Xref: utzoo news.groups:13743 alt.flame:11659
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ginosko!samsung!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!gryphon!dianeh
From: dianeh@gryphon.COM (Diane Holt)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.flame
Subject: Re: new low for Sexton on sci.aquaria
Summary: (Sorry -- wrong.)
Keywords: oh my, yikes, hotcha
Message-ID: <21618@gryphon.COM>
Date: 29 Oct 89 12:31:10 GMT
References: <35995@apple.Apple.COM>
Reply-To: dianeh@binky.UUCP (Diane Holt)
Organization: In Spirit -- Binky, Inc.
Lines: 60

In article <35995@apple.Apple.COM> lsefton@Apple.COM (Laurie Sefton) writes:
>Keywords: sexist pig

Whether he is or not, it certainly isn't evidenced by the e-mail you got
in response to your "no" vote.

>I voted on sci.aquaria, and this is what I received in response:
[ letter deleted ]

I would suspect that the letter you got was a "canned" response that all
"no" voters are getting, and that the (obvious joke) of "Is this you chuq ?"
is included as part of that -- which means you get it whether your
name is Laurie Sefton or _Larry_ Sefton.  That's about as UNsexist as
you can get.

Look, there's enough *real* sexist thinking in the world without your
getting so paranoid that you see it where it isn't.

>Chuq would forge votes? I can damn well think on my own, and as for your
>information, as if that syphilitic wad of scum you call your brain could
>even register information, I think that sci.aquaria is a incredibly stupid
>idea.

Nice little string of epithets there -- shoulda crossposted it to alt.flame.

Just out of curiosity -- why is it important to you to think sci.aquaria
is "a[n] incredibly stupid idea"?  What are you getting out of voting
against it?  Do you currently read alt.aquaria?  Would you refuse to
read aquaria-oriented articles if they're in sci, but be more than happy
to read them if they're in rec?  If so, why?  If you aren't an aquarist,
what is your interest in all this?

>Are you discounting *all* the no votes that come from women?

Richard did not "discount" your vote -- it was, as was stated in his letter,
duly noted and recorded.  His letter seemed nothing more than one last shot
at trying to get a "no" voter to reconsider, based on information provided
in the article he referenced.  You were obviously free to not do that,
so what's your problem?

>Poor little things just don't know what they're talking about, huh? Need
>the big strong men to tell them how to vote, huh?

Jesus, take it easy, will you?  It's this sort of reaction to *nothing*
that causes reactions to *real* incidents to be floffed off as just
so much more unsubstantiated complaining.  You're doing a disservice
to those of us who try to point to *actual* cases of sexist thinking
and behaviour.

>You're a chauvinist slug, Mr. Sexton.

Not supported by your reprint of his e-mail.  (I have no idea if he insists
on opening doors or not, but I do know he won't offer to take your packages
or help you up the stairs when you've just smashed your shin into some
stupid chaise-lounge by his pool.  Equalist? -- or just rude? -- you decide.)

Diane Holt
(dianeh@binky.UUCP)

"Boo-doo-doop-a-doo-boop. Boop."