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]