Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!killer!ames!oliveb!pyramid!prls!philabs!gcm!dc
From: dc@gcm (Dave Caswell)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: comp.women
Message-ID: <485@white.gcm>
Date: 30 May 88 19:51:55 GMT
References: <2876@palo-alto.DEC.COM>
Reply-To: dc@white.UUCP (Dave Caswell)
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Greenwich Capital Markets, Greenwich, CT
Lines: 44

[ followups redirected to news.groups]

In article <2876@palo-alto.DEC.COM> vixie@volition.dec.com (Paul Vixie) writes:
.In <4631@dasys1.UUCP>, tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
.# Those who insist it's misnamed (on the grounds that anything having to do 
.# with women and computing is ipso facto a soc.* topic) are ... exercising 
.# a nice attention to fine shades of meaning in group names which I don't 
.# see in evidence at other times.  
.
.This argument amounts to: if people really cared that much about names, why
.havn't they yelled when other ambiguously named groups were created?  Since
.they havn't, there must be some hidden reason for the opposition to the
.comp.women name.

No it doesn't even amount to that.  All it says is that no one has
demonstrated that the group would have anything to do with women.
After all don't the rules so that should be a prior discussion before
a group is created.  I bet if people saw 2-5 articles that were 
previously posted having to do with women and computers so that
people knew what in the world "the technical core of women and computing" 
meant most of the disagreement would fade away; and it is part of
the guidelines anyways.

.all the soc.* and talk.* flamers) of USENET.  This is really just paranoia,
.and noone whose articles I bother to read has yet to assert that the content
.of the proposed "comp.women" group would be at all in the tradition of the
.other "*.women[.only]" groups.

On the other hand no one has really talked much about what the content would
be or shown any prior aritcles discussing this "technical core" the moderator
talks about.

.               It's as though by acknowledging the need for this group and
.the propriety of its proposed "comp.*" name, we would have to acknowledge
.the real fact of discrimination in our otherwise fairly modern society.

I just don't understand the above statement.  Try replacing women 
with something else and see if it follows; and why does 
computers + women = discrimination

-- 
Dave Caswell
Greenwich Capital Markets                             uunet!philabs!gcm!dc
If it could mean something, I wouldn't have posted about it! -- Brian Case