@chinet.chi.il.us (bill vajk) writes: > Frankly, it took little to nudge me into changing my mind again, as you > just have. On the basis of your threat here, I am immediately removing > soc.women from site igloo. I expect to see you in court very soon ? Why do I get the feeling that this won't stop him from posting in the future? ______________________________________________________________________________ Chuck Lukaszewski imp@crayview.msi.umn.edu 612 789 0931
gcf@actnyc.UUCP (G Fitch) (12/29/88)
} } >In article <7249@chinet.chi.il.us> learn@chinet.chi.il.us (bill vajk) writes: } >}In my opinion, there is a new illness in some the philosophies } >}in soc.women, one I will not help perpetuate. Special treatment for a } >}minority group is fine, unless it is done at the expense of another group. } > } In article <2845@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes: } >Bill - How about special treatment for a majority group done at the } >expense of a minority group? } >As Val has enjoyed pointing out, women constitute in excess of 51% of the } >population! } In article <281@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: }Ah, but not all women will identify with what goes on or is envisioned }by the prime movers in soc.women. } }(Most of the ones I know won't). } }Thus, the women this refers to ARE a minority. Maybe a large minority, but }a minority nonetheless. Then what's the problem? If the "prime movers" are such a minority, they aren't prime movers. They can have their "Experiment" and the rest of the world, including this majority of women who aren't moved by the "prime movers" (according to their opponents), will pay no attention and go its merry way. I find it remarkable that this alleged minority is conceived of as possessing powers over others as if soc.women were organized as some kind of authoritarian hierarchy. In fact, it's completely passive; anyone can post to it, where it hasn't been suppressed of course. There's no problem except in the minds of those who can't abide being rejected by _any_ women. }One of the things which always amaze me about the "women's movement" }(call it what you will) is the presumtuousness with which its members }assume that they represent all women, or at least all intelligent women. }If that were really true, in light of the statistic pointed out above, }they would long since have achieved their goals. I wonder if any of the authorities on the women's movement, such as the above, would care to cite chapter and verse. Feminists claim to represent women's interests, but not, as far as I know, women _in_ _toto_. Once again, I think we're seeing a monolithic authoritarianism imputed to a group that doesn't actually show much evidence of it. Followups to news.groups.
gcf@actnyc.UUCP (G Fitch) (12/29/88)
maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak) writes: }. If an SA decides that his site will not carry ANY soc.groups, that's }. a legitimate business decision. If an SA decides that he will not }. carry soc.women, based on some personal difficulty with the group's }. charter, flavor, politics, etc., as a cover for what is clearly }. discrimination against the women posters of the group, it is NOT }. defensible as a business decision and IS liable to be labeled as }. sexual discrimination. ... } cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: }So tell me, Valerie, what would you do if there were a newsgroup called }"soc.raping.women" in which men discussed their fantasies of raping }women? Would you feel an obligation to carry that group and redistribute }it? Or would you be so offended by it that you would remove it from }your machine? I don't know whether this is hysteria or dirty pool or what. Is Clayton Cramer trying to say that soc.women is somehow morally equivalent to a newsgroup called "soc.raping.women"? If so, it is to me such an extreme view that I would like to see the evidence. Or are we seeing another one of these rhetorical tricks where a savage accusation is made which can later be denied because it's made by implication? If a group of women decide to boycott apparently male postings in soc.women it's hardly rape from my point of view. Can someone explain how they're being raped if some other people choose not to follow up their articles? }I'm extremely offended by the hateful crap that has appeared in }soc.women over the last few years. That's why it isn't on this machine }(along with the rest of the soc.* groups). Which leads to the questions "How do you know it's hateful crap, if you don't read it?" and "What's hateful about the other soc groups?" (According to that last paragraph, the other soc groups are not on that machine either because soc.women contains hateful crap or the other soc groups do.) Follow-ups to news.groups.
tittle@glacier.ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle) (01/01/89)
In article <15163@oddjob.UChicago.EDU> pooh@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Pooh) writes:
.
.I'm not at all in favor of rmgrouping or merging soc.women, but
.hell, if I had my own site, I'd drop soc.women for the duration
.of the "Experiment" (read: Discrimination) too. Each and every
.time.
.
I agree with this, actually. But *what* Experiment? I do not recognize
its validity, and a number of other women have also stated their opposition.
Without a consensus, how can we say that this month is indeed off limits
to males? If you really don't want to hear from the guys, a little attention
to your kill file should do it...
Sigh. I try not to post flames, but I really don't want people thinking
that there is a real live Experiment going on this month. No way!
If you have something of interest to this group, post it, for heaven's
sake! Don't worry about your gender!
--Cindy (donning the asbestos suit)
--
So many worlds, so much to do, | ARPA: tittle@ics.uci.edu \
So little done, such things to be | BITNET: cltittle@uci.bitnet /\
--Tennyson | UUCP: {sdcsvax|ucbvax}!ucivax!tittle