Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!bbn!bbn.com!rshapiro
From: rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Soc.feminism
Message-ID: <48556@bbn.COM>
Date: 20 Nov 89 20:29:10 GMT
References: <21323@usc.edu> <1989Nov20.114024.22394@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Lines: 26

In article <1989Nov20.114024.22394@paris.ics.uci.edu> tittle@alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle) writes:
> [several examples of flame-like language from Hillel, all of which
> were accepted by the moderators]
>Hillel writes:
>|I think that the moderators don't apply uniform standards.  They posted 
>|personal attack against me, but reject even a two lines pointer to 
>|my article.
>
>Hillel is, of course, unaware of the number of articles we have
>rejected that contained personal attacks on him.  Of which there have
>been a good number.


It's also worth pointing out something else here. The last time I
checked, Hillel was the NUMBER ONE post'er to soc.feminism. Nobody had
more articles or more total words. Obviously there's no personal
prejudice against him. As Cindy points out, they have published
articles by him which, by his own standards, could be regarded as
inflammatory. I don't understand why he's suddenly crying "foul!". 

The official policy of the moderators is to accept any reasonable
discussion of feminism. It seems to me that they've patiently and
reliably stuck to the charter by adopting a VERY broad meaning of
"reasonable". I don't see any lack of uniformity of standards here;
they've simply chosen not to accept an article which was not any kind
of discussion about feminism (reasonable or otherwise).