Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!gryphon!mhnadel From: mhnadel@gryphon.COM (Miriam Nadel) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Soc.feminism Message-ID: <22521@gryphon.COM> Date: 21 Nov 89 02:35:46 GMT References: <128159@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> Reply-To: mhnadel@gryphon.COM (Miriam Nadel) Organization: Trailing Edge Technology, Redondo Beach, CA Lines: 31 In article <128159@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@sun.UUCP (William A. Turnbow) writes: > > 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. > When soc.feminism first came out, the program that randomly mails postings to moderators was very experimental. (My impression is that it is now down to "somewhat" experimental.) Consequently, a large number of articles were apparently sent to the bit bucket instead of to any moderator. I do not know of any political bias on the part of the program which was causing the problem and, in fact, people on all points of the political spectrum were rather fed up. (Me too! It's more fun to have postings even if there are occassional controversies to cause headaches.) The problems with the moderation mechanism appear to have been ironed out. If someone does submit something and does not either see it posted or get a rejection notice within a reasonable period of time (allow for propagation delays and, at least in my case, sometimes getting stuck in a 13 hour meeting at the other end of town :-) and not getting to my mail for a day), the thing to do is to send a note to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu and we will attempt to track down what happened. 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