🚀 go-pugleaf

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 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.

>> 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.

>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.

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

Not if it's ignored.

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

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.

>.....Amero will first accuse them of all manner of harassment, and then complain to their
>employers and ISP's.  Don't think I'm kidding....This is the reason why Amero
>has so many people on usenet working toward getting her access removed.

[massive snip of example of Ms. Amero phoning John Jenkins' ISP, and
apparently the RCMP, to complain about his usenet behaviour.  Also
snipped is an example of Ms. Amero complaining to someone's employer
about his usenet behaviour and the results of same..]

As for Ms. Amero's alleged non-usenet behaviour, perhaps complaints to
her ISP might be in order if she's in violation of their Terms of
Service.  

Because this mess has gotten totally out of hand, the issues are
difficult to separate.  

I doubt there are any innocent parties left in the flame wars or in
"the let's get her kicked off of her ISP" faction.

However, if she's ignored things won't get worse.

Sheila Paterson

>Cheers,   John Jenkins Sr.    -     daddio@thezone.net