Warning: Offensive to techies
era...@violet.berkeley.edu
Ever notice that in rec.humor you can avoid offensive postings
because there is a warning in the header, but in soc.women there
is no freedom of speech, and you cannot choose what you wish to read
and avoid abusive postings, because the headers deliberately do not
contain warnings? Ever wonder why?
The answer is that the techies who wrote the usenet software, maintain
it, are the majority of net readers, and are the only ones with the
power to enforce standards, are not willing to enforce any standards
in noise groups, or to permit technical status to a group involving
women or human rights.
These are the same kind of guys who take time off from developing
nuclear weapons to molest children or harass women, but are
mostly incapable of human relationships.
And the offensive postings are not always from sexist males. Sometimes
they are from lesbian sadomasochists, women who emulate only one
aspect of stereotypical male behavior, that is, the absolutely worst
behavior of the absolutely worst men in society, those who abuse
women, in order to prove how women-identified they are, and because
men will not permit them equality in any other arena.
If you can't avoid abuse here, I don't believe you can avoid abuse in
any other aspect of your life. And there is absolutely no way to enforce
the same standards here that are enforced in comp. and rec. groups
because the patriarchy considers computers and recreation worthwhile
but does not consider women worthwhile.
Well, you can always use your 'n' key to avoid abusive postings,
IF you were warned by the header, which is NEVER the case in this group.
And there is no way to establish a group where women would not be
subjected to abuse, because the techies are so good at breakins,
forgeries, using pseudos and copying people's writing styles,
etc. They're good at it because nothing is more important to them
than abusing women.
In the Spring/Summer '88 issue of _Changing Men_, John
Stoltenberg, cofounder of Men Against Pornography, explains that,
"You can't fight homophobia and protect the pornographers at the
same time." Stoltenberg defines porn as the exploitation and
eroticism of sexual discrimination, and argues that you cannot
fight homophobia while leaving male supremacy and misogyny in place.
I've often wondered why people defend porn with such hysteria, but
are not equally angry when the rights of women are denied. Maybe
they could live very well without women, so long as they had porn,
but cannot survive in a world where women exist unless they have
porn to perpetuate stereotypes and make them feel superior.
--Mark
Gene Spafford
>
>The answer is that the techies who wrote the usenet software, maintain
>it, are the majority of net readers, and are the only ones with the
>power to enforce standards, are not willing to enforce any standards
>in noise groups, or to permit technical status to a group involving
>women or human rights.
>
>These are the same kind of guys who take time off from developing
>nuclear weapons to molest children or harass women, but are
>mostly incapable of human relationships.
Ooops, you forgot to mention that we beat old people, ridicule the
handicapped, and direct an international movement to enslave women and
minorities. We also kick puppies and kittens and spit on our parents.
Yeah, that's the ticket! We even litter sometimes -- on purpose!
Once again, Mark, you alone with your unbiased, clear vision of reality
have seen to the heart of the matter. We are exposed at last! (Oh my,
that was obviously a thinly veiled sexist comment, yet more proof of the
vile cunning of the international male conspiracy!).
Gee, I'm so embarassed that Mark has recognized the true nature of the
majority of people maintaining and using the net and that I'm one of
them. We're obviously cruel, evil, sick individuals -- why, we don't
agree with MES! Now that we're exposed, we'll have to call the cabal
together to find another way to deny Mark an account. There is no way
to discredit those balanced, rational, fact-filled postings Mark makes
so often, so we must deny Mark the forum to make them! After all, the
net *is* real life, and we don't want any more postings showing how
Mark has discerned our true nature, right?
I'd abase myself and my colleagues more, but I've got to go molest some
children and degrade some women (and vice versa). It's the only way I
can relax -- I get so peevish trying to teach those juniors and seniors
how to use semaphores and critical sections so they can construct
fusion devices for their homework. If only I didn't alienate every
human being I've ever met.... maybe it's the sadomasochistic lesbians
I hang out with? (See, another thinly veiled dangler remark!)
--
Gene Spafford
Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004
Internet: sp...@cs.purdue.edu uucp: ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spaf
Beth Mazur
# they are from lesbian sadomasochists, women who emulate only one
# aspect of stereotypical male behavior
Like the lesbian masochist said "Beat me, whip me", and the lesbian sadist
said "no"?
--
Beth Mazur
{ihnp4, ima, mirror}!inmet!mazur
ma...@inmet.com
Thomas Eric Brunner
>
<lots of stuff about how rotten people are, motivation for design of current
and past news software, etc, deleted>
>
>These are the same kind of guys who take time off from developing
>nuclear weapons to molest children or harass women, but are
>mostly incapable of human relationships.
>
Dear Mark,
There are two of us on the net (Bay Area) who are in real life
accused of molesting children, our own in fact, by our former spouses.
To you the issue is a play thing, to us it is not. We don't get to see
our kids, ever.
I assume that you are trying to think of the vilest behavior,
citing weapons, molestation, and sexual harassment. To be frank, using
a child as an object to injure via custody denial seems more depraved
to me than the acts of an uncontrolled, ill mind, male or female.
Please try again to make what ever socio-software point you have,
without making the tastless gaff you blithly tossed off in cross posting
to news.admin. Do also see Gene's remarks. If you wish to persist in
making public allegations that the "backbone cabal" are child molesters,
I want you to know that at least two people on the net will be deeply
and personally upset.
--
(if UK, reverse domains).
\teb
spam's news administrator in gds' absence (Germany)
Steve Elias
Thomas,
there's no use in complaining about Mark's latest gaffe.
just as some usenetters don't give a hoot about Mark's feelings,
he doesn't give a hoot about your feelings, or the feelings of
readers who are close to the ESL tragedy.
ca va.
steve elias
(e...@bbn.com)
In <11...@sri-spam.istc.sri.com> brunner@sri-spam (Thomas Eric Brunner) writes:
>Dear Mark,
> There are two of us on the net (Bay Area) who are in real life
>accused of molesting children, our own in fact, by our former spouses.
>To you the issue is a play thing, to us it is not. We don't get to see
>our kids, ever.
> Please try again to make what ever socio-software point you have,
John B. Meaders Jr.
> And the offensive postings are not always from sexist males. Sometimes
> they are from lesbian sadomasochists, women who emulate only one
> aspect of stereotypical male behavior, that is, the absolutely worst
> behavior of the absolutely worst men in society, those who abuse
> women, in order to prove how women-identified they are, and because
> men will not permit them equality in any other arena.
>
off the wall tirades. You are a sick individual and should be locked up in
a mental institution forever. You attack anybody be they male, female, or
perhaps primate (:-)). Give us all a break and go jump off the Golden Gate
Bridge. Is there anybody your sick, paranoid mind doesn't perceive to be
against you? Hell, if anybody says anything against you it's a damned
conspiracy. (It's a communist plot against poor old Mark, waaahhh).
> And there is no way to establish a group where women would not be
> subjected to abuse, because the techies are so good at breakins,
> forgeries, using pseudos and copying people's writing styles,
> etc. They're good at it because nothing is more important to them
> than abusing women.
>
> --Mark
Who wants a group where your sick ass will be the moderator? Does anybody
else want to be subjected to Mark's mindless, blithering attacks? In closing,
Mark, I think you are the craziest bitch who has ever set foot on this planet.
The rest of the world would applaud your incarceration in a mental institution
away from all usenet access for the rest of time. Please flame silly woman
(or "it" as the case may be), since I think it would highly entertaining to
conduct warfare with you.
DUNCAN
>Mark, I think you are the craziest bitch who has ever set foot on this planet.
>The rest of the world would applaud your incarceration in a mental institution
>away from all usenet access for the rest of time. Please flame silly woman
>(or "it" as the case may be), since I think it would highly entertaining to
>conduct warfare with you.
I think it's pretty obvious who has a problem here. Could you please
direct this to email or something?
Bill Duncan
!ihnp4!whuts!wv
Stop calling me Fred
abrasive person with some good points to make. Now I think Mark is
living in some other world.
era...@violet.berkeley.edu (Mark Ethan Smith) writes:
) Ever notice that in rec.humor you can avoid offensive postings
) because there is a warning in the header, but in soc.women there
) is no freedom of speech, ...
This is eiher a non-sequitur or a new meaning of "freedom of speech".
Whom exactly has been prevented from speaking freely in soc.women?
) ... and you cannot choose what you wish to read
) and avoid abusive postings, because the headers deliberately do not
) contain warnings? Ever wonder why?
Doesn't selecting on the basis of author work?
) The answer is that the techies who wrote the usenet software, maintain
) it, are the majority of net readers, ...
You cannot possibly subscribe to the same reality that I do if you
think that the majority of net readers have helped to write or
maintain the usenet software.
) ... and are the only ones with the power to enforce standards, ...
NOBODY has the power to enforce standards, unless they can forbid
all usenet access to all violators. For instance, if standards were
enforceable in news.admin, your article could not have been posted
there.
) ... are not willing to enforce any standards
) in noise groups, or to permit technical status to a group involving
) women or human rights.
Wake up - there are groups that have what you call "technical status"
and which do involve women; women who are unix-wizards, women who
study AI, women who use C, Prolog, or Lisp, and so on.
I think you are disgruntled because you didn't get to create the
newsgroups you wanted. (I am one fascist repressive male pig-dog
taking time off from developing nuclear weapons who voted FOR one of
your two newsgroups. What do you make of that?) Why not do what
many others in your situation have done? Create a mailing list.
________________________________________________________
Matt University ma...@oddjob.uchicago.edu
Crawford of Chicago {astrovax,ihnp4}!oddjob!matt
Bob Weissman
purely inflammatory nature? It only enourages the flamer to flame
all the more.
I believe -- read "hope" -- that if we all stop paying attention to
immature, inflammatory rantings, the ranter will eventually lose
interest.
We all agree that such postings are juvenile and worthless; to post
a message saying so is preaching to the choir.
"Just Hit 'n'".
--
Bob Weissman
Internet: b...@acornrc.uucp
UUCP: ...!{ ames | decwrl | oliveb | apple }!acornrc!bob
Arpanet: bob%acornr...@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Steve Cook
> Xref: slovax soc.women:14965 soc.motss:4767 soc.men:4860 news.admin:1728
>
> The answer is that the techies who wrote the usenet software, maintain
> it, are the majority of net readers, and are the only ones with the
> power to enforce standards, are not willing to enforce any standards
> in noise groups, or to permit technical status to a group involving
> women or human rights.
>
> These are the same kind of guys who take time off from developing
> nuclear weapons to molest children or harass women, but are
> mostly incapable of human relationships.
>
So much hate is not good for the soul. Just what do you consider a
techie?? Obviously in your mind they are all men. A little bit of
gender stereotyping on your own ??? No wonder you changed your name.
And obviously every woman in the world is perfectly capable of
carrying on human relationships - only men are incapable of such an
act.
Thankfully your ideas do not represent even a tiny minority of the
people in the world, else hate would surround us all.
--
Steve Cook
Hah... try to find me at {psivax,ism780}!logico!slovax!steve
or at {hplsla,uw-beaver}!tikal!slovax!steve
I dare you to, RDA will disavow all knowledge of me.
Karen Johanns
> >
> You know Mark (or whatever the hell your name is) I am sick of reading your
> off the wall tirades. You are a sick individual and should be locked up in
> a mental institution forever. You attack anybody be they male, female, or
> perhaps primate (:-)). Give us all a break and go jump off the Golden Gate
> Bridge. Is there anybody your sick, paranoid mind doesn't perceive to be
> against you? Hell, if anybody says anything against you it's a damned
> conspiracy. (It's a communist plot against poor old Mark, waaahhh).
>
> else want to be subjected to Mark's mindless, blithering attacks? In closing,
> Mark, I think you are the craziest bitch who has ever set foot on this planet.
> The rest of the world would applaud your incarceration in a mental institution
> away from all usenet access for the rest of time. Please flame silly woman
> (or "it" as the case may be), since I think it would highly entertaining to
> conduct warfare with you.
While i would agree that there is much to take exception to in the
original article posted by Mark, an article like this does much
to prove that some of the points that Mark has taken may very well
be correct. Not in the norm, but correct, perhaps.
I mean after all, a person who in the content of just one article
would:
1)Call a woman a bitch (if you take exception to articles written by
Jews, Blacks, or Asians, do you call them silly kikes, spades, and slants?)
2)Suggest that Mark commit suicide (the probable end result of jumping
off the Golden Gate bridge)
3) Assume that the entire world would be happy if Mark were to be
incarcerated in a mental institution (I must have been in the
ladies room when ya'll came to this consensus)
4) Invite her to engage in "warfare" with you on the net (my, aren't
we bad?)
Suggests that, lesbian sadomasochists aside, Mark may just have a
point when she talks about sexist males who don't know how to behave
crashing into soc.women and creating an uproar. Your article had a
parallel tone to Marks,' and proved nothing except the premise that
he can be right sometimes about the conduct of men on the net.
--
Karen Johanns
Big Electric Cat Public Unix
{bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!kjohanns
"Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore."
Colin Jenkins
[In response to an ill-advised article by
jo...@jclyde.UUCP (John B. Meaders Jr.)]
>While i would agree that there is much to take exception to in the
>original article posted by Mark, an article like this does much
>to prove that some of the points that Mark has taken may very well
>be correct. Not in the norm, but correct, perhaps.
I wasn't thrilled with Meaders' posting either, however it should be pointed
out that the original poster insisted that her ignorant claims about men
WERE the norm, which is incorrect. If she hadn't taken a stab at these
people in what should be recognized as THEIR newsgroup (consistant with the
popular soc.women criteria) and cross posted it all over the place, no one
would be flaming in soc.women.
>I mean after all, a person who in the content of just one article
>would:
[Lots of good points]
Well, Meaders' gave as good as was gotten. That doesn't make it right, but
it shouldn't come as a surprise either. If you bully someone and take a
stab at them you need to be ready to take the heat. Unfortunately, the
readers of soc.women don't deserve to suffer the heat. Criticising the
attacked as an aggressor rather than pointing the finger at the attacker
isn't going to be conducive to maintaining the peace though.
I would suggest that all such postings be ignored. Both people are looking
for someone to upset, and judging by the responses (not just yours, Karen)
they were succesful. If you give them what they want, they will probably
just continue their inane insults waiting for more to take the bait.
>Karen Johanns
Colin
Jonathan D.
> power to enforce standards, are not willing to enforce any standards
> in noise groups, or to permit technical status to a group involving
> women or human rights.
By default, a noise group contains noise. To expect anything else
from them is pointless. If, however, you or anyone else, wish to form
a moderated forum to discuss women's issues, you are welcome to
propose such a group. The guidelines for creating a new group ARE
available to all.
I'm surprised that you, Mark, neglected to mention the feminist
mailing list. Why not? You WERE an active member. It is run by a
woman, so you shouldn't be fearful of censure by men. There you
already have a place where women can post without fear of direct
intimidation. Why not use it?
> And there is no way to establish a group where women would not be
> subjected to abuse, because the techies are so good at breakins,
> forgeries, using pseudos and copying people's writing styles,
> etc.
Once again, I mention the mailing list. Heather is a great moderator.
Heather is wonderful at keeping the abusive and nasty people at bay.
Jon
Tim Smith, Knowledgian
< I'm surprised that you, Mark, neglected to mention the feminist
< mailing list. Why not? You WERE an active member. It is run by a
...
...
< Once again, I mention the mailing list. Heather is a great moderator.
< Heather is wonderful at keeping the abusive and nasty people at bay.
Uh, if Heather keeps abusive and nasty people at bay, then how will
Mark get on the mailing list? Many of the postings of Mark seem to
be nasty and abusive.
--
Tim Smith t...@ism780c.isc.com
"History is made at night. Character is what you are in the dark"
bcs...@vader.uucp
> In article <1...@sulaco.UUCP>, jo...@jclyde.UUCP (John B. Meaders Jr.) writes:
> > >
> > You know Mark (or whatever the hell your name is) I am sick of reading your
> > off the wall tirades. You are a sick individual and should be locked up in
> > a mental institution forever. You attack anybody be they male, female, or
You know, this silliness has been going on for about 3 weeks right
now... I think we should come up with a mutually agreeable meeting
place, say - how about Wrestlemania IV at Trump's Plaza in Atlantic
City, hand out Uzis and oh, six or seven clips, and let you blow each
other away (film at 11).
Isn't about time that everyone realizes that there are people out there
who try to play by the unwritten rules of common decency and that there
are others who don't give a damn and try to be patently offensive for
the sheer pleasure of raising the blood pressure of others.
Personally, I don't care what you all do with or to each other. As I
recall, by "n" and "K" keys work quite well here in the wonderful world
of vnews.
However, while you're ripping each other and the cooperative network
that made all this ripping possible, how about taking the conversation
elsewhere, OK ??? It may be hard to believe, but I'm administering news
as part of my job, not for a giggle. I read news.admin to learn how to
do my job better so I can keep the above mentioned job and put food on
the table. I don't have the time or the inclination to read this stuff
any more. It was funny at first, then mildly amusing, now it's getting
a little sily isn't it ?
Move your tirades to an appropriate group (please).
Vince
Erik E. Fair
Subject: What to do about [Offensive Person] in [Random Newsgroup]
Once upon a time, there was a computer network created by a set of
like-minded UNIX Wizards, to exchange technical information about
UNIX, and thus make their lives easier. Once the network grew to be
about 100 sites, its existence was assured, since it was big enough
that no one site failure could kill it.
Of course, the network continued to grow. Finally, one day, someone
expressed an opinion, and lo! there was disagreement, for the
network had grown so large as to encompass a representative sample
of the population of the U.S. (and a few other places) and thus
there were many people with many differing beliefs and opinions on
the network, all just itching to convert the others to their
particular point of view.
Rather than attempting to censor those they disagreed with (which
is impossible given the technology on which the network is built),
the Net Gods (as those who do not understand call those who work
hard in the shadows to keep the network running smoothly) decided
to apply the experience one gains when one walks Sproul Plaza at
the University of California at Berkeley during the noon hour.
There are many people there who wish to convert you to their point
of view: evangelists, moonies, atheists, ROTC's, communists, gays,
straights, blacks, whites, yellows, etc.
The most enduring thing that one learns from walking though Sproul
Plaza is that the worst thing you can do to a preacher (of whatever
point of view) is to ignore him. To ignore someone is to deny their
existence, and in denying their existence, you do them more grievous
harm than rising to their bait (with whatever caustic words you
can think of) would ever do.
What I suggest (since I can't take any positive action myself) is
that you convince the readers of [Random Newsgroup] to agree not
to rise to the bait offered by people whom you find offensive. If
you all ignore [Offensive Person] utterly, I predict that s/he will
rant on for a little longer, and then leave you in peace.
Unfortunately, there are many people in the world who have not
walked Sproul Plaza during the noon hour, and have not therefore
learned this important lesson. Thus the preachers of the world will
always have fodder for their pulpits, no matter how rediculous they
sound.
Of course, we of the net have one advantage over others:
when it all gets you down, remember:
it's only ones and zeros.
Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fa...@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu
P.S. Also, never forget that "rn" gives you the power to ignore
[Offensive Person] without thinking beyond the agreement to do so.
Imagine: automated network ostracism!
C...@psuvma.bitnet
BETTER MYSELF!!!!!!! LOCK UP THE SICKO
g...@spam.istc.sri.com
administrators, and you firmly believe that they are abusing their
spouses, children, etc., I suggest you take it up with the police
and/or the employers of said administrators, with carefully gathered
evidence. If you are correct in your beliefs, these persons will be
legally removed from the net and/or the public, and will no longer be
a threat to the rest of us. Otherwise, just complaining about it on
the net, with seemingly unfounded accusations, is a waste of net
bandwidth, and will undoubtedly provoke those who disagree with you to
engage in flames with you, provoking others to flame, ad nauseam,
whether these flames are deserved or not. In addition, it won't solve
anything.
--gregbo
Eugene Tramaglino
major discussion, but---
I am interested in the derivation of the machine (??) name sulaco.UUCP, and
pronunciation. Could anyone with appropriate information e-mail a reply?
I would appreciate a forward of this message also, if appropriate.
Many thanks,
Gene
#==============================================#=========================#
# Eugene Tramaglino -- tlhi...@unsvax.uns.edu # USS Mahagonny, NCC-1929 #
# 1450 E Harmon 207A, Las Vegas, NV 89119 #=========================#
# Data: "All paths are equally dangerous." # Member, Institute of #
# Riker: "Let's go!" # General Semantics. #
#==============================================#=========================#
JUDICE
> I apologize for jumping in with a chang of subject in the middle of a
> major discussion, but---
>
> I am interested in the derivation of the machine (??) name sulaco.UUCP, and
> pronunciation. Could anyone with appropriate information e-mail a reply?
> I would appreciate a forward of this message also, if appropriate.
>
> Many thanks,
> Gene
>
SULACO was the transport ship used in the film "ALIENS". It's
also the name of my PRO/380 on our internal DECnet. We spent a lot
of time playing the sequence of the film that BRIEFLY shows the ship
name. Finally, someone in our facility picked up a copy of the
ALIENS novelization.
It's quite possible that SULACO was pulled from the pages of something
A
else by the writers of "ALIENS", though...
/ljj