From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Winning by Violation (was: new group?)
Organization: Hardly
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:44:55 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism

In <ZEN.92Sep3134228@death.corp.sun.com> zen/d writes:

)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.

Uhh - the debate was mostly in alt.config.  That's the right newsgroup for
it.  A few posts did make it to soc.men.  If you're interested in the
process of creating alt.groups, alt.config is the place to look.  As you
point out rather snidely later, creating alt groups is deliberately easy.

) For
)those of us not in the know, what kinds of articles were rejected?

If you can't find my post in alt.config, send me some E-mail and I'll fill
you in on my experiences. (bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com).  (There's only one
post there, and it's xposted to soc.men - unfortunately I don't get
alt.config.)

)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.

No, this is a much more 'open' group.  I rather like how things have
been going so far.  It's hardly surprising that an unmoderated group has
more 'flames' than a moderated one, but actually soc.feminism has hardly
been 'flame free', at least back when I was reading it.  There were a
significant number of 'flamebait' type postings that slipped through,
and some rather flamy speech from the moderators too.  It's just that
the flames happen to different group of people in soc.feminism, not that they
don't happen.

) 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.)

Sorry you don't like the group here.  I think it's getting off to a good
start, and if you'd like to see some more serious posts I'd really encourage
you to post them, rather than counter-counter-battery-flaming.  I think
there have been some fairly serious posts here as well, but I don't see
any point in making a list of them.

)> 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.

I'd guess offhand that Gordon has been rejected quite a bit from
soc.feminism.  Under the usual 'catch-all', "irrelevant".  I'm really not so
sure why he's so enthusiastic about the group, but I suppose it's his
privelege.  I think he has some interesting things to say about the topic
though I rarely agree with him.

Anyway, there are some significant problems with the moderation of
soc.feminism, IMO, but I think the creation of a parallel unmoderated
forum is the best way to resolve them.

ps - sorry about xposting to misc.misc, but I've removed it in the followup.
I'm pretty sure I need it to get the post out of here, at least for
the time being.