Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!tale
From: tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Proposed Guidelines Change
Message-ID: <256A4AD0.55DC@rpi.edu>
Date: 22 Nov 89 07:29:19 GMT
References: <36393@apple.Apple.COM> <3503@kitty.UUCP> <45039@sgi.sgi.com>
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Lines: 31

In <45039@sgi.sgi.com> cj@inferno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
CJ> It seems to me that political or personal issues prompted most--if
CJ> not all--of the controversy about the group (as with comp.women).
CJ> With comp.women, we saw all the violent feelings about feminism
CJ> boil up; with sci.aquaria, we saw all the violent feelings about
CJ> Richard Sexton.  I feel name-space issues were merest
CJ> rationalization.

Do you sincerely believe that the opposition to comp.women was because
all of us evil male chauvanist pig news admins got together over a few
brewskis and said, "Wot's wit dem chicks, thinkin' we'll akchully give
'em a place to talk?!  NO WAY!!  We'll just show 'em dat da name is
bad and dat will shut up dese feminist fools!!"

Sorry, it didn't happen that way.  Just how does the name comp.women
fit with the rest of the USENET namespace?  Awkwardly.  A square peg
wedged into a triangular hole.  I have zero problem with equal rights
for women.  For _people_.  My opposition to the group comp.women does
not come from opposition I have for the topic or the people that tried
to create it.

As for sci.aquaria, I did not vote against Richard.  I voted against
the name.  Period.  I don't have any grudge against him; I have no
vengeful desire to see him faulter.  For almost all of the period of
discussion and voting of sci.aquaria I think he carried himself quite
well.  That does not mean that I have to agree with everyone for whom
I have some measure of respect.  I don't.

Dave
-- 
 (setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))