🚀 go-pugleaf

Arthur D. Mira wrote:
 > In wpg.general, mdf@vigard.mef.org (Matthew Francey) wrote:
 
> 2. I did not e-mail or phone anyone much less CNN about Barbara
> Amero, nor do I read or reply to every piece of do shit she injects
> into usenet.

Barbara Amero sometimes posts "do shit" just like the fellas.
The difference is that, for the most part, all the fellas post
is "do shit", while Barbara Amero makes MANY well thought out
informative posts that are appreciated by some people. Yesterday
I received email from a female CCN user who said that the only
enjoyment she gets out of Chebucto is reading Barbara Amero's
posts in these newsgroups, tho' she doesn't agree with all that 
I post. She should have the right to read Barbara Amero's posts.
 
> 3. I'm pissed that the CNN executive chose to play games and
> shit can her, without using the legal remedy they had available
> through contract (AUP/TOS) provisions.

What legal remedy is that?  CCN certainly could not terminate
Barbara Amero's account based on content

 > 4. I never attempt to gather a throng to do anything about her,
> her account, or the stupid things she writes. Anything I had to
> say about her was publicly posted, and it was my own opinion.

I keep seeing people post such comments about the stupid things
she writes. Would that include women not being adequately
compensated upon divorce? Would that include Rape Proclivity
Among Males? Would that include writing about the history of
proud, defiant, strong, courageous, independent 19th Century
Maritime women? Would that include all the men's words she
writes, such as (living and dead) MALE academics:  B.F.Skinner, 
Blye Frank, Michael Kaufman and many more, including her 
ex-husband whose so-called area of expertise is "anorexia".
I'm glad to see you state that what you posted was you own
opinion because not all share your opinion.
 
> 5. The printed media story was lopsided, sensationalized journalism,
> and just plain sucked. I don't believe everything I see in usenet
> and I don't believe everything I see in the media.

The printed media story was edited, IOW "censored", because 
the description of public posts about Barbara Amero was "too
graphic" to print in the newspaper, "too graphic" for the
public to read. Had Barbara Amero posted the violent death
of a poster? Had Barbara Amero made comments about the smell
of the genitals of posters? Had Barbara Amero posted pictures
representing the genitals of posters? Had Barbara Amero used
"welfare" to ridicule posters? Had Barbara Amero used the
physical characteristics of people in our society to ridicule
posters? Had Barbara Amero used being gay or lesbian to ridicule
posters? Had Barbara Amero commented that a poster has a STD?
That's enough to make my point which will be ignored.

How was the story lopsided? What is the story? Some people
wanted to censor Barbara Amero and bombed CCN mailboxes
and CCN said they couldn't deal with all the complaints
and attend to other CCN business.

Barbara A. Amero