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]