Xref: utzoo news.groups:6662 news.admin:4408
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!hc!lll-winken!tekbspa!optilink!cramer
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
Subject: Re: A Suggestion?
Message-ID: <747@optilink.UUCP>
Date: 30 Dec 88 22:42:12 GMT
References: <2457@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu. <1751@scolex. <1152@igloo.UUCP. <1144@actnyc.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 90

In article <1144@actnyc.UUCP>, gcf@actnyc.UUCP (G Fitch) writes:
> maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak) writes:
> }. If an SA decides that his site will not carry ANY soc.groups, that's
> }. a legitimate business decision. If an SA decides that he will not
> }. carry soc.women, based on some personal difficulty with the group's
> }. charter, flavor, politics, etc., as a cover for what is clearly
> }. discrimination against the women posters of the group, it is NOT 
> }. defensible as a business decision and IS liable to be labeled as
> }. sexual discrimination. ...
> }
> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> }So tell me, Valerie, what would you do if there were a newsgroup called
> }"soc.raping.women" in which men discussed their fantasies of raping
> }women?  Would you feel an obligation to carry that group and redistribute
> }it?  Or would you be so offended by it that you would remove it from
> }your machine?
> 
> I don't know whether this is hysteria or dirty pool or what.  Is
> Clayton Cramer trying to say that soc.women is somehow morally
> equivalent to a newsgroup called "soc.raping.women"?  If so, it
> is to me such an extreme view that I would like to see the evidence.
> Or are we seeing another one of these rhetorical tricks where
> a savage accusation is made which can later be denied because
> it's made by implication?

I was making a point about the "obligation" to carry all groups.  If
you don't like a particular group, you don't have to carry it.  The
hypothetical example I gave was to make a point about how absurd this
"obligation" is.

Certainly the level of hatred expressed in soc.women (by some posters)
is comparable.  In particular, I'm thinking of the infamous posting
by Cheryl Stewart: "Men.  Strong and wrong.  All of them."  which is
quite equivalent to saying, "Women.  Bitches.  All of them."  Would
anyone dispute that both statements are equivalently filled with 
prejudice and hatred?

> If a group of women decide to boycott apparently male postings in
> soc.women it's hardly rape from my point of view.  Can someone
> explain how they're being raped if some other people choose not to
> follow up their articles?

I'm not arguing the boycott in soc.women.  (Though I'm sure that if
a similar action were taken in another group to pretend that female
posters weren't saying anything, this would be cited as an example
of "sexism", and lawsuits would be underway quickly).

My posting was about the nerve of Valerie Maslak to threaten lawsuits
because someone didn't want to carry soc.women on their system anymore.
Again, I raise the issue: would Valerie Maslak feel an obligation to
carry an offensive group on HER personal machine?  I doubt it.

> }I'm extremely offended by the hateful crap that has appeared in 
> }soc.women over the last few years.  That's why it isn't on this machine
> }(along with the rest of the soc.* groups).
> 
> Which leads to the questions "How do you know it's hateful crap, if
> you don't read it?" and "What's hateful about the other soc groups?"

I did read soc.women for quite a while, and even now, articles that
are cross-posted appear on this machine.

I didn't say that the rest of the soc.* groups are missing because
they are hateful.  (Though I can see why someone reading the above
paragraph might misconstrue WHY I didn't get the rest of the soc.*
groups fed to this machine).  The rest are missing because they had
no technical content.  Soc.women is missing because it had no technical
content AND was regularly filled with hate-filled postings from 
people like Cheryl Stewart and "Mark Smith".

> (According to that last paragraph, the other soc groups are not on
> that machine either because soc.women contains hateful crap or the
> other soc groups do.)

It's understandable that you misread my paragraph.  However, it does
not logically follow that because soc.women is hate-filled, and I
didn't get soc.women or other soc.* groups, that the same reason
was used for in both cases.  (If you have trouble understanding this,
reduce the statements above to a series of A->B statements, and the
nature of the fallacy will become apparent).

> Follow-ups to news.groups.

This really IS an issue of some interest to news administrators --
is there a "right" to be heard, or do private machines really belong
to the owners?

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer
{pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer          (Note new path!)