From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: What's the purpose here?
Date: 31 Aug 92 08:54:10
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<MUFFY.92Aug29183241@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<LYNCH.92Aug31015430@flubber.cc.utexas.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: lynch@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu's message of 31 Aug 92 06:54:30 GMT

In article <LYNCH.92Aug31015430@flubber.cc.utexas.edu> lynch@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Tom Lynch) writes:
>In article <LYNCH.92Aug29035529@flubber.cc.utexas.edu> lynch@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Tom Lynch) writes:

>>First, this is not appropriate for feminism but for feminism-request.
>^^^

>I didn't write this - it was part of a quote, when placing the angle
>brackets on a large quote I missed the first line.

As I understand it, the original complaint was about how someone posted
a response to someone's personal email, which is exactly what you did.
Now, as I predicted, you attempt to justify this...with a bunch of lies,
no less.

>However, given
>that email's direct contradictions to statements made on the net,

It contained no such direct contradictions.  You recieved two pieces of
email, one from me and one from Cindy Tittle Moore, the other moderator,
explaining and discussing your questions/statements.

>>*You* agree that it is not appropriate, *I* and other people do not.
>>Why should we do what *you* think is appropriate rather than what *we*
>>think is appropriate?  
     ^^^^^^
> so you admitt to biasing the group by censorship

Not at all.  This was in response to your claim that I should stop
being a moderator becasue there was a conflict of interest.  I and the
other moderators and many of the posters see no such conflict of
interest.  I was questioning the concept that I should base my actions
on *your* beliefs, which I think is ridiculous.  Frankly, if you think
this is a good way to act, then please base *your* actions on *my*
beliefs, and go away and never post again, because I think that your
sort of twisting and hate-mongering is a very evil thing to do.  I don't
expect, of course, that you *will* act in accordance with my beliefs, so
you are very hypocritical in asking me to do the same.

>> 3. Ethical issues are *not* (clearly) holding me
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>                     emphasis and obfuscation - were you an
>                      advertising major at one time?

What did you have trouble understanding (obfuscation)?  Yes, I used
emphasis.  How horrendous.  I know you don't think I should have any
opinions, but the fact remains that I do.   I do not feel that there is
any ethical issue involved, and it therefore does not hold me back.  Is
that clearer?

> You are not a feminist, you are a fascist.  

More insulting.  No evidence, other than your personal beliefs.

>You are trying to diffuse this thing by moving
>it to private mail.

No, *you* tried to post inappropriate discussion to soc.feminism.  As
you may have heard, it's a moderated newsgroup, which means that things
don't get posted, they get mailed to the moderators.  If you wanted to
discuss it on the net, you should have posted here in alt.feminism,
where it has already been made clear that we do not post discussion of
moderation in soc.feminism.

>You are trying to belittle me be 'what do
>they teach them at these schools'.

Actually, that's a quote from a children's book...*smile*.  sorry, i
shouldn't assume that everyone has read all that much...

>and finally you have moved the
>discussion to an emotional level so that facts won't get in the way.
>be advised, anything you send to me will be public and annotated.

in other words, you will commit the same abuses you complain about,
posting email.  you warn me about this in the very same letter which you
plan to post, so you can hardly say that i was warned.  nonetheless, i
note that you did *not* post my response to this drivel.

>the only logic i can see for you to defend this position of moderator
>in this fashion is a desire to control the group.

again, your claim, from your twisted mind.  no evidence.

>this whole issue isn't over your feministic views, it is over your
>limitation of free speech on what should be a public media.

by defintion, in a moderated group, there is not free speech, since
someone decides what gets posted.  you (plural) created a non-moderated
group, which *does* give free speech.  So, now, why try to change
soc.feminism?

>They need a replacement moderator, where do I sign up?  Or do you not
>agree with having people who hold differing opinions moderating a
>group?

Your claim again.  I personally would be willing to have you proposed to
the group as a moderator.  However, I have every intention of revealing
your hypocrisy, lies, and viciously anti-feminist stance to the
readership, in which case I believe that you would be rejected.  In
addition, since you believe in "free speech", it is amazingly
hypocritical for you to offer to be a moderator, since that would
involve either you limiting speech (actually rejecting articles) or
lying about performing the duties of a moderator (not rejecting
articles).

>The mail was obviously not sent to me for the benefit of my
>confidence, but in fact was for the abuse of it.  This is also
>something I never expected to see.

*SNORT*.  Not only was that what you *expected*, but you carefully
edited it and then gave very twisted interpretations (whcih were not at
all based on what I was responding to) so that you *could* claim this.
Even so, you were not very successful, so you had to add in a huge
section (much more than what I wrote) to "support" your claims by
reiterating them.  I hate to tell you this, but just because you read it
on the net doesn't make it so, especially if you were the one who wrote
it in the first place.

>She sent more mail, and again she mailed statements which directly
>contradicted remarks she made on the net (even appearing on the same
>day).

Prove it.

>I posted it again, and now she is trying to make an issue of
>it.

Really?  I have only seen you post your response to one of my letters.
Perhaps the other did not get out?  Or maybe you're just lying again?

>Muffy has said that one of the reasons for this apparently unfair
>censorship was the lack of moderators for the group.

False.  I said that one of the reasons that, despite having to deal with
obnoxious persons like yourself, I do not choose to stop being a
moderator is that it would be a burden on the other moderator (there are
actually two others, but one is on an extended hiatus).

>I volunteered to
>help moderate the group.  This was a sincere offer, but also, I think,
>an important one in order to expose the depth of censorship.

In other words, if we don't allow *YOU* to participate in the
"censorship," then it *MUST* be censorship.  If we let you participate,
it wouldn't be?

>My offer
>was tuned down on the grounds that I didn't have the correct beliefs,
>or at least the correct attitudes.

Nope.  Your "offer" was turned down on the grounds that you are
obviously quite irrational, a liar, etc.  I note that you do not post
this "turning down," which, by the way, was *not* done by me, although
your sentence does not attempt to indicate otherwise.

>[...] If
>Muffy really believed this she would have no reason to fear putting
>this to a binding VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE.

*laugh*...right.  And all of you would leap to try to pull soc.feminism
down, even though you have made it clear that you have very little
understanding of what's going on there.  Look, you've got your place
now, why not just live in it?  If people are really so unhappy with
soc.feminism, they will all post here and soc.feminism will quietly die
away.  I think we already *are* being put to your "vote of no
confidence."  Why don't we let the actual *posters* speak with their
feet (or fingers), as it were.

>[...]  Let the readers judge who should be
>moderator; after all, it is the reader's news group, not the
>moderator's. 

Once again, you demonstrate your lack of knowledge about soc.feminism.
There *was* a vote for a new moderator, and many of the readers voted
for me.  Many more than voted against me.

>How about it Muf?

Well, you're a liar and a hypocrite, that much is clear.  Why should I
try to make any agreement with you, when you will simply twist anything
to your own ends?  I note that you did not post my response to your
bizarre twisting of what I had originally said.  Since you're busy
posting email, I give you full permission to post that...indeed, please
do.  However, I have included a new (mostly to different points)
response in this post, since you made a bunch of claims based on your
falsifications.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn