Xref: utzoo news.groups:14840 alt.flame:12668 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!gryphon!mhnadel From: mhnadel@gryphon.COM (Miriam Nadel) Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.flame Subject: Re: Soc.feminism Message-ID: <22520@gryphon.COM> Date: 21 Nov 89 02:26:05 GMT References: <21323@usc.edu> Reply-To: mhnadel@gryphon.COM (Miriam Nadel) Organization: Trailing Edge Technology, Redondo Beach, CA Lines: 88 In article <21323@usc.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: >The following posting was rejected by the moderators of soc.feminism: > ># A follow up to article article <6634@columbia.edu> by Travis Lee ># Winfrey was sent to soc.men and alt.flame. > Hillel is leaving a few things out here. Specifically, he wrote an article about affirmative action and requested that followups be directed to soc.men. Travis decided to continue the discussion in soc.feminism; since his article was relevant to soc.feminism and did not contain personal attacks, it was posted. (He did state his dissatisfaction with soc.men. However, a personal attack is an attack against a person, not a group; hence, the comment was left in.) Hillel wrote a very lengthy article in response to this. In fact, this article was not rejected; rather, a rewrite was requested. Specifically, I asked him to remove approximately 100 lines of metadiscussion about where to have the discussion, speculation about Travis's politics, and general discussion about capitalism. Metadiscussion is specifically contrary to the netiquette guidelines and does nothing to further the discussion and talk.politics.misc exists for those who wish to argue about whether capitalism necessarily leads to insider trading. I also pointed out that posting to a newsgroup is not primarily intended to be a means of discussion between two individuals and if he were that concerned with specifically debating Travis, the appropriate thing to do was to send e-mail. The other moderators can verify this as they received a copy of my response to Hillel requesting the rewrite. >I would like to use this rejection to open a discussion about >moderated news groups. > >The idea of moderated newsgroups is that if an article is not appropriate >(not to the subject, too flamy, etc.) then the moderator has the right to >reject the article. IMO the moderator should *always* post a follow up >information because: > >1) It's not a flame. (Just a *pointer* to a flame...) >2) It gives people who wish to continue the discussion in some > other newsgroup the ability to move it. >3) People can read the follow up and see if they agree with > the moderator's policy. > This argument with Hillel is not unique to this particular posting. It has come up with him in connection to two other articles. I (and at least one other moderator) think it inappropriate to post articles that merely point to a followup having been sent to another newsgroup because they are information free metadiscussion. Those who are concerned with what we've rejected and what we haven't are welcome to look at the archives of soc.feminism. I also see no problem with Hillel mentioning at the top of an article in soc.men that the article was rejected for soc.feminism. >Another subject that I would like to discuss is the moderation policy of >soc.feminism. The moderators rejected to above article >but accepted articles like: > >$This is typical of the 80s style of rhetoric where image is more >$important than substance. The white male with the big mouth who is >$still in college acts as if his observations are superior to the quiet >$woman who has had over 12 years of job experience. I know I need AA > >In *their* opinion there is no personal attack in the above lines... > I can't see how this is a personal attack, unless you're offended because you're *the* white male with the big mouth who is still in college. In fact, it isn't even an attack against white males - it is more a criticism of a behavior than of any person or group. >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. > Since you haven't troubled to check the archives, you might not realize that there have been several articles rejected because they contained personal attacks against you. Your desire to discuss this in alt.flame might suggest a reason that you've had more articles rejected due to personal attacks than anyone else. Miriam Nadel -- Not one of the 54% of Americans who think mowing the lawn is risky. mhnadel@gryphon.COM !gryphon!mhnadel nadel@aspen.aero.org