From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: What's the purpose here?
Date: 29 Aug 92 12:30:17
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1bbnqca.tyger@netcom.com> <MUFFY.92Aug26180417@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<l9cnk5b.tyger@netcom.com> <MUFFY.92Aug27185934@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<ATAYLOR.92Aug29124118@gauss.nmsu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: ataylor@nmsu.edu's message of Sat, 29 Aug 1992 19:41:18 GMT

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.

>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.  Now, since
there is no absolute definition of what a flame is, *you* might well see
flames where I do not, or vice-versa.  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, 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. 

>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.

>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.
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?  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.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn