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 <----