Xref: utzoo news.groups:4528 news.admin:2608
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!rick
From: rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
Subject: Re: Democracy at work: Big brother is watching
Summary: quotes out of context
Message-ID: <44373@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV>
Date: 15 Jun 88 04:02:06 GMT
References: <56436@sun.uucp> <15613@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <4342@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Organization: Center for Seismic Studies, Arlington, VA
Lines: 33

> So, the question is what happens from here.  I don't know.
> Rick Adams has threatened to start a "rmgroup war" if
> *anyone* (myself and other backbone admins included) issues
> any "newgroups" for comp.women.  One other admin has indicated
> he will recompile his news so that automatic newsgroup creation
> requests will be disabled.


Acutally, taking context into account, the exact threat was that
if Spafford unilaterally, without first obtaining some sort of
concensus of the "backbone", issued a newgroup, I would immediately
issue an rmgroup until the issue was settled.

Quite a bit different from the original quote eh?

I'm still waiting for the answer to two simple questions:

	1) Why comp.women instead of comp.discrimination or some such?
		Are women the only ones with these problems? If not,
		why exclude the others.
	2) Is this problem unique to the computer industry. If not,
		why not sci.women or soc.wgas

The proponents of comp.women continually dodge these simple questions.
This to me implys that they can't make a case for it.

Any answers not directly addressing those fundamental questions
are irrelevant to the discussion.

The group could exist TODAY as comp.society.women or soc.women.computers,
so this absurd claim that the very idea of the group is opposed is
total nonsense. The only basic argument has been the name. All other
discussion clouds the basic issue.