🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <cjmount.783963547@extro>, Christopher Mountford writes:

> Now I am sure Rosie Cross is not perfect, but as for the rest, I don't 
> know, I am not going to ignore rational pleas against sexism I 
> recognise everywhere just because some boys from the club let me in
> on a secret (hey, she's a bitch, she doesn't deserve your support).

I'm not in any _boys only_ club, Chris.  A number of people, male and
female, have indicated their displeasure at Rosie's latest outburst.

You're articulate, but you are siding with the WRONG person here!

> I really don't think I am personally endorsing Rosie and all her ideas,
> just her equal claim to discuss them.

If she blows her 'crisis' trumpet too often, as she is wont to do, then
the netspace participants turn a blind eye to her actions.  I suggest
that you drop any link that you argument has with Rosie.  You will find
many more people agreeing with you if you don't have such a disagreeable
person as the lynchpin of your central argument!

> >My point is, Rosie has an online history of responding to legitimate
> >criticism with personal attacks and engaging in the very tactics
> >described, i.e. she attempts to delegitimise the other's position in
> >totality, 
 
> I have seen no evidence of this and would prefer to ignore it since it's 
> just hearsay. I don't support any alleged call to censorship made by
> Rosie. But I won't make personal attacks on her either.

It is NOT hearsay!

Here's some evidence.  (between the /// and \\\)

///
From: Rosie Cross <hal9000!sydgate.apana.org.au!rx1>
Date: 2 Aug 1994 08:11:23 GMT

Well. I have to be honest I hate debate without any action, if you care that
sexism exists on the net why don;t you do something about it!..It sickens me
that a joke would appear re: a rape victim and you guys would either snigger
and ignore it,. or worse further distribute it, by citing it as a example of
sexism. You know I think the ultimate test of sexism is to ask yourself/s what
you are prepared to do about it.? I often offend my so-called male friends for
complaining about the level of sexism present (and inform them of the one or
two culprits who are outrageously sexist and insulting) instead of doing
anything about it, they leap to his/their defense like I have in some way
offended the whole 'pack'. I am currently transcribing my radio shows on women
and information technologies,'paradigm shift' and 'electronic salons', when
they are complete, I will most definitely post them to the efa coffers. You
know,.I get really tired of this being a focus of discussion when generally
men won't relinquish any so-called power or refuse to moderate or use some
form of code of ethic which would stop the extent to which sexism has already
invaded the ether. And yes I think its absolutely crucial that guidelines and
definitions of sexism be set, posted and distributed. Perhaps this would
certainly be more effective than titillating readers with the posting of
disgusting jokes and references. Actually I have asked many times b4, but
no-one seems to know, what is the EFA doing about sexism.?

Rosie Cross


From: Rosie Cross <hal9000!sydgate.apana.org.au!rx1>
Date: 8 Aug 1994 22:53:50 GMT

Beverley Simons (bev@cleese.apana.org.au) wrote:

: Don't be silly, Rosie.  One of the biggest problems with non-sexist :
language is that it is very unwieldy and confusing.  I'd prefer to

  Hey, who the hell are you my mum? You know I refuse to get into
  a flame in here. And so, I wish you luck Bev, maybe someone of
  your =maturity= has the answers..:_)  I really think this thread
  is going to degenerate into a war., So many of you people are so
  damn righteous and want to protect your well earned digital space.
  Thank god for the general public who will come on-line and wield
  a mallet of text based terror..!! yahoo,.,.Its nice to see you
  pander to the male egos Bev, they do need some soothing don;t they!

///

> >and she also wrongfully paints her position (on _anything_) as a
> >totalised "feminist" position (i.e. one that ALL feminists must hold, by
> >deafult). 
 
> Well I am against this as well bu have not seen Rosie doing it.
> She says she doesn't. See where personal character profiles

She obviously lies.

> >possibly hold any feminist views. Many of her criticisms are valid, yes,
> >but they are not total in their application, and nor should that preclude 
> >the opening up of these criticisms to debate.

> But Scott, that's just what I've been saying all along. It seems people 
> don't want a debate. They want blood.

People want *you* to realise that Rosie is a _genuine_ kook!

Certainly, some of her points are valid, but in the context that she
raises them, they aren't, and people have heard it before from the same
person, and it's just more of the same.  Crap.

It would be best for all if you would cease defending Rosie, and stick
to defending the rights of women in the net.

And PLEASE note the APPROPRIATE followup!

Dac
--
  David Andrew Clayton.
  Canberra, Australia.
  dac@prolix.apana.org.au
  A Caring Prolix Bastard.