Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: notesfiles
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!edsel!bentley!hoxna!houxm!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!acf4!greenber
From: greenber@acf4.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: In defense of Jeff S. in net.women.o
Message-ID: <8200056@acf4.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 25-Dec-84 11:48:00 EST
Article-I.D.: acf4.8200056
Posted: Tue Dec 25 11:48:00 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Dec-84 03:29:48 EST
References: <637@bunker.UUCP>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 110
Nf-ID: #R:bunker:-63700:acf4:8200056:000:6224
Nf-From: acf4!greenber    Dec 25 11:48:00 1984

cliff@unmvax==>

Cliff@unmax and I are having a little disagreement.

It seems that my attitude about following rules is something that Cliff
finds distasteful.  The rule in question is whether or not men should
post to net.women.only.  I feel that men should not, since this is a rule
that has been inherent in the net since before either of us started
using the net.  Cliff (forgive me for paraphrasing, sir!) feels that
by men utilizing net.women.only that this somehow should be considered
civil disobedience on a par with Gandhi and Martin Luthor King. He finds
my opinion reprehensible:

> I was not bitching about net.women.only!  I was bitching about your assinine
> "well, that is the rule, so it must be abided" attitude!  I suspect I see
> your difficulty and I will elaborate on it further down in this followup.

He then comments on me editing of his words.  In particular he brings up
the idea that I committed a somehow tragic error by not preserving his
comment about flaming me in net.flame.  Of course, if a person were to read
the entire posting, I'm sure that they'll see I was commenting that
if they wanted to flame about net.women.only, then they should do it in
net.flame, or net.women.  The point that I was trying to make was that
even if you DO want to flame about net.women.on the place to do it
is NOT in net.women.only (unless you are female!).

Cliff then does on a lengthy diatribe about his involvement in many of
the vitally important areas of world need.  He discusses his criminal
record and what brought that about.  Actually, he discusses that he
broke the law but was never caught:

> I wasn't arrested, but I did break the law.

Cliff then questions my education and understanding of recent American
History, and requests that I either backdown from my stand, or
state publicly "my distaste for civil disobedience".

Sorry, cliff. Not even close. I have a pretty good understanding of American
History. And based upon that same understanding I couldn't back down
from something that I found wrong.  Somehow I can't see putting various
demonstrations against injustice, and  the civil rights movement, on the same
par as Jeff's posting.  Just doesn't seem the same.  Without meaning to
belittle Jeff, he just isn't as important.

And then cliff goes on and on about the idea that breaking a rule that
you don't know about somehow isn't the same as breaking a rule that you
do know about.  I question whether we are speaking on a legal basis or
on a moral basis.  If legal, then it doesn't matter that you didn't know
if a rule was being broken. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" and all
stuff. If moral, then sure, it doesn't matter: except to those upon
whom this rule breaking has the most impact -- the women on the net that
tend to use net.women.only.  I've seen in the past how a few male postings
there have brought traffic in that news group to a minimum.  I think that
the newsgroup as it stands is a pretty valuable part of the net.  I may not
like it (I consider it a bit sexist) but as long as the women on the net
feel that they have a valid need for it, we should abide by those rules.
We agreed not to post to groups where the subject matter is inappropriate
for a group.  Inherent in its nature, anything posted by a male is considered
inappropriate in net.women.only.  By living in a society, we have certain
responsibilities to that society.  By neglecting these responsibilities,
we negate the benefit of that same society.

> In summary:  If Jeff's letter was an attempt to rectify a situation that was
> morally reprehensible then it had it's place in there.  By Jeff's own
> admission (I can't profess to be able to read his mind) it wasn't, but
> your attitude "As long as it is the rule, then you SHOULD abide by it." is
> spineless and leads to blindly following unjust laws/rules.

No, I don't consider it spineless.  The way that I feel about it is pretty
simple. Even you might understand, cliff.  Quite a while ago there was
a debate about whether a group of Neo-Nazis should march in a town.  The
rules of our country dictated that they should be allowed to march.  I
would rather that they didn't march.  But I had to agree that they had
the RIGHT to march.  Supporting that viewpoint, even though you are
against it, would not be something that I consider spineless.  What could
take more courage than supporting a viewpoint that you are against for
the sake of the larger societal implications?

I'm not trying to equate net.women.only to the Neo-Nazis march.  But the
existance of that group and what its existance implies certainly should
be considered before you break the rules that allow for its existance. We
must sometimes allow for something that, as you put it, is "morally
reprehensible", for the betterment of society at large.  There are ways
to fight against such things, but little meaningless bits of drival posted
in net.women.only is not the way as far as I am concerned.  Perhaps
the way is to change the society such that net.women.only is no longer
felt needed by the women that use it???

But using the womens room, instead of your own bathroom doesn't make
a point.  It merely infuriates the people that are using the facilities,
as it were.

And, finally cliff, my intent here is not to impress you.  I couldn't care
less whether I impressed you.  Frankly, I've had enough of this discussion
and hope that it has come to a close.  In fact:

Cliff you impress me. Your actions and attitudes make me humble before you.
I apologize for my existance.  Proof of your supremecy would be to ignore
this posting and not to respond, as I am nothing but spittle before you.
I am wrong cliff, have always been wrong, and will continue to be wrong
for as long as you exist.  I am mud beneath your boots. Down with
net.women.only!  Long live white-male-supremacy! From now on, whenever
I see something that I don't like, I'll try to break it.  You have
convinced me. You are omnipotent. You are the best....Thank you for
educating me.  May you and your children live forever in the world
that you create.


------------------------------------------------------
Ross M. Greenberg  @ NYU   ----> { allegra,ihnp4 }!cmcl2!acf4!greenber  <----