comp.society.women -- has it had any traffic at your site?
TJ Wood WA3VQJ
group gone dormant? If this group is still in use I don't want to get rid
of it at my site, but if it's extinct, I don't want any dinosaurs here
either (except for me).
I've tried posting to the group a couple of time (which sends mail to the
moderator) but I've not heard anything so far.
Anybody know what's up (doc)?
Terry "rmgroup till ya drop" Wood
--
INTERNET: t...@unix.cis.pitt.edu BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS CC-NET: 33802::tjw
UUCP: {decwrl!decvax!idis, allegra, bellcore}!pitt!unix.cis.pitt.edu!tjw
And if dreams could come true, I'd still be there with you,
On the banks of cold waters at the close of the day. - Craig Johnson
Byron C. Howes
>I've not seen any traffic in comp.society.women for some time now. Has the
>group gone dormant? If this group is still in use I don't want to get rid
>of it at my site, but if it's extinct, I don't want any dinosaurs here
>either (except for me).
>Anybody know what's up (doc)?
Despite the alias, that group is actually moderated at ecsvax.uncecs.edu,
a site for which I am sysadmin. The moderator of that group has not logged
in for some time -- over a year -- so I suspect she can be declared Missing
In Action.
Unless there's a move to have it take over by someone else, I'd vote for
calling it extinct.
--Byron
--
Byron Howes UNC Educational Computing Service
b...@uncecs.edu W: 919/549-0671 H: 919/933-2859
P.O. Box 663, Carrboro, NC 27510-0663
"Ya talk the talk, but do ya walk the walk?" -- Animal Mother
Kristan Geissel
>I've not seen any traffic in comp.society.women for some time now. Has the
>group gone dormant? If this group is still in use I don't want to get rid
>of it at my site, but if it's extinct, I don't want any dinosaurs here
>either (except for me).
>
I posted also but nothing ever showed up. The concept sounds great.
Could it be that there are not a lot of women in computers that want to
post to this group?
Is there a way to find out who is the moderator and see if it can be
turned into an unmoderated group?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Kristan Geissel
gwy...@milton.u.washington.edu
Brain in Neutral
comp.society.women doesn't have much traffic here, but comp.soc.women
has plenty. :-)
--
Paul DuBois "The 'C' shell usually doesn't
dub...@primate.wisc.edu have job control." -- LAN TIMES
Brad Templeton
in history, it's nice to know that those battles really *mean* something,
isn't it? :-)
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
TJ Wood WA3VQJ
>in history, it's nice to know that those battles really *mean* something,
>isn't it? :-)
Sorry, I couldn't resist editing the above line. :-P
But you do make a point. That's the reason I decided to ask if the group was
really inactive before doing an rmgroup at unix.cis.pitt.edu.
After killing the "Backbone Cabal", I figured the group deserved the chance
to have another moderator appointed. But if no one comes forth in the near
future, I'm going to figure that the group has lived out its usefulness and
I'll give it a proper electronic burial.
Terry "The Terminator" Wood
Hillel Gazit
>Since this group had one of the larger newsgroup creation and naming battles
>in history, it's nice to know that those battles really *mean* something,
>isn't it? :-)
When the net.Gods want to punish someone they give her what she asked for.
Theo Heavey
> I've not seen any traffic in comp.society.women for some time now. Has the
> group gone dormant? If this group is still in use I don't want to get rid
> of it at my site, but if it's extinct, I don't want any dinosaurs here
> either (except for me).
>
> I've tried posting to the group a couple of time (which sends mail to the
> moderator) but I've not heard anything so far.
>
> Anybody know what's up (doc)?
>
NOPE -- none here --- I cannot post either!
Bill HMRP Vajk
> I've not seen any traffic in comp.society.women for some time now.
> Has the group gone dormant?
No traffic here for the longest time.
Given the flap and devastation caused when it was created, one
would think the newsgroup would be valued more than it has been.
Of course this lack of use might have something to do with the
saturation achieved when a second moderated newsgroup was created,
given comp.society.women never did live up to its charter in the first
place.
Bill Vajk
TJ Wood WA3VQJ
>Given the flap and devastation caused when it was created, one
>would think the newsgroup would be valued more than it has been.
>Of course this lack of use might have something to do with the
>saturation achieved when a second moderated newsgroup was created,
>given comp.society.women never did live up to its charter in the first
>place.
I've received mail from a couple of people who might be interested in being
a moderator of the group. However, I couldn't tell them exactly what its
charter was. More specifically, I couldn't tell them how comp.society.women
differed from soc.women and soc.feminism. Do you, Bill, (or anyone else)
know what the original charter was?
Since the group has been inactive for almost a year and no one else noticed,
I can't imagine that the group is really needed. However, if it is to be
"restarted" ("rebooted?") it would help to know what the purpose of the
group was.
Terry
Hillel Gazit
>would think the newsgroup would be valued more than it has been.
In my opinion Skyler tried to keep her promise of "no men bashing".
That's why most feminists lost interest in the group...
Byron C. Howes
>Given the flap and devastation caused when it was created, one
>would think the newsgroup would be valued more than it has been.
>Of course this lack of use might have something to do with the
>saturation achieved when a second moderated newsgroup was created,
>given comp.society.women never did live up to its charter in the first
>place.
I suspect that lack of use has to do with the fact that it was moderated
and the moderator hasn't been active. I won't go into Ms. Roberts mail,
but I will say that it has been substantial.
Get off your fat agenda, Bill. You lost the battle the first time. If
the group dies after re-moderation, I'll agree but I think it deserves
another chance.
Byron C. Howes
>Since the group has been inactive for almost a year and no one else noticed,
>I can't imagine that the group is really needed. However, if it is to be
>"restarted" ("rebooted?") it would help to know what the purpose of the
>group was.
Again, let me point out that the reason it has been inactive is because
the moderator has been absent. Make what inference you will, but it's
not clear that those who would post to it would post anywhere else.
Also, unless I misremember badly, the original opposition to the group was
not to a group with the charter given to comp.society.women, but to its
name (its place in the newsgroup heirarchy.) While some would like to
dredge up the old resentments again, I don't think that's applicable here.
The group exists. A new moderator needs to be found. Finis.
Robert Craig Harman
>> I've not seen any traffic in comp.society.women for some time now. Has the
>> group gone dormant?
Does anyone know about the status of the following groups?
comp.sys.masscomp
comp.sys.workstations
comp.theory.info-retrieval
soc.human-nets
As long as we're cleaning house...
Craig
no .sig
go .fig
TJ Wood WA3VQJ
>>Since the group has been inactive for almost a year and no one else noticed,
>>I can't imagine that the group is really needed. However, if it is to be
>>"restarted" ("rebooted?") it would help to know what the purpose of the
>>group was.
>Again, let me point out that the reason it has been inactive is because
>the moderator has been absent. Make what inference you will, but it's
>not clear that those who would post to it would post anywhere else.
I've received 2 email messages flaming me for daring to post what I did.
Guy and Gals: If it takes Terry J. Wood to point out that no traffic has
been in comp.society.women for about a year and to post a message about it
to get the ball rolling, don't be suprised if I feel that the group has
very little demand. Let's face it: I wasn't even interested in the group.
The ONLY reason I noticed that the group is going unused is because of the
way I get "rn" to "jump" to soc.men. I search for /men/ and "rn" would
always say (more or less) "skipping comp.society.women". A year of seeing
this same message finally got me to look into the situation.
I was tempted to just rmgroup it at my site as the older verion of "rn" that
we were running made it advantagous to get rid of non-used groups. But I
thought that I would send the moderator a message and see what the story
was. When I received no reply, I thought I would ask here on the net.
The rest, as they say, is (fairly boring) history.
>The group exists. A new moderator needs to be found. Finis. > >--Byron
A number of people have contacted me about being the moderator. I've asked
them to post to news.groups and offer their services. I'm sure that
somebody will be willing to moderate the group and keep the postings within
the group's original charter: "technical problems that women face in
computing". BTW: if anyone else has additional information on what the
charter of c.s.w was, please send it along or post here.
Thanks,
Terry "jj" Wood
TJ Wood WA3VQJ
>Does anyone know about the status of the following groups?
> comp.sys.masscomp
> comp.sys.workstations
> comp.theory.info-retrieval
> soc.human-nets
>As long as we're cleaning house...
I've sent mail to the moderators of these groups asking if they are still
in use. Soc.human-nets mail was returned to me as undeliverable.
Terry
Richard H. Miller
In article <1991Apr10....@uncecs.edu>, b...@uncecs.edu (Byron C. Howes) writes:
|>
|> Also, unless I misremember badly, the original opposition to the group was
|> not to a group with the charter given to comp.society.women, but to its
|> name (its place in the newsgroup heirarchy.) While some would like to
|> dredge up the old resentments again, I don't think that's applicable here.
|> The group exists. A new moderator needs to be found. Finis.
I want to add a couple of comments to what Byron said since I participated
in the discussion which resulted in the formation of comp.society.women.
Although there was quite a bit of opposition to the group as being placed in
the comp heirarchy as opposed to soc [especially since the charter was
computers and women and the original name was comp.women], the counter example
of comp.society and comp.society.futures were used to justify the place in the
comp heirarchy and after much discussion the original moderator agreed to
modify the proposal to change the name from comp.women to comp.society.women
and it passed.
I do want to second Byron's comment that we need to try to find a moderator
before nuking the group or at least discussing whether the charter of the group
has been subsummed by the charter of soc.feminism
--
Richard H. Miller Email: ri...@bcm.tmc.edu
Asst. Dir. for Technical Support Voice: (713)798-3532
Baylor College of Medicine US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H
Houston, Texas 77030
William Vajk
>I've received mail from a couple of people who might be interested in being
>a moderator of the group. However, I couldn't tell them exactly what its
>charter was. More specifically, I couldn't tell them how comp.society.women
>differed from soc.women and soc.feminism. Do you, Bill, (or anyone else)
>know what the original charter was?
I usually refer to the periodic Spaf list which shows :
comp.society.women Women's roles and problems in computing (Moderated)
soc.women Issues related to women, their problems & relationships
soc.feminism Discussion of feminism & feminist issues (Moderated)
>Since the group has been inactive for almost a year and no one else noticed,
>I can't imagine that the group is really needed.
Trust me, the fact that there wasn't public comment doesn't imply that it
went unnoticed. In the other respect you are right. The newsgroup has
through inactivity demonstrated there isn't a need.
Bill.etc | The last of the California.Cabal (tm) has bit
| the proverbial net.dust
William Vajk
>Also, unless I misremember badly, the original opposition to the group was
>not to a group with the charter given to comp.society.women, but to its
>name (its place in the newsgroup heirarchy.)
You do misremember quite badly. The wording of the charter itself was yet
another compromise made way down the line from the beginning in an effort
to get the newsgroup into the demanded heirarchy. By the time that point had
been reached, under the table deals were already being cut, the "rules"
tossed out the window, and a select few dealt with the situation in the face
of severe opposition. In short, it was the powerplay which destroyed the
backbone cabal once and for all. You neglect also that the individuals
involved exhibited absolutely no civilized behavior and didn't care what
destruction was wrought in order to get their way. You also neglect who
originally proposed the newsgroup, and why.
>While some would like to dredge up the old resentments again, I don't
>think that's applicable here.
Byron, they are hardly "old resentments" so much as a black eye delivered
to the entire net by a few, still remembered. Be advised that for many they
are continuing resentments.
>The group exists. A new moderator needs to be found. Finis.
Wrong.
The group existed. It is inactive. It is dead. It violated its charter
more than it complied. There is no reason to believe in future it would
do any better.
Of course the same thing could happen all over again. The charter could be
revised under the table. A new moderator could be appointed. Pointers to
the moderator can easily be revised. It can be done much the same as it
was the last time, without clean agreement following the "established
guidelines." And if it is to undergo the same treatment again, why don't
the few who participated in the decision making the last time just go
ahead and do it, so we can save the bandwidth of making believe there's
some democratic process involved. Otherwise please issue the usual call
for discussion.
Bill.etc
William Vajk
>Get off your fat agenda, Bill. You lost the battle the first time. If
>the group dies after re-moderation, I'll agree but I think it deserves
>another chance.
Losing under any circumstances isn't quite the same thing as losing fair
and square, so just drop that aura of correctness, Byron. A halo just
doesn't suit you nor does it suit this particular case.
There have already been more concessions made to this madness than it
ever deserved.
Bill.etc
Carl Rigney
>In short, it was the powerplay which destroyed the
>backbone cabal once and for all.
And yea verily, It hath been foretold in the Book of Usenet Prophecy
that there would come a day when comp.society.women would fall silent
and be destroyed, and that this would be one of the 7 omens by which
the return of the Backbone Cabal would be made known to Man. (And Woman.)
I'll leave the discussion of just who *is* the net anti-christ to another.
--
Carl Rigney
c...@amd.com
"Imminent Death of the Net Predicted. Gifs at 11."
Byron C. Howes
>You do misremember quite badly. The wording of the charter itself was yet
>another compromise made way down the line from the beginning in an effort
>to get the newsgroup into the demanded heirarchy.
In your opinion. Obviously, we disagree.
>By the time that point had
>been reached, under the table deals were already being cut, the "rules"
>tossed out the window, and a select few dealt with the situation in the face
>of severe opposition.
As I remember you accused me of being party to one of those "under the
counter deals." I have to assume the rest of your allegations are similarly
misinformed. Opposition was vocal, not severe. Any site who did not want
the group could have refused to carry it, as now. There was no strong move
not to carry the group as there has been with later groups.
>In short, it was the powerplay which destroyed the
>backbone cabal once and for all.
:-) Not quite. What destroyed the backbone cabal was nntp, which
eliminated the need for a backbone. Having been present at the last
semi-official function of the so-called "backbone cabal" I can
assure you that things were friendly and humerous as those things are
inclined to be.
>You neglect also that the individuals
>involved exhibited absolutely no civilized behavior and didn't care what
>destruction was wrought in order to get their way.
Speak for yourself. What destruction was wrought by the creation of
comp.society.women, by the way? I hadn't noticed that it was an omen
portending the death of the net (or anything else for that matter.)
>Byron, they are hardly "old resentments" so much as a black eye delivered
>to the entire net by a few, still remembered. Be advised that for many they
>are continuing resentments.
Who are the many, Bill? You? Hillel?
William Vajk
>I'll leave the discussion of just who *is* the net anti-christ to another.
Ahhhh. I see. You're willing to run for the office, but not willing
to declare your intentions.
Don't worry. Anyone seeing your performance will understand.
Bill.etc
William Vajk
>In <14...@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> William Vajk writes:
>>Rumor had it that she became interested in a man.
>I guess that tells us where you stand and what you're afraid of.
There's no telling what this means to your little dementia at all, Byron.
Does the fact that I'm not homosexual have something to do with your
lashing out at me this way ?
Bill.etc
Byron C. Howes
>>>Rumor had it that she became interested in a man.
>In article <1991Apr12.1...@uncecs.edu> I respond (sarcastically):
>>I guess that tells us where you stand and what you're afraid of.
In <14...@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> le...@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) writes:
>There's no telling what this means to your little dementia at all, Byron.
My dementia?
>Does the fact that I'm not homosexual have something to do with your
>lashing out at me this way ?
It seems to me that the only sexual preferences that have been 'discussed'
here Belong to Trish Roberts who isn't here to defend her motives. If you
have something useful to say, then say it -- but leave the backhanded
innuendo directed personally towards third parties out of it, OK?
Followups directed to alt.flame where they belong.
William Vajk
>>> William Vajk writes (referring to Trish Roberts):
>>>>Rumor had it that she became interested in a man.
>>In article <1991Apr12.1...@uncecs.edu> I respond (sarcastically):
>>>I guess that tells us where you stand and what you're afraid of.
>In <14...@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> William Vajk writes:
>>There's no telling what this means to your little dementia at all, Byron.
>My dementia?
>>Does the fact that I'm not homosexual have something to do with your
>>lashing out at me this way ?
>It seems to me that the only sexual preferences that have been 'discussed'
>here Belong to Trish Roberts who isn't here to defend her motives. If you
>have something useful to say, then say it -- but leave the backhanded
>innuendo directed personally towards third parties out of it, OK?
Yes, Byron, YOUR dementia. And there was no backhanded innuendo let alone
towards towards third parties except in your mind. You are, after all, the
only one to respond thus, in Mikey Robinson fashion.
I discussed INTEREST. Do you see that word in the sentence up there, Byron?
When interests move from one realm, to another, they often chew up free time. I
had really assumed that anyone capable of using a computer would be astute
enough to understand. And it was you, in person, who told me of Trisha's new
interest.
I expect an apology, Byron. You're the only one who brought up sexual
preferances. Evil is in the eye of the beholder. You're the only one to
see evil.
>Followups directed to alt.flame where they belong.
A little late, don't you think ? Perhaps your responses belong there
sometimes. I know where to post mine without your recommendations, thank
you so very much.
Bill Vajk
Byron C. Howes
I'm not willing to contribute additional garbage to news.groups, news.admin
or soc.men as this thread is no longer relevant to those groups. There is
a followup in alt.flame where all of this belongs.