Xref: utzoo news.groups:14804 alt.flame:12648
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!sun-barr!newstop!sun!athena1!williamt
From: williamt@athena1.Sun.COM (William A. Turnbow)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Soc.feminism
Message-ID: <128159@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 20 Nov 89 23:51:25 GMT
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Reply-To: williamt@sun.UUCP (William A. Turnbow)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 22

In article <21323@usc.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>The following posting was rejected by the moderators of soc.feminism:
...........[deleted text]....
--------------

    When soc.feminism first came out I tried to read and post rational
middle of the road replies.  I quickly found most of my responses
being dropped on the floor.  I also learned that if I submitted it
enough times, due to the random rotation of their moderation, I might
eventually get a submitted response printed.  It wasn't worth it.

    They didn't want middle of the road rhetoric, or fairness in dealing
with men.  As the quoted article you included exemplifed, they wanted
a forum for man-bashing without men being allowed to participate (except
for those men who had been through retraining and were willing to man-bash
as well).

    The solution was and is still simple.  Press 'u'.

-wat-

   --- An it harm none, do what you will.