Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhall
From: edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: A vote *against* net.women.only
Message-ID: <2139@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-Nov-84 20:06:12 EST
Article-I.D.: randvax.2139
Posted: Mon Nov 19 20:06:12 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 22-Nov-84 07:23:13 EST
References: <224@hocsj.UUCP> <2095@randvax.UUCP> <590@pucc-k>
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 32

I'm posting this rather than mailing it since the error I am trying
to correct was also made publically.

Quoted from an earlier posting of mine, concerning the feminist mailing
list:
> >. . . . . . . . . .  All I see is women and men sensitive to feminist
> >ideas exchanging experiences and mutual support, and having discussions
> >where respect for the opinions of all involved is the rule and not the
> >exception.
> 
And Henry Mensch's reply:

> 	Ed, I hate to break the bad news to you, but Sunny Kirsten
> <whom Evelyn defines as []> made an awfully nasty posting which is
> downright *violent* toward men...  It noted that we (men) were all 
> assholes and the like..  This kinda sounds like man-hating in my book.

Henry, I have every posting sent to that list (all 360+ of them).  Although
Sunny is a reader, she has yet to post anything.

Furthermore, I doubt that Sunny made such a posting to net.woman or
net.woman.only.  About the only problem I've had with her postings is
overgeneralization.  (Is there anyone among us who isn't guilty of it?)
Perhaps you are thinking of a couple of postings from ``trish@sun'' that
raised such a ruckus several months back.  These were to net.women,
and certainly wouldn't be the only examples of man- or woman-hating so
posted (if you wish to call it such).

Keep your facts straight, please.

		-Ed Hall
		decvax!randvax!edhall