Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84  Brag 10-8-84; site bragvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!amd!fortune!foros1!bragvax!david
From: david@bragvax.UUCP (David DiGiacomo)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: A vote *against* net.women.only
Message-ID: <249@bragvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Nov-84 23:40:02 EST
Article-I.D.: bragvax.249
Posted: Mon Nov 12 23:40:02 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 15-Nov-84 01:20:45 EST
References: <224@hocsj.UUCP> <1779@sun.uucp>
Organization: Brag Systems Inc., San Mateo, CA
Lines: 26

In article <1779@sun.uucp> sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) writes:
>> I've just read David DiGiacomo's article on [Sunny's] rationale(?)  for
>> net.women.only.  (Whether or not David DiGiacomo should have posted what was
>> obviously a personal reply to the net is a moot point now.
>
>It is not a moot point.  It is further evidence of male hostility to womens'
>private space.  In fact, he requested permission to post that private reply,
>and against my wishes, posted what was intended as a private reply, obviously
>for the purpose of stirring up trouble.  Why?  Because when he insisted on
>quoting me, he chose to quote my original private mail to him, rather than
>to use a nicer version I offered him which would have been more constructive
>and helpful to the network community, explaining the history of net.women.only
>,rather than incendiary.  His intent is clear.

As I recall, Sunny gave me her (reluctant) permission to quote her
original message, but requested that I post the "nicer" version.  I did
not, mainly because I found the original funnier and more interesting.
My (conscious) intent was to avoid net.boredom.

Although I can't really disagree with any of Sunny's comments, I still
think net.women.only should be removed.  Would a net.woman like to step
forward to do the honors?

-- 
David DiGiacomo, BRAG Systems Inc., San Mateo CA  (415) 342-3963
(...decvax!ucbvax!hplabs!bragvax!david)