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 (FLAME!) Message-ID: <1192@ut-ngp.UUCP> Date: Tue, 15-Jan-85 23:34:04 EST Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.1192 Posted: Tue Jan 15 23:34:04 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 20-Jan-85 00:33:40 EST References: <580006@acf4.UUCP> <1178@ut-ngp.UUCP> <810@pucc-i> Distribution: net Organization: U.Texas Computation Center, Austin, Texas Lines: 63 [] From: agz@pucc-i (banta) >From: kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) >> 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?! Look, wombat breath :-), If you want to start or >> or enter a discussion which pertains to women, use net.women. >> But as for net.women.only, IT AIN'T BROKE, SO DON'T FIX IT!! > >Now Ken, look. There seem to be a hell of a lot of people with the >opinion that net.women.only IS broken. Not necessarily the content of >the group, but the idea behind the group in the first place. Since when did it become reasonable for "a hell of a lot of people" to suppress a discussion medium?! > You can >bet your sweet ass that there would have been more people (like you, >probably) screaming bloody murder if ther was a group named >net.wasp.only. Nope. I might even post to it. (NO smiley-face!) Another silly, ad hominem attack bites the dust. > Hey, wasps have problems that they need to discuss that >nobody else would be sympathetic toward :-). Probably. > This "limp society" has >enough separatism and segregation as it is. As opposed to the collectivism which insists on everyone being able to stick their opinions into (semi-)private discussions where they've been asked to be observers only? (Up with net.men.only!) I'm not saying unlimited-participation discussions should be prevented (they should, in fact, be encouraged), but that discussions with limited active membership have their place, too. > Do we really need the net >advocating it? The net did no such thing. 1) I've never met a transmission medium which advocated anything. 2) Common courtesy is neither "separatism" nor "segregation". >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Andy Banta {decvax!allegra!ihnp4}!pur-ee!pucc-k!agz >Dept. of Mental Instability, Purdue University --- "I'm OK, You're a CS Major" >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- 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]