Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-ngp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm
From: kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: In defense of net.women.only (CONTRA-CONTRAFLAME)
Message-ID: <1194@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 16-Jan-85 00:15:36 EST
Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.1194
Posted: Wed Jan 16 00:15:36 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 20-Jan-85 00:35:43 EST
References: <580006@acf4.UUCP> <1178@ut-ngp.UUCP> <1787@uvacs.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U.Texas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Lines: 70

[]
>From rwl@uvacs.UUCP (Ray Lubinsky) Sun Jan 13 10:14:05 1985
>> > I think the rule in question stinks --- but I will abide by it until it
>> > is changed.  [Ross M. Greenberg]
>> 
>> I'm offended by you being offended by the rule that only women
>> are supposed to post in net.women.only!  WHY IN THE !"#$%& DO
>> YOU REALLY CARE?!  Don't women have enough problems in this limp
>> society without silly people like you trying to bust up their
>> discussions?!  [Ken Montgomery]
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   Ah, noble knight, defender of the down-trodden!  I'm meta-offended.  Why
>should there be a net.anything.only?

Because of the same general principle that makes it rude to interrupt
a conversation in a private booth in a restaurant.  Because there are
those who desire it, and it does no one discernible harm.

> I don't even subscribe to the group in
>question,

Then why do you want to deny it to others?

> but if I did I would want to feel free to post occasionally.

No doubt you'd *like* to have those whom you'd asked to listen only
speak up anyway, even though they have umpteen other free-for-all
forums to speak in!

> What's
>the point of artificially-induced separatism?

Why do you consider it more "artificial" than any other part of
this network?  (I.e., why is artificiality bad per se?)

>
>   The title "net.women.only" implies (to me, anyway) that the discussions
>probably wouldn't interest me too much.  As far as I'm concerned, _this_ is the
>rule which keeps me from posting there.  If things are being posted that are
>also of interest to men, then what's the problem with men joining in on the
>discussion?

Nothing, if they reply in net.women.

> Wouldn't it be silly, if there was a "net.men.only" and we hung
>a big sign over it that read, "NO GIRLZ ALLOWED!!"?

Only the 'Z' part.

>   I thought so.

Did you, now...

> Here's to ya, Ross!  I also think the rule in question stinks
>-- but I will abide by it until I don't.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Ray Lubinsky                 University of Virginia, Dept. of Computer Science
>                             uucp: decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!rwl

--
The above viewpoints are mine.  They are unrelated to
those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer.

Ken Montgomery  "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs"
...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm  [Usenet, when working]
kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA  [for Arpanauts only]