From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: What's the purpose here?
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:13:14
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<fb-ngrn.tyger@netcom.com> <MUFFY.92Aug24152039@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<ATAYLOR.92Aug26154422@gauss.nmsu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: ataylor@nmsu.edu's message of Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:44:22 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug26154422@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (brainless) writes:
><In article <MUFFY.92Aug24152039@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>In article <fb-ngrn.tyger@netcom.com> tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle) writes:
><>*THE* feminist view of things?  If you ever *read* soc.feminism, you
><>might have found that there is not *one* feminist view of things.  In
><>addition, you would have found much criticism of feminism, to the point
><>where some people complain that it seems to be a group more for the
><>anti-feminists.  Why don't you read what you criticize before you
><>comment on it?

>Looks like "kinder, gentler" Muffy doesn't like it
>when her net.club is criticized...

Darling!  No one every, to my knowledge, claimed that *I* was "kinder"
OR "gentler."  Where *did* you get that idea?  I'm *forced* to be nice
on soc.feminism, due to the moderation.  Fortunately, no such
restrictions apply here...*grin*.  Nonetheless, I prefer to argue with
actual facts, as opposed to idiotic insinuations like yours.  I guess,
though, that if that's the best you can do, that's what you have to live
with.  If I were you, though, I wouldn't advertise it to thousands of
people...*grin*.

>if I tried
><>to be heard on soc.feminism, I'd turn old and grey first.
><Not that you've tried, as far as I can remember. 
>Muffy has been one of the moderators of soc.feminism
>for a little while; obviously that enables her to
>know every person who has ever posted or attempted
>to post to soc.feminism since that group was created...

Can you read?  I said "that I can remember."  That means that it is
certainly possible that this person has tried to post in the past.

>< Still, it's probably a
>< good thing that you don't want to.  
>Thank you for verifying Tyger's opinion of soc.feminism...

*LAUGH*...oh, but I haven't.  The reason I say that is that Tyger's
stuff might well *get* posted...*grin*.

><Nonetheless, if you care about the
><>accuracy of your statements, I suggest that you do a little more
><>research before making any more statements about soc.feminism.

>Huff, huff, huff. Muffy REALLY doesn't like it when
>her net.club is criticized.

I don't like it when anyone makes inaccurate statements.  What can I
say, I think the truth is a valuable thing.

>Perhaps Tyger actually read soc.feminism (gasp) MORE
>than one year ago, when Muffy first began posting
>to that group????

Actually, I started posting there three years ago.  Well, it's no wonder
that you defend someone who can't be bothered to verify their facts.

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