Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: notesfiles
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!acf4!greenber
From: greenber@acf4.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: In defense of Jeff S. in net.women.o
Message-ID: <8200053@acf4.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Dec-84 11:26:00 EST
Article-I.D.: acf4.8200053
Posted: Mon Dec 24 11:26:00 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Dec-84 03:07:20 EST
References: <637@bunker.UUCP>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 60
Nf-ID: #R:bunker:-63700:acf4:8200053:000:2698
Nf-From: acf4!greenber    Dec 24 11:26:00 1984

Me>>:
Cliff>:
>> Cut the shit, Cliff!!!

Well said, Ross!(even if I say so myself!)

>> 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.

Oh...I see.... You'd rather just bitch about it...and you talk about me
being a "wimp":

>                  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.

As long as it is the rule, then you SHOULD abide by it.  I don't know 
what your backround is, cliff.  My backround involved demonstrating
and working very hard to change some of the rules of society that I didn't
like.  And I found that by merely breaking those rules, little was
accomplished.  There is a rule (call it a 'law' if you wish) regarding a
specific net group that is for women only.  And I feel that it is our
obligation as members and contributers to the net to abide by this rule.
If you don't like it, then change it.  But don't wimp out as you accuse me
of doing.  I was following what I consider to be a matter of integrity.
Being that you certainly don't have any, you might consider that wimpish.


> 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?"

Because, unlike you, Jeff has usually written some intelligent (and a 
bit confused) commentary.  And has been on the net long enough to know.
And this discussion took place about six months ago. And .... well, even
you probably get the point...


> 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."

Hmmmm. maybe you didn't get the point. All right: I'll use small words.
It doesn't matter what Jeff was trying to do or not do in net.women.only.
And it doesn't matter how he feels about the group. The only thing that
matters is that he posted to a group that he shouldn't have.

Now do you get the point?? Hopefully....this discussion has gone on far
too long....


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