Xref: utzoo alt.flame:1481 soc.women:9005 misc.legal:3477
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!ptsfa!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!dewey.soe.berkeley.edu!robinson
From: robinson@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (Michael Robinson)
Newsgroups: alt.flame,soc.women,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Yet Another Forgery!
Keywords: antifemophobialisexpicalidocious
Message-ID: <22738@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 25 Jan 88 23:04:25 GMT
References: <229*manis@instr.camosun.bcc.cdn> <6466@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <2939@killer.UUCP> <2623@dasys1.UUCP> <3089@killer.UUCP> <6706@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: robinson@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Michael Robinson)
Distribution: na
Organization: School of Education, UC-Berkeley
Lines: 50

In article <6706@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) writes:

>[all sorts of unpleasant things about me]

I apologize for the dirty laundry.  Mark and I have had something of a spat,
and I regret that it was dragged out into the street (so to speak) like this.

I would, though, like to put the following in context:

emind>You don't have to be a Usenet administrator to post untraceable articles
emind>Anybody can do it just as well as the site administrator.  If only white
emind>males
emind>know how, it is only because only white males have bothered to read the
emind>news documentation (posted and publicly available).
emind>
emind>If women and minorities would bother to read the documentation, they
emind>could post libelous or defamatory anonymous postings on the net and not 
emind>be
emind>held responsible either.

This was in response to the following, written by Mark:

emind>Those with the knowledge and power to make untraceable attacks on others
emind>are all white males, and their victims are not.  The net is 90% white
emind>male because it is the one place that nobody can be held responsible
emind>for what they say.

Shortly after I posted the above cited text, a user remarked that it sounded
racist and sexist (that it suggested that women and minorities were lazy),
and, not actually believing me to be so, asked me to clarify my statements.
My response (which Mark omitted) was as follows:

emind>Implied in Mark's accusations was the suggestion that white males had 
emind>conspired to deliberately discourage women and minorities from using the 
emind>net.  I found this reasoning distasteful, and my statements were intended
emind>to show that the exact same evidence could just as easily be used to
emind>reach a conclusion which Mark would find equally distasteful.
emind>
emind>Both conclusions are absurd.  The situation on the net reflects the
emind>racial and gender bias and attitudes prevalent in techological fields.
emind>No more, no less.  Like I've said, no conspiracies required.

And, as there undoubtably will be those who will point it out if I don't 
go on record, I deny forging any articles at all, and certainly not any
from Mark.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Robinson                              USENET:  ucbvax!ernie!robinson
                                              ARPA: robinson@ernie.berkeley.edu