Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!xanth!mcnc!duke!romeo!gazit
From: gazit@romeo.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Soc.feminism
Message-ID: <16149@duke.cs.duke.edu>
Date: 21 Nov 89 03:07:10 GMT
References: <21323@usc.edu> <1989Nov20.114024.22394@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Sender: news@duke.cs.duke.edu
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: The Piranha Club
Lines: 48

In article <1989Nov20.114024.22394@paris.ics.uci.edu> (Cindy Tittle) writes:

>had already tried to redirect it elsewhere.  And he cannot hold us
>responsible for the soc.feminism readers that refuse to take the
>thread elsewhere and direct their postings back to s.f.  

The readers have the right to ignore my articles, put me in a KILL file etc.
I asked you to tell them where they can find my article in case *they* were 
interested.  You refused to do it under the banner of "that's the
readers decision"...

>Technically, there isn't.  It's a generalized attack on "white males".
>If you go back to Hillel's postings, you will see many similar
>expositions of his that we also posted.  Some examples (all culled

My opinion is different, and I'm willing to debate the subject in an
appropriate non-moderated news group.  I don't think that news.groups
is the right place, but I'm open to other offers.

Let's assume that you are right.  What does it prove?  
It proves that you published flamy articles from several posters but you
refused to post one line follow up.

>Soc.feminism is a place for debate and discussion, not a clearinghouse
>for listing the destination for arguments.  

1) Please note that other moderated groups have no problem about directing 
   inappropriate follow-ups.  The follow-ups from sci.military to
   talk.politics are a good example.

2) I took the article that you had rejected to some other place.  
   It was *your* decision that the article was not appropriate.  I said
   "OK, I'll take it to some other place, but I want the readers know about
   it".  You decided that you don't want to post the follow-up *and* you
   don't want the readers to know that it exists in some other group.

WHY?

>--Cindy

Hillel                                                    gazit@cs.duke.edu

"I don't know what to do -- I don't like soc.men, it's way too busy,
flame-filled, is very blaming, and has interminable discussions about
guns, vans, war, etc.  I unsubscribed a long time ago, and I just
checked to make sure the same small clique of yahoos are posting there."

                    -- An appropriate article from soc.feminism.