From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Some examples (Was Re: Winning by Violation (was: new group?))
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:21:22
Organization: savage hackers
	<715566430@lear.cs.duke.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu's message of 4 Sep 92 00:27:11 GMT


In article <715566430@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
> In article <ZEN.92Sep3134228@death.corp.sun.com>
> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
> >  I never heard of the debate until after alt.feminism was created.  
> And therefore it has never happened...

  Logic was never your strong point, I guess.  I didn't say it never
happened, I was pointing out that since it happened in a notorious place
where feminists fear to tread, it probably was a fairly one-sided
debate.

> >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?
> I put several examples in the end of this post.

  It was interesting to note that muffy didn't reject *any* of the
articles that you posted.  If you want to prove that she rejects lots of
your fine prose, then why didn't you post one of her rejection letters?
But I do appreciate your posting these -- more on that later.

> >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 
> It is so nice of you to have an opinion about the rejections
> without even seeing them!  I'm really impressed.

  I never said anything about the rejections -- I did imply that many of
the flames that appear here wouldn't make it there.  I've gotten
rejected myself, from various moderators there, so I do know something
about the process -- although obviously not as intimately as you.

> >  How do you know how much he's been rejected or not?  
> Check the first example in the end of this article.

  One article being posted doesn't mean that he was *never* rejected, or
even that he has been rejected less than yourself -- after all, you've
had numerous postings approved to soc.feminism.

> Gordon's claim that censorship's goal is not moral values but
> control was perfectly fine for soc.feminism.  My claim that
> feminism, as a political movement, is mostly about controlling
> other people was rejected.  Regardless of the validity of my
> claim (we had a long discussion in soc.men about the rejected
> article), the claim itself is relevant to feminism.

  Well, it is a feminist topic, I suppose... but I never said it wasn't.
I personally don't think feminism is about women controlling anyone --
but I suppose a large part of women's problems is that there lives are
so unfairly and unequally dominated by society, which has been
traditionally and currently been controlled by men.

> >You claim that this new group is so great, 
> Please quote where I said that.

  Excuse me -- I should have said that you have made it clear that you
think that this unmoderated group is vastly superior to soc.feminism
(and presumably of some quality).  Whether or not you feel it's great I
don't know.

> >Not that we'll see any.
> No doubt that you will not see any...

  Well, I underestimated your tenacity, and though you didn't prove
anything about muffy's censorship and abuse of moderation in your
examples, I'm happy to look at what you enclosed.  Let's look at the
reasons that the moderators rejected your posts:

#1
> I am rejecting this because it's a flame.  If you want to comment on another
> person's character, do it in alt.flame or by email.

#2
> Too hostile.

#3
> Personal attacks.  I suggest you email this instead.  Or trim out
> all personal references.

#4
> Hostility too high, again.  I don't mind posting your stuff, but not
> when you give absolutely no indication that you're listening.

  So these were all rejected because you were flaming, which I
personally think is a fine thing to keep off of a moderated group.  They
even said in a couple that if you edited your posts, they would post
them.  To me, that's the job of a moderator -- what do you think a
moderator *should* do?

#5
> I'm refusing this because you are not addressing the very points you
> quoted.  What you quoted has little relevance to what you said (I
> underlined the part I'm talking about).  When some coherence is added,
> I'll post it.

#6
> Well.  After checking with the other two moderators, we came to the
> conclusion that this really is no longer relevant to feminism.  This
> seems much more appropriate for alt.censorship at this point.

  Again, a moderator doing their job -- saying that she thinks that your
post wasn't relevant to feminism in one and another saying that your
post was pointless.  Of course, with all of these you could have written
back, saying or arguing why you think you thought that your post should
be posted, or even rewritten or edited your post as they suggested, but
I don't suppose you tried.

  Your point seems to that you object to any moderation at all -- that
you feel that your articles should be posted regardless of whether or
not the moderator thinks it should be or not.  Rather than attacking an
individual moderator, people that post to the newsgroup and like the
system, and your perception of whether or not any moderator is
politically correct or not, why don't you concentrate on the issue of
moderation, since that's obviously what you object to?  Personally, I
think that the moderators were quite right in rejecting your posts, and
were doing what they are paid (*smile*) to do.

 -- d
Newsgroups: alt.feminism