Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site hocsj.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!hogpc!pegasus!hocsj!ecl
From: ecl@hocsj.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: A vote *against* net.women.only
Message-ID: <246@hocsj.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 11-Nov-84 10:15:22 EST
Article-I.D.: hocsj.246
Posted: Sun Nov 11 10:15:22 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 13-Nov-84 05:28:04 EST
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 25


Reference: <224@hocsj.UUCP>, <2095@randvax.UUCP>

Ed Hall says:
> Who said *anything* about net.woman.only having to do with man-hating?
> Or the mailing list, for that matter.

> Evelyn, I'm having a hard time understanding your hostility.  Could
> you tell me and the net just what it is you are so angry about?

Since I quoted the original article before, I won't repeat it.  (The original
article did not make it to all sites, which is why I quoted it.)  There was
someone who did say those things.  Whether they are true or not I can't say,
but they were the *only* reasons I had seen for net.women.only up to that point.

I stand by my belief that a public newsgroup is for everyone who is interested
in the subject and who is responsible (a.k.a. reasonably polite).  If
net.women.only is for everyone it's a hell of a poor choice for a name.  I am a
firm believer in the reasoned argument/debate being much more productive than
virulent attacks on other people.  I believe that even in my incensed state,
I gave some rational arguments against the comments I was responding to.

					Evelyn C. Leeper
					...ihnp4!hocsj!ecl