From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Winning by Violation (was: new group?)
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:42:28
Organization: savage hackers
	<715548447@lear.cs.duke.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu's message of 3 Sep 92 19:27:28 GMT


In article <715548447@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
> In article <1992Sep3.150311.395@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
> >This simply isn't so.  
> Gordon, there was a big debate about the subject in soc.men, and I posted
> quite a few examples of the kind of articles that get posted and the kind
> of articles that get rejected.  Quite a few people agreed with my opinion,
> that's why alt.feminism was created.  Nor you, neither the moderators had
> anything to say in this debate, but you reject the conclusions.

  I never heard of the debate until after alt.feminism was created.  I
suspect that, since the debate was undertaken in that hotbed of
feminism, soc.men, that it's not surprising that the vote was in favor
of alt.feminism.  Besides, it doesn't take a "real" vote to create an
alt group anyway -- any bozo can do it.  It would mean more if a group
had been created in the standard net manner (votes tallyed, etc.)  For
those of us not in the know, what kinds of articles were rejected?
Seems like the only difference between soc.feminism and here is that
there are about an order of magnitude more flames and incoherent posts
here than there.  What kind of seriously thought out posts appear here
that would not appear in soc.feminism, except discussions of how fucked
up the moderation is on soc.feminism (which, at least, the moderators at
least tell you up front that they won't post it.)

> >If you doubt me, you can get the
> >whole soc.feminism contributions file, and check it out
> >for yourself.  Plenty of what Hillel calls "politically
> >incorrect" articles appear in soc.feminism, approved
> >by none other than Muffy.  The standard seems to be
> >coherence, not correctness, so Hillel may be getting 
> >things mixed up.
> They don't reject Gordon, therefore it is not a censorship...

  How do you know how much he's been rejected or not?  Instead of
addressing what he claims is true, you give a flippant non-answer.  You
claim that this new group is so great, and everyone wants to use it, but
you yourself have only posted twice (according to my news spool, unless
you've been using an alias that I didn't catch), and *both* posts have
had nothing to do with feminism -- one flamed muffy, one talking about
how great this new group was and how everyone wanted it, and that just
because gordon disagrees with your all knowing assessment of the net,
he's obviously biased because his posts appear on soc.feminism.
Personally, I'd rather have the moderators filter out your drek, if your
writing here is anything like what you try to post to soc.feminsim.  For
that matter, if you post things like this to soc.feminism, why do you
think your posts are being rejected?  Personally, my posts have been
rejected because I've been too flamey and/or was straying too far off of
feminism, both of which are legitimate reasons.  I'd like to see some
posts of yours that were rejected that actually said something, instead
of posting rediculous and unsubstantiated claims.  What claims?  You are
lying when you say (unless you're referring to her posting someone
else's articles that say this, not her) she posted any of what you
claimed she said that choice for women is good and choice for men is
bad, and that we should force unequal legislation on men.  In addition,
she has posted about affirmative action, both about some pros and some
cons.

  How about some proof with your accusations?  Not that we'll see any.
I thought witch hunts (condemnation by accusation and insinuation) died
out quite some time ago, but every day I see the spirit lives on on the
net.

 -- d