From: lynch@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Tom Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: What's the purpose here?
Date: 31 Aug 92 06:54:30 GMT
	<MUFFY.92Aug29183241@remarque.berkeley.edu>
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
In-reply-to: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu's message of 29 Aug 92 23:32:41 GMT

the people.


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.

The lack of '>'s in the quote was my mistake, sorry if it lead to any
confusion.

To clarify: I believe that this (alt.feminism) is the proper forum for
discussion of the drawbacks of the current soc.feminism newsgroup.
In fact I think it is a good way to justify this groups existence.

I should add, I have done something which I thought I would never do,
that is to publicize mail addressed to me personally.  However, given
that email's direct contradictions to statements made on the net, its
obvious propagandistic content, and its blatant procensorship slant, I
thought it only fair to those debating the subject that I expose it.
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.

I will give fair warning again, sending me mail (of any kind) for the
purpose of abusing my confidence, that is, making me aware of lies,
unjustices, or illegalities propagated by the letter writter - which
because of the assumed confidentiality ethic, the letter writter
expects me to live with - is in peril of being publicized.  This is
not an unconventional tenet.  This ethic is not an issue I mind
debating (Actually it would be fun).  (just send me email :-), or a
followup group).

In a previous posting I made my ability to further expose such
contradictions very clear (and proved it with quotes from her mail).
She sent more mail, and again she mailed statements which directly
contradicted remarks she made on the net (even appearing on the same
day).  I posted it again, and now she is trying to make an issue of
it.

Muffy has said that one of the reasons for this apparently unfair
censorship was the lack of moderators for the group.  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.  My offer
was tuned down on the grounds that I didn't have the correct beliefs,
or at least the correct attitudes.

Besides the 'not enough moderators' point, she has also made this out
to be a conflict between two moderators, and a few 'whiners'.  If
Muffy really believed this she would have no reason to fear putting
this to a binding VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE.  Or perhaps have some sort
of election.  A person who was not fascist would have no reason to
disagree with this proposal.  Let the readers judge who should be
moderator; after all, it is the reader's news group, not the
moderator's. 

It has occured to me that Muffy may object to the vote of no
confidence on the grounds that I have designs for the position of
moderator. To make it clear that I have not argued these issues for
that reason, I will bow out of any election for such a position upon
her request, if indeed a vote of no confidence succeeds, such an
election comes about, and I enter it.


How about it Muf?


-tom Lynch@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu