From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Muffy Champions Email Abuse (Was: What's the purpose here?)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1bbnqca.tyger@netcom.com> <MUFFY.92Aug26180417@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<l9cnk5b.tyger@netcom.com> <MUFFY.92Aug27185934@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<ATAYLOR.92Aug29124118@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<MUFFY.92Aug29123017@remarque.berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 00:34:56 GMT

<In article <MUFFY.92Aug29123017@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
<   In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug29124118@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
<   ><In article <MUFFY.92Aug27185934@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

<><>Well, I vaguely recall something about email being posted, but I am not<
<><>sure what the exact problem/situation was.  However, even if something
<><>such as posting personal email is done, that doesn't mean that we will
<><>then post a flame (or other inappropriate article) in response.

<>Last September, I responded via email to a typical
<>feminist post in which it was claimed by an individual
<>who called herself "witchy" that only women
<>are raped. I chose email as I knew that it was pointless
<>to attempt to post any reply to soc.feminism, since
<>I would be disagreeing with a "feminist".

<In other words, *YOU* decided that you could not post, the moderators
<did not.

	Based on past experience, both personal and 
	other people's, yes. I chose to send email to
	a person who then posted it WITH the permission
	of the moderators...but without my permission.

	Oddly, Muffy seems to find nothing wrong with	
	this.....

<>My email was posted with "witchy's" personal attacks
<>on me; some people call such attacks "flames", but of
<>course soc.feminism is flame-free according to Muffy,
<>so they obviously weren't flames...right? Sure.

<   Actually, I never said that it was flame-free (I wonder why you keep
<   making up opinions for me - could it be that I would sound too
<   reasonable if you did not?), I said that we reject flames.  

	I see. You reject flames, yet some are posted. 
	
<Now, since
<there is no absolute definition of what a flame is, *you* might well see
<flames where I do not, or vice-versa.  

	Uh uh.

<I would have to see the post in
<question (indeed, perhaps if you have it, you would send it to me, or
<post it here for everyon?) to determine if I would have rejected
<it. 

	Oh, you would allow my email to be posted without
	my permission so long as it was "flame free"?

	Thank you for that "policy clarification" so much.

<By
<the way, when I was applying (publically) for the position of moderator,
<I commented that I thought a lot of stuff that did get through *was*
<flaming, and that I would probably reject some things that had been
<approved by the other moderators.  Once again, it's a personal
<judgement. 

	Posting of email without permission is NOT a personal
	judgment, is it?

<>All of my attempts to post *any* protest of this blatant
<>abuse of email were rejected from soc.feminism. 

<If all you were doing was protesting the posting, as opposed to
<discussing feminism, then that is not appropriate for soc.feminism, it
<is appropriate for feminism-request, which is the alias for the
<moderators to discuss such problems.

	Ah, so posting of email is appropriate but *protesting* that
	email is 'inappropriate'. Thank you for that clarification.

<>So far as I can tell, the abuse of email for the purpose
<>of flaming "unbelievers" is at least tolerated by the
<>moderators of soc.feminism....

<As far as I can tell (from your description here), you made some
<assumptions, flamed the moderators, and generally acted like a jerk.
 
	Excuse me?

	*I* sent email to a person who was not a moderator,
	my email was POSTED to soc.feminism with the permission
	of the moderators and I was not allowed to protest 
	said posting.,...and you have the audacity assert that
	*I* acted like a jerk?????

	And please show me where I (or anyone else) said that
	*I* flamed the moderators?

<Have you never found that if you treat people well, instead of accusing
<them of acting badly, that they are more inclined to help you?  

	Since I did not flame the moderators, this statement
	does not apply.

	I repeat: please show me where I or anyone else 
	said that I flamed the moderators?

	While you're at it, justify the posting of my email
	without my permission....if you can.

<Read the
<informational postings sometime...discussions of how the moderation is
<done are *not* appropriate for postings.  How hard is it to understand
<that?  It seems pretty simple to me.


	Read the net.guidelines. Posting of email is inappropriate.

	How hard is it to understand that? It seems pretty simple
	to me...but then, I'm not a "feminist".