From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Muffy Does Not Champion Email Abuse (Was: What's the purpose here?)
Date: 1 Sep 92 22:10:15 GMT
	<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@remarq
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <MUFFY.92Aug31173153@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
<In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug31173456@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

	Muffy seems to have stopped playing little games 
	with names, for the moment at least....

<><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:

<>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.....

<   Actually, I do find something wrong with this; I think it is a wrong
<   thing to do.  However, ataylor has never *asked* (until now, sort of) if
<   I think it is wrong or not, just *assserted* that I do not.

	Given that Muffy is a moderator of soc.feminism
	and the moderators of soc.feminism posted my email
	without my permission, this is hardly an
	unreasonable assumption on my part.

	Note that "moderator of soc.feminism" is both a 
	very small set and a voluntary one; thus, assumptions
	about persons based on membership in this group 
	are very likely to have some truth.

<>I see. You reject flames, yet some are posted. 

<   Exactly.  I reject what I see as flames.  Cindy rejects what she sees as
<   flames.  Miriam (when around) rejects what she sees as flames.  Now, I
<   might see something that Cindy or Miriam approves as a flame, but I
<   don't know that until after it is posted.

	Yawn. 
	Muffy's flames of postings that clumsily criticize
	"feminism" are posted from time to time, yet responses
	to her flames are rarely, if ever, posted.

	[Note that this has been pointed out before and
	 Muffy ducked it.]

	Looks to me like "When Muffy does it to some poster,
	it's feminism; when some poster does it to Muffy, it's
	a flame".

	Which rather bears out what others have written, both
	in soc.men and in alt.feminism, about soc.feminism, now
	doesn't it?
	
<><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'm glad that you finally agree with me.


	Muffy once again displays her ability to read what she
	wants to read.

	Uh-uh is a shorthand for "nope".

	Agreement would probably be, oh, "uh-huh", although
	that might be used sarcastically as in "oh, *sure*".

<><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. 
 
	By the way, Muffy is the one who claims to have
	access to soc.feminism archives, not I....

<>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.

<Actually, no.  If I *knew* that it was your private email, I would
<reject it.  However, it seems quite likely to me that what happened was
<that the moderator in question did not KNOW (not being omniscient, as
<I'm sure you'd agree) that it was your private email.

	Muffy begs the question. Could not the moderators
	of soc.feminism <gasp!> ASK when they see email
	in a post?

	Nah, that would get in the way much too much, now
	wouldn't it?


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

<No, but it is certainly something that a moderator may not have any
<personal knowledge of.

	Especially if they don't ask. Rather like covering
	one's eyes and claiming "I see nothing".

	The Sgt. Schultz "policy" of moderating....


<><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.

<No.  POSTING the protesting is not appropriate.  Protesting is fine.


	Wonderful. So as long as the moderator "doesn't know"
	(nudge-nudge, wink-wink) that a flame contains
	unauthorized use of email, posting it is ok. 


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

<I have no intention of doing so.  I don't think it is appropriate.  

	I'll just salt this one away for the next time email
	is "accidentally" posted in soc.feminism.....

<Of course, you will now tell me that I *do* think it is appropriate, so

	I don't make it my practice to tell other people what
	the do or do not think...or what they *should* think.
	
	I leave that sort of dreck for the "feminists" who
	relish it so very much.


<what's the use...*laugh*...it doesn't matter what I say, you never
<listen anyway.

	While on the subject of "never listen", I wonder
	when Muffy will either support or withdraw her claim
	that I flamed the moderators of soc.feminism, that I
	was "a jerk" during the period when the moderators
	of soc.feminism posted my email without my permission.

	Can Muffy deal in facts, or are facts just too stubborn?

<><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.

	I see. Abuse of email by "feminists" for "feminism"
	on soc.feminism is appropriate, but discussion of
	the inability of certain "feminists" to follow
	net.guidelines is not appropriate.

	Thank you for clearing that up for  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".

<I understand that perfectly, and have never done anything of the sort.
 
	Good for Muffy. A clear statement with no insults.

	I wonder if it is true......

<(And yes, it is clear that you are not a feminist.  I don't think you
<need to be afraid of anyone taking you for one.)  

	Indeed. My challenging of sex roles, my unshakeable
	belief in equality, the skepticism with which I regard
	dogma, my preference for equality of opportunity instead
	of state-mandated "equality of result", my refusal to
	accept sweeping generalizations as fact...all are clear
	indications that I cannot be a "feminist" as that term
	is defined, nowadays.


<You, on the other hand,
<*have* attempted to post comments *about* soc.feminism to soc.feminism,
<rather than directing them to the moderators.

	This statement is false. Either support this statement
	with evidence or withdraw it, Muffy.