🚀 go-pugleaf

shepat@//REMOVETHIS//interlog.com (Sheila Paterson) wrote:
: Apologies if this is posted twice.
: See@My.Sig wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 14:39:58 GMT, shepat@//REMOVETHIS//interlog.com (Sheila
>Paterson) wrote to All:
>>locutus@feedME wrote:

>>>For anoyne who is offended by Barbara Amero, please direct complaints to:
[snip]

:>>I've stayed out of this mess until now.  I've got to throw in my two
:>>cents here.

:>Okay Sheila, if I may ask.....Just why have you stayed out until now?
:>And what caused you to come in at this time?

: I still read Ms. Amero's posts and I've read most of the "let's
: complain to her ISP posts" but I wasn't really paying attention to
: what was going on.  

I've stayed out of this thread until now. BUT at this point of your
ignorance, I've got to throw in my more than two cents here. I don't
think you pay attention to anything that is going on in here. If you
did, you would not have made this post.

: I came across a post in another news group that pointed out that much of
: what's happening is a call for censorship. I decided I'd better say
: something.

You say that you still read my posts (yet you suggest ignoring me) and 
that you've read most of the "let's complain to her ISP posts" and you
didn't know that much of what's happening is a call for censorship until
you saw someone point that out. Gawdhepya Sheila, you are right some dull.
Let me point out a bit more .... much of what's happening is not simply
a call for censorship. It is about silencing the voice of a woman, a voice
that patriarchal, oppressive, men who support the status quo and the
practice of masculinity and colonized, oppressed women who support the
same _do not want to hear_ because it threatens the status quo and the
practice of masculinity! Moreover, if such women had to face some of
what I post, such would mean that they'd have to confront the crap in
their lives and they wouldn't want to do that.

:>> If you find Ms. Amero annoying or offensive, killfile her or ignore
:>>her.

:[snip]

:>The CCNutcase goes much further, making it impossible to simply ignore
:>her.

:>A typical example is the GASOLINE PRICE RANT thread which started here
:>recently.
:>CCNut came into that thread with an insane diatribe on something which
:>exists only inside her head. Here's a snippet of it from which you may
:>judge for yourself:

:[snip of gasoline price discussion]

:Ms. Amero's response:

::>I see at least there is equality; there is no discrimination, no double
::>standard. Out there it costs as much for a woman to fill-up as it does
::>men. MEANWHILE in here I see that the price of crude has increased, as
::>if nobody would notice, for a woman, but not for men - 'course that's
::>the same as out there. As the man in robes would say, it's the saaaame
:>sound.

::>Women are not only denied an equal voice to that of men; but, as Lydia
::>Lunch notes: "Women are denied masturbation even more severely than men
::>... that's another method of *control* [my emphasis] -- they're not
::>taught
:>to please themselves."

: I'm afraid this isn't a good example of Ms. Amero's posting style or
: personality.

Which posting style, Sheila? I've used different posting styles. As for
personality, well, all you can see is words on a monitor. In here, one
can take on any persona or many personae. If you've not tried such Sheila,
you should -- very interesting. And since all you can see is words, you
don't even know if Ms. Amero has written all the posts you've read. I find
'net behavior right some interesting. If you'd followed ns.general a while
ago, you would know that I've been collecting data and that poster Sean
Smith (lawyer) was right some concerned IRT what I plan to do with the
data. Perhaps it's not what I plan to do with it, but rather what others
plan to do with it....

:>The above type of idiocy is pure provocation.

: I disagree.  It's mostly irrelevant, off topic, and possibly
: irrational, but it ought to be easy to ignore.

The above type of idiocy is pure ignorance.

Sheila, you can NOT say that my post was "off topic", since *I* chose
the "topic" and started a new thread (or what I thought was a new thread)
entitled "DEMIMONDE RANT! (was GASOLINE PRICE RANT!)". According to a
poster, to start a new thread, in this case DEMIMONDE RANT!, I should 
not have made my original post from the GASOLINE PRICE RANT! thread by
*changing* the title. That on my news server, I should have hit W for 
new post.

Again, my post or parts of reposted in this thread have nothing to do 
with gasoline prices because that was NOT the topic. The topic was
"DEMIMONDE RANT!". My post was NOT "off topic", was NOT irrelevant to 
the topic, was NOT irrational and was NOT existing only in my head as
Jenkins another ignoramus stated, since I quoted local historians
(apparently not known to him - I don't think he's well read on any topic
other than perhaps FISH.) And you, Sheila are ignorant, obnoxious and
offensive.

:>To replace a perfectly normal discussion of Gasoline Prices with this
:>utterly insane garbage, stifles intelligent intercourse.

: Not if it's ignored.

So what are you saying Sheila? That is is OK for a man start a thread
to discuss Gasoline Prices, but not OK for a woman to start a thread
to discuss demimonde, as it relates to women in particular?? To listen
to the posters, one would think you're the only readers. Some readers
are interested in and appreciate my posts. If you and others don't, do
what you say and ignore them - as I do with topics I'm not interested in.

:>And the worst thing about it is that, if anyone takes
:>her to task for this ignorant, offensive, and provocative action ...

: Anyone who does so has a low annoyance threshold.  

Then I must have a very high annoyance threshold, given the many annoying
ignorant assholes in here -- you included -- assholes know no gender. OR
just not enough time to take all of them to task.

: Since when is it a crime, or even a violation of of terms of service, to
: be "ignorant, offensive and provocative"?

If "ignorant" was a violation of the terms of user agreement with your
ISP, then your account would be terminated.

: All I'm saying is that people who are merely offensive, annoying
: and/or obnoxious should be ignored.  One shouldn't complain to an ISP
: just because one's feelings are hurt.

I agree and I should ignore you. BUT I do not appreciate your ignorance
in posting that my post was "off topic", irrelevant, and possibly
irrational, when *I* chose the topic. I was not interested in discussing
gasoline prices and apparenetly others aren't either, since JG generated
only a couple of responses. OTOH generally threads I start generate 
reponses and/or discussion. I have a right to choose topics and make
posts on topics that interest me. If others aren't interested, they
don't have to read. BUT as you can see, quite a few people who are not
interested in my posts or the topic of my posts keep reading and keep
complaining. Perhaps that's because they want to make posts but don't 
have anything to say, so complaining gives them something to say.
  ____________________________________________________________________

       Barbara A. Amero  http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ak955
--