Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site unmvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!unmvax!cliff From: cliff@unmvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Re: In defense of Jeff S. in net.women.o Message-ID: <561@unmvax.UUCP> Date: Mon, 24-Dec-84 02:25:05 EST Article-I.D.: unmvax.561 Posted: Mon Dec 24 02:25:05 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 27-Dec-84 02:46:12 EST References: <637@bunker.UUCP> <8200052@acf4.UUCP> Organization: Univ. of New Mexico, Albuquerque Lines: 62 > Cut the shit, Cliff!!! > > The purpose of net.women.only (I thinK!) was to act as a retreat for > women to discuss things with other women --- without the intervention > of men in any way, manner, or form. > > If you are against the idea of net.women.only, then try to get it > dismantled. It was here when I started using the net, and that seems to > be one of the rules that the net follows. No. I am against the idea of many things, but few are worth the trouble it would take to dismantle them. > But as long as it is here, I think it is a good idea to abide by the > rules that set it in motion. The women on the net certainly deserve > that much respect. Wanna flame at them?? Use net.flame, or discuss > things in net.women. This IS net.flame. My comment wasn't a flame at the women; it was a flame at YOU for your wimpy "well, that is the rule, so it must be abided" attitude. Segregation and discrimination are two areas where you definately do not want to make decisions because "that is the current rule." Decisions based soley on that rationale would have favored "separate but equal" facilities in the 50's or apartheid in S.Africa today. Personally I don't think the existance of net.women is needed, but I don't think it will cause cancer in rats. It might be funny if someone made a net.white-males newsgroup to act as a retreat for white males to discuss things with other white males --- without the intervention of women or members of other races in any way, manner, or form, but these things have all been brought up before. For the net readers who do not know what Ross is bitching about I faithfully reproduce the last part of the article. +> Jeff did not belong there. He knows that he didn't belong there. We all +> know he did not belong there. But there he was, typing away. That is +> pretty crummy..... +> +> But still no excuse for cursing like that at him in public, people!! +> +> +> ------------------------------------------------------ +> Ross M. Greenberg @ NYU ----> allegra!cmcl2!acf4!greenber <---- + +Of course those blacks that sat in at various cafeterias in the 50's had +no place in there either. + + --Cliff Get it Ross? It's not Jeff that I am objecting to, nor the proponents of net.women.only. I am objecting to the reasoning that "he knew that he didn't belong there. We all know he did not belong there. But there he was, typing away." How are you to know whether he did or did not know that he "didn't belong there?" Now I don't know exactly why he posted there; he didn't appear to be trying to stir up trouble, but if he was trying to stir up trouble because he thought that the segregation was morally reprehensible then he might very well have had "a place in there." --Cliff [Matthews] {purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff {csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff 4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque NM 87108 - (505) 265-9143