From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: What's Muffy's Purpose, Here? (Was: What's the purpose here?)
Date: 29 Aug 92 00:26:44 GMT
	<fb-ngrn.tyger@netcom.com> <MUFFY.92Aug24152039@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<ATAYLOR.92Aug26154422@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<MUFFY.92Aug26181314@remarque.berkeley.edu>
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <MUFFY.92Aug26181314@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

<   In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug26154422@gauss.nmsu.edu> 
<ataylor@nmsu.edu (brainless) writes:
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	Here we see Muffy at her finest; by editing the above line
	she "refutes" me.

	Can you say "Ad Hominem"? I knew you could....

<  ><In article <MUFFY.92Aug24152039@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
<   >>In article <fb-ngrn.tyger@netcom.com> tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle) writes:
<   ><>*THE* feminist view of things?  If you ever *read* soc.feminism, you
<   ><>might have found that there is not *one* feminist view of things.  In
<   ><>addition, you would have found much criticism of feminism, to the point
<   ><>where some people complain that it seems to be a group more for the
<   ><>anti-feminists.  Why don't you read what you criticize before you
<   ><>comment on it?

<   >Looks like "kinder, gentler" Muffy doesn't like it
<   >when her net.club is criticized...

<   Darling!  

	Note the tone of patronization. Muffy doesn't like
	it when people do this to her, so it's obvious what
	her intent is.

<No one every, to my knowledge, claimed that *I* was "kinder"
<OR "gentler."  Where *did* you get that idea?  I'm *forced* to be nice
<on soc.feminism, due to the moderation.  

	Considering that Muffy rather routinely flames
	posters on soc.feminism (whose replies often strangely
	fail to appear) this remark is rather disingenuous.

	Indeed, some days on soc.feminism it appears that
	certain rather poorly written posts are allowed 
	on that group for the primary purpose of providing
	Muffy with flame fodder....

<Fortunately, no such
<restrictions apply here...*grin*.  Nonetheless, I prefer to argue with
<actual facts, as opposed to idiotic insinuations like yours.  I guess,
<though, that if that's the best you can do, that's what you have to live
<with.  If I were you, though, I wouldn't advertise it to thousands of
<people...*grin*.

	At least I have never claimed that men cannot get 
	breast cancer, Muffy...

	Can you make the same statement?

<>if I tried
<><>to be heard on soc.feminism, I'd turn old and grey first.
<><Not that you've tried, as far as I can remember. 
<>Muffy has been one of the moderators of soc.feminism
<>for a little while; obviously that enables her to
<>know every person who has ever posted or attempted
<>to post to soc.feminism since that group was created...

<   Can you read?  I said "that I can remember."  That means that it is
<   certainly possible that this person has tried to post in the past.

	Muffy's memory is known to be quite fallible.....

<>< Still, it's probably a
<>< good thing that you don't want to.  
<>Thank you for verifying Tyger's opinion of soc.feminism...

<   *LAUGH*...oh, but I haven't.  The reason I say that is that Tyger's
<   stuff might well *get* posted...*grin*.

	Oh, but you have. You've stated quite clearly that
	it is a good thing that Tyger doesn't want to
	post to soc.feminism; could it be that you *do*
	*not* *want* to have her opinions posted to your
	playpen?


<><Nonetheless, if you care about the
<><>accuracy of your statements, I suggest that you do a little more
<><>research before making any more statements about soc.feminism.<

<>Huff, huff, huff. Muffy REALLY doesn't like it when
<>her net.club is criticized.

<I don't like it when anyone makes inaccurate statements.  What can I
<say, I think the truth is a valuable thing.

	Do you? 

	Tell me, do you believe that men cannot get breast cancer? 

	Do you believe that gays cannot commit rape?

	Or have those "muffyisms"  been changed, now?

<>Perhaps Tyger actually read soc.feminism (gasp) MORE
<>than one year ago, when Muffy first began posting
<>to that group????

<  Actually, I started posting there three years ago.  Well, it's no wonder
<  that you defend someone who can't be bothered to verify their facts.

	An interesting assertion. Please prove it.