Discussion:
Sic transit gloria smm
(too old to reply)
Viking
2007-01-16 18:24:56 UTC
Permalink
I just had a post rejected from soc.men.moderated because it took
feminists to task. A moderator explained that he *believed* that most
people *believed* that "feminist" is a synonym for "woman".

Therefore, taking feminsts to task, he argued, is the same as bashing
women, at least in "most people's" minds.

Taking feminists to task is the same as bashing women???

Looks like what posters here have been saying about smm is right. It's
a politically correct mess with a crippling charter where it's
impossible to actually discuss men's issues. Which I regret very much.

Looks like the serious men's activist is left with only two
alternatives to post on usenet--this place, which is a mentally-ill
circus packed, unfortunately, with racists, trolls, and many true
women-haters, and a politically-correct neutered and censored forum
that most posters consider too boring to bother with.

Sic transit gloria sm.
Sic transit gloria smm.
Marcus Aurelius
2007-01-16 18:47:51 UTC
Permalink
You can prove anything with inconsistent premises including the terms
of the categorical syllogism which you utelized. In effect, the ruling
in question was both illogical and unethical.
It is illogical in that it defines woman as a feminist. It is unethical
in that it further defines the purpose of the forum as to exclude those
who argue logically against feminist dogma and oppression. Therefore,
if the forum promulgates feminist dogma and oppression, it is a
feminist forum that promotes feminist dogma and oppression.
Thank you for the post.
Post by Viking
I just had a post rejected from soc.men.moderated because it took
feminists to task. A moderator explained that he *believed* that most
people *believed* that "feminist" is a synonym for "woman".
Therefore, taking feminsts to task, he argued, is the same as bashing
women, at least in "most people's" minds.
Taking feminists to task is the same as bashing women???
Looks like what posters here have been saying about smm is right. It's
a politically correct mess with a crippling charter where it's
impossible to actually discuss men's issues. Which I regret very much.
Looks like the serious men's activist is left with only two
alternatives to post on usenet--this place, which is a mentally-ill
circus packed, unfortunately, with racists, trolls, and many true
women-haters, and a politically-correct neutered and censored forum
that most posters consider too boring to bother with.
Sic transit gloria sm.
Sic transit gloria smm.
Viking
2007-01-16 18:52:02 UTC
Permalink
On 16 Jan 2007 10:47:51 -0800, "Marcus Aurelius"
Post by Marcus Aurelius
You can prove anything with inconsistent premises including the terms
of the categorical syllogism which you utelized.
*smile* Spoken like the true stoic philosopher that you are, Marcus.
Post by Marcus Aurelius
In effect, the ruling
in question was both illogical and unethical.
It is illogical in that it defines woman as a feminist. It is unethical
in that it further defines the purpose of the forum as to exclude those
who argue logically against feminist dogma and oppression. Therefore,
if the forum promulgates feminist dogma and oppression, it is a
feminist forum that promotes feminist dogma and oppression.
Well argued, oh stoic one!
Post by Marcus Aurelius
Thank you for the post.
And you, Marcus.
Post by Marcus Aurelius
Post by Viking
I just had a post rejected from soc.men.moderated because it took
feminists to task. A moderator explained that he *believed* that most
people *believed* that "feminist" is a synonym for "woman".
Therefore, taking feminsts to task, he argued, is the same as bashing
women, at least in "most people's" minds.
Taking feminists to task is the same as bashing women???
Looks like what posters here have been saying about smm is right. It's
a politically correct mess with a crippling charter where it's
impossible to actually discuss men's issues. Which I regret very much.
Looks like the serious men's activist is left with only two
alternatives to post on usenet--this place, which is a mentally-ill
circus packed, unfortunately, with racists, trolls, and many true
women-haters, and a politically-correct neutered and censored forum
that most posters consider too boring to bother with.
Sic transit gloria sm.
Sic transit gloria smm.
Andre Lieven
2007-01-16 18:50:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viking
I just had a post rejected from soc.men.moderated because it took
feminists to task. A moderator explained that he *believed* that most
people *believed* that "feminist" is a synonym for "woman".
Therefore, taking feminsts to task, he argued, is the same as bashing
women, at least in "most people's" minds.
Taking feminists to task is the same as bashing women???
Looks like what posters here have been saying about smm is right. It's
a politically correct mess with a crippling charter where it's
impossible to actually discuss men's issues. Which I regret very much.
After seeing your post, I took a fast look at that mess. Its funny that
the Feminist moderation is now SO one sided that *even Jayne is complaining*.

Though, she shouldn't, as it was SHE who set it up that way, with myself
and Jill telling her that what *you are no reporting would be the result*.

Time continues to prove myself and Jill... RIGHT, and Jayne... more and
MORE wrong. Feminists CANNOT be trusted to give men a fair shake, never
mind the lion's share of a MEN'S newsgroup.
Post by Viking
Looks like the serious men's activist is left with only two
alternatives to post on usenet--this place, which is a mentally-ill
circus packed, unfortunately, with racists, trolls, and many true
women-haters, and a politically-correct neutered and censored forum
that most posters consider too boring to bother with.
I disagree about the damages of freedom here. Sure, theres a lot of
crossposted junk INTO soc.men. But, after a bit of time sorting it all
out, its easy to tune out the noise.
Post by Viking
Sic transit gloria sm.
" The rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated. " Again.
Post by Viking
Sic transit gloria smm.
It was doomed from before it's start. But, Jill and I knew that.

Andre
Jayne Kulikauskas
2007-01-16 19:34:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viking
I just had a post rejected from soc.men.moderated because it took
feminists to task. A moderator explained that he *believed* that most
people *believed* that "feminist" is a synonym for "woman".
Therefore, taking feminsts to task, he argued, is the same as bashing
women, at least in "most people's" minds.
Taking feminists to task is the same as bashing women???
I did not think much of this reasoning either.
Post by Viking
Looks like what posters here have been saying about smm is right. It's
a politically correct mess with a crippling charter where it's
impossible to actually discuss men's issues. Which I regret very much.
There is nothing in the charter about not criticizing feminists on smm.
This is a moderator's interpretation (one that I strongly disagree with,
BTW).

Originally, I wanted a clause in the charter against bashing men. I didn't
want any of the "bitter boys" nonsense that keeps appearing here. I later
rephrased it to bashing based on gender, since it seemed fair to me that
the same rule should apply to men and women. I never imagined moderators
who would think that this meant feminists should not be criticizied.

I think that this charter would work fine with the right moderators. As
you may recall, I originally asked Grizzlie Antagonist and Mark Sobolewski
to be on the team. I doubt they would have interpretted the charter in
such an illogical way. Since neither of them ended up following through on
their agreement to be moderators, it became necessary to use moderators
without any background in understanding men's issues.

Much of what is wrong with smm could be fixed if the right moderators came
forward. It needs some people with time, understanding of moderation and
understanding of men's issues. Men who think that they have the necessary
qualities to moderate smm need to step up and take action, if there is to
be a soc.men.moderated that is useful for discussing men's issues.
--
Jayne Check out soc.men.moderated.
If your news provider doesn't carry it, ask.
Now available on Google:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men.moderated?lnk=srg&hl=en
Viking
2007-01-16 19:59:00 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:34:09 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
There is nothing in the charter about not criticizing feminists on smm.
This is a moderator's interpretation (one that I strongly disagree with,
BTW).
Originally, I wanted a clause in the charter against bashing men. I didn't
want any of the "bitter boys" nonsense that keeps appearing here. I later
rephrased it to bashing based on gender, since it seemed fair to me that
the same rule should apply to men and women. I never imagined moderators
who would think that this meant feminists should not be criticizied.
I think that this charter would work fine with the right moderators. As
you may recall, I originally asked Grizzlie Antagonist and Mark Sobolewski
to be on the team. I doubt they would have interpretted the charter in
such an illogical way. Since neither of them ended up following through on
their agreement to be moderators, it became necessary to use moderators
without any background in understanding men's issues.
Much of what is wrong with smm could be fixed if the right moderators came
forward. It needs some people with time, understanding of moderation and
understanding of men's issues. Men who think that they have the necessary
qualities to moderate smm need to step up and take action, if there is to
be a soc.men.moderated that is useful for discussing men's issues.
Jayne: I don't know what to say to you. I've been sympathetic to your
quest to found smm, and I applauded it, supported it when I was in
town (after, as you recall, some disagreement about a particular
moderator). Now I just don't know what to say. Sorry.
Andre Lieven
2007-01-16 20:52:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viking
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:34:09 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
There is nothing in the charter about not criticizing feminists on smm.
This is a moderator's interpretation (one that I strongly disagree with,
BTW).
Originally, I wanted a clause in the charter against bashing men. I didn't
want any of the "bitter boys" nonsense that keeps appearing here. I later
rephrased it to bashing based on gender, since it seemed fair to me that
the same rule should apply to men and women. I never imagined moderators
who would think that this meant feminists should not be criticizied.
I think that this charter would work fine with the right moderators. As
you may recall, I originally asked Grizzlie Antagonist and Mark Sobolewski
to be on the team. I doubt they would have interpretted the charter in
such an illogical way. Since neither of them ended up following through on
their agreement to be moderators, it became necessary to use moderators
without any background in understanding men's issues.
Much of what is wrong with smm could be fixed if the right moderators came
forward. It needs some people with time, understanding of moderation and
understanding of men's issues. Men who think that they have the necessary
qualities to moderate smm need to step up and take action, if there is to
be a soc.men.moderated that is useful for discussing men's issues.
Jayne: I don't know what to say to you. I've been sympathetic to your
quest to found smm, and I applauded it, supported it when I was in
town (after, as you recall, some disagreement about a particular
moderator). Now I just don't know what to say. Sorry.
How about: " Andre and Jill, man, were you right. " <g>

Andre
Jill
2007-01-16 21:54:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Viking
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:34:09 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
There is nothing in the charter about not criticizing feminists on smm.
This is a moderator's interpretation (one that I strongly disagree with,
BTW).
Originally, I wanted a clause in the charter against bashing men. I didn't
want any of the "bitter boys" nonsense that keeps appearing here. I later
rephrased it to bashing based on gender, since it seemed fair to me that
the same rule should apply to men and women. I never imagined moderators
who would think that this meant feminists should not be criticizied.
I think that this charter would work fine with the right moderators. As
you may recall, I originally asked Grizzlie Antagonist and Mark Sobolewski
to be on the team. I doubt they would have interpretted the charter in
such an illogical way. Since neither of them ended up following through on
their agreement to be moderators, it became necessary to use moderators
without any background in understanding men's issues.
Much of what is wrong with smm could be fixed if the right moderators came
forward. It needs some people with time, understanding of moderation and
understanding of men's issues. Men who think that they have the necessary
qualities to moderate smm need to step up and take action, if there is to
be a soc.men.moderated that is useful for discussing men's issues.
Jayne: I don't know what to say to you. I've been sympathetic to your
quest to found smm, and I applauded it, supported it when I was in
town (after, as you recall, some disagreement about a particular
moderator). Now I just don't know what to say. Sorry.
How about: " Andre and Jill, man, were you right. " <g>
Viking more or less said that in his earlier post. He didn't name us
but I think it's clear we were the ones most vocal (and prophetic)
about where SMM was headed.
Andre Lieven
2007-01-16 22:11:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jill
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Viking
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:34:09 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
There is nothing in the charter about not criticizing feminists on smm.
This is a moderator's interpretation (one that I strongly disagree with,
BTW).
Originally, I wanted a clause in the charter against bashing men. I didn't
want any of the "bitter boys" nonsense that keeps appearing here. I later
rephrased it to bashing based on gender, since it seemed fair to me that
the same rule should apply to men and women. I never imagined moderators
who would think that this meant feminists should not be criticizied.
I think that this charter would work fine with the right moderators. As
you may recall, I originally asked Grizzlie Antagonist and Mark Sobolewski
to be on the team. I doubt they would have interpretted the charter in
such an illogical way. Since neither of them ended up following through on
their agreement to be moderators, it became necessary to use moderators
without any background in understanding men's issues.
Much of what is wrong with smm could be fixed if the right moderators came
forward. It needs some people with time, understanding of moderation and
understanding of men's issues. Men who think that they have the necessary
qualities to moderate smm need to step up and take action, if there is to
be a soc.men.moderated that is useful for discussing men's issues.
Jayne: I don't know what to say to you. I've been sympathetic to your
quest to found smm, and I applauded it, supported it when I was in
town (after, as you recall, some disagreement about a particular
moderator). Now I just don't know what to say. Sorry.
How about: " Andre and Jill, man, were you right. " <g>
Viking more or less said that in his earlier post. He didn't name us
but I think it's clear we were the ones most vocal (and prophetic)
about where SMM was headed.
Sure. I was making the point that such less than 100% clear statements
are easier for such as Jayne to pretend that they never happened.

Thats the basic truth here.

Andre
Viking
2007-01-16 23:26:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jill
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Viking
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:34:09 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
There is nothing in the charter about not criticizing feminists on smm.
This is a moderator's interpretation (one that I strongly disagree with,
BTW).
Originally, I wanted a clause in the charter against bashing men. I didn't
want any of the "bitter boys" nonsense that keeps appearing here. I later
rephrased it to bashing based on gender, since it seemed fair to me that
the same rule should apply to men and women. I never imagined moderators
who would think that this meant feminists should not be criticizied.
I think that this charter would work fine with the right moderators. As
you may recall, I originally asked Grizzlie Antagonist and Mark Sobolewski
to be on the team. I doubt they would have interpretted the charter in
such an illogical way. Since neither of them ended up following through on
their agreement to be moderators, it became necessary to use moderators
without any background in understanding men's issues.
Much of what is wrong with smm could be fixed if the right moderators came
forward. It needs some people with time, understanding of moderation and
understanding of men's issues. Men who think that they have the necessary
qualities to moderate smm need to step up and take action, if there is to
be a soc.men.moderated that is useful for discussing men's issues.
Jayne: I don't know what to say to you. I've been sympathetic to your
quest to found smm, and I applauded it, supported it when I was in
town (after, as you recall, some disagreement about a particular
moderator). Now I just don't know what to say. Sorry.
How about: " Andre and Jill, man, were you right. " <g>
To Andre: Guess you still don't know I have you killfiled.
Post by Jill
Viking more or less said that in his earlier post. He didn't name us
but I think it's clear we were the ones most vocal (and prophetic)
about where SMM was headed.
To Jill: I think we can all agree that it's a pity about smm.
Andre Lieven
2007-01-17 04:14:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viking
Post by Jill
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Viking
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:34:09 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
There is nothing in the charter about not criticizing feminists on smm.
This is a moderator's interpretation (one that I strongly disagree with,
BTW).
Originally, I wanted a clause in the charter against bashing men. I didn't
want any of the "bitter boys" nonsense that keeps appearing here. I later
rephrased it to bashing based on gender, since it seemed fair to me that
the same rule should apply to men and women. I never imagined moderators
who would think that this meant feminists should not be criticizied.
I think that this charter would work fine with the right moderators. As
you may recall, I originally asked Grizzlie Antagonist and Mark Sobolewski
to be on the team. I doubt they would have interpretted the charter in
such an illogical way. Since neither of them ended up following through on
their agreement to be moderators, it became necessary to use moderators
without any background in understanding men's issues.
Much of what is wrong with smm could be fixed if the right moderators came
forward. It needs some people with time, understanding of moderation and
understanding of men's issues. Men who think that they have the necessary
qualities to moderate smm need to step up and take action, if there is to
be a soc.men.moderated that is useful for discussing men's issues.
Jayne: I don't know what to say to you. I've been sympathetic to your
quest to found smm, and I applauded it, supported it when I was in
town (after, as you recall, some disagreement about a particular
moderator). Now I just don't know what to say. Sorry.
How about: " Andre and Jill, man, were you right. " <g>
To Andre: Guess you still don't know I have you killfiled.
Well, I guess that you just evaded that... I was replying to Jill.
Post by Viking
Post by Jill
Viking more or less said that in his earlier post. He didn't name us
but I think it's clear we were the ones most vocal (and prophetic)
about where SMM was headed.
To Jill: I think we can all agree that it's a pity about smm.
Sure. Because Jayne and the manhaters behind the scenes didn't want
alt.usenet.kooks.moderated&polite to be for men at all.

Andre
Jill
2007-01-17 14:33:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Viking
Post by Jill
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Viking
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:34:09 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
There is nothing in the charter about not criticizing feminists on smm.
This is a moderator's interpretation (one that I strongly disagree with,
BTW).
Originally, I wanted a clause in the charter against bashing men. I didn't
want any of the "bitter boys" nonsense that keeps appearing here. I later
rephrased it to bashing based on gender, since it seemed fair to me that
the same rule should apply to men and women. I never imagined moderators
who would think that this meant feminists should not be criticizied.
I think that this charter would work fine with the right moderators. As
you may recall, I originally asked Grizzlie Antagonist and Mark Sobolewski
to be on the team. I doubt they would have interpretted the charter in
such an illogical way. Since neither of them ended up following through on
their agreement to be moderators, it became necessary to use moderators
without any background in understanding men's issues.
Much of what is wrong with smm could be fixed if the right moderators came
forward. It needs some people with time, understanding of moderation and
understanding of men's issues. Men who think that they have the necessary
qualities to moderate smm need to step up and take action, if there is to
be a soc.men.moderated that is useful for discussing men's issues.
Jayne: I don't know what to say to you. I've been sympathetic to your
quest to found smm, and I applauded it, supported it when I was in
town (after, as you recall, some disagreement about a particular
moderator). Now I just don't know what to say. Sorry.
How about: " Andre and Jill, man, were you right. " <g>
To Andre: Guess you still don't know I have you killfiled.
Well, I guess that you just evaded that... I was replying to Jill.
Post by Viking
Post by Jill
Viking more or less said that in his earlier post. He didn't name us
but I think it's clear we were the ones most vocal (and prophetic)
about where SMM was headed.
To Jill: I think we can all agree that it's a pity about smm.
Sure. Because Jayne and the manhaters behind the scenes didn't want
alt.usenet.kooks.moderated&polite to be for men at all.
Andre
To me the bottom line is that we both warned Jayne that she was headed
down a road of censorship and the loss of freedom of speech in the way
she was constructing the charter for SMM. She ignored all warnings
and the end result is that yesterday one of the moderators rejected a
post from Viking based on nothing more than censorship and having the
power to deny freedom of speech to the group. Abuse of power if you
will.

Somehow Jayne seems either surprised that this happened and/or eager
to pass the buck for this predictable event to GA and Mark and in the
process she wrote a long post in soc.men (of all places) "splaining"
why it wasn't her fault--that she "imagined" different outcomes for
SMM while she was creating it. In the process she again refused to
take responsibility for what she did.

This whole SMM mess was completely avoidable and that's the real
shame.
Andre Lieven
2007-01-17 17:57:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jill
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Viking
Post by Jill
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Viking
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:34:09 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
There is nothing in the charter about not criticizing feminists on smm.
This is a moderator's interpretation (one that I strongly disagree with,
BTW).
Originally, I wanted a clause in the charter against bashing men. I didn't
want any of the "bitter boys" nonsense that keeps appearing here. I later
rephrased it to bashing based on gender, since it seemed fair to me that
the same rule should apply to men and women. I never imagined moderators
who would think that this meant feminists should not be criticizied.
I think that this charter would work fine with the right moderators. As
you may recall, I originally asked Grizzlie Antagonist and Mark Sobolewski
to be on the team. I doubt they would have interpretted the charter in
such an illogical way. Since neither of them ended up following through on
their agreement to be moderators, it became necessary to use moderators
without any background in understanding men's issues.
Much of what is wrong with smm could be fixed if the right moderators came
forward. It needs some people with time, understanding of moderation and
understanding of men's issues. Men who think that they have the necessary
qualities to moderate smm need to step up and take action, if there is to
be a soc.men.moderated that is useful for discussing men's issues.
Jayne: I don't know what to say to you. I've been sympathetic to your
quest to found smm, and I applauded it, supported it when I was in
town (after, as you recall, some disagreement about a particular
moderator). Now I just don't know what to say. Sorry.
How about: " Andre and Jill, man, were you right. " <g>
To Andre: Guess you still don't know I have you killfiled.
Well, I guess that you just evaded that... I was replying to Jill.
Post by Viking
Post by Jill
Viking more or less said that in his earlier post. He didn't name us
but I think it's clear we were the ones most vocal (and prophetic)
about where SMM was headed.
To Jill: I think we can all agree that it's a pity about smm.
Sure. Because Jayne and the manhaters behind the scenes didn't want
alt.usenet.kooks.moderated&polite to be for men at all.
Andre
To me the bottom line is that we both warned Jayne that she was headed
down a road of censorship and the loss of freedom of speech in the way
she was constructing the charter for SMM. She ignored all warnings
and the end result is that yesterday one of the moderators rejected a
post from Viking based on nothing more than censorship and having the
power to deny freedom of speech to the group. Abuse of power if you
will.
Sure, and given that WomenFirsters are well known for doing exactly
that, once again, all this was easily predictable.
Post by Jill
Somehow Jayne seems either surprised that this happened and/or eager
to pass the buck for this predictable event to GA and Mark and in the
process she wrote a long post in soc.men (of all places) "splaining"
why it wasn't her fault--that she "imagined" different outcomes for
SMM while she was creating it. In the process she again refused to
take responsibility for what she did.
" Mommy, I don't like consequences ! " Daughter of a friend of my wife's.

Its amazing, innit; Jayne is exactly the same as Parg; Always looking
for the nearest MAN to blame... Never being ABLE to be as responsible as
the mn shes whining about not havin cleaned up HER mess.
Post by Jill
This whole SMM mess was completely avoidable and that's the real
shame.
Agreed.

Andre
pandora
2007-01-17 04:19:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viking
Post by Jill
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Viking
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:34:09 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
There is nothing in the charter about not criticizing feminists on smm.
This is a moderator's interpretation (one that I strongly disagree with,
BTW).
Originally, I wanted a clause in the charter against bashing men. I didn't
want any of the "bitter boys" nonsense that keeps appearing here. I later
rephrased it to bashing based on gender, since it seemed fair to me that
the same rule should apply to men and women. I never imagined moderators
who would think that this meant feminists should not be criticizied.
I think that this charter would work fine with the right moderators. As
you may recall, I originally asked Grizzlie Antagonist and Mark Sobolewski
to be on the team. I doubt they would have interpretted the charter in
such an illogical way. Since neither of them ended up following through on
their agreement to be moderators, it became necessary to use moderators
without any background in understanding men's issues.
Much of what is wrong with smm could be fixed if the right moderators came
forward. It needs some people with time, understanding of moderation and
understanding of men's issues. Men who think that they have the necessary
qualities to moderate smm need to step up and take action, if there is to
be a soc.men.moderated that is useful for discussing men's issues.
Jayne: I don't know what to say to you. I've been sympathetic to your
quest to found smm, and I applauded it, supported it when I was in
town (after, as you recall, some disagreement about a particular
moderator). Now I just don't know what to say. Sorry.
How about: " Andre and Jill, man, were you right. " <g>
To Andre: Guess you still don't know I have you killfiled.
Post by Jill
Viking more or less said that in his earlier post. He didn't name us
but I think it's clear we were the ones most vocal (and prophetic)
about where SMM was headed.
To Jill: I think we can all agree that it's a pity about smm.
Pity? Hell no. I would say it was predictable. When you take idiots and
they try to create a newsgroup where they can frolic and spew hatred, it's
bound to self implode. Great job.

:-)

CWQ
Ben
2007-01-17 14:25:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by pandora
Post by Viking
Post by Jill
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Viking
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:34:09 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
There is nothing in the charter about not criticizing feminists on smm.
This is a moderator's interpretation (one that I strongly disagree with,
BTW).
Originally, I wanted a clause in the charter against bashing men. I didn't
want any of the "bitter boys" nonsense that keeps appearing here. I later
rephrased it to bashing based on gender, since it seemed fair to me that
the same rule should apply to men and women. I never imagined moderators
who would think that this meant feminists should not be criticizied.
I think that this charter would work fine with the right moderators. As
you may recall, I originally asked Grizzlie Antagonist and Mark Sobolewski
to be on the team. I doubt they would have interpretted the charter in
such an illogical way. Since neither of them ended up following through on
their agreement to be moderators, it became necessary to use moderators
without any background in understanding men's issues.
Much of what is wrong with smm could be fixed if the right moderators came
forward. It needs some people with time, understanding of moderation and
understanding of men's issues. Men who think that they have the necessary
qualities to moderate smm need to step up and take action, if there is to
be a soc.men.moderated that is useful for discussing men's issues.
Jayne: I don't know what to say to you. I've been sympathetic to your
quest to found smm, and I applauded it, supported it when I was in
town (after, as you recall, some disagreement about a particular
moderator). Now I just don't know what to say. Sorry.
How about: " Andre and Jill, man, were you right. " <g>
To Andre: Guess you still don't know I have you killfiled.
Post by Jill
Viking more or less said that in his earlier post. He didn't name us
but I think it's clear we were the ones most vocal (and prophetic)
about where SMM was headed.
To Jill: I think we can all agree that it's a pity about smm.
Pity? Hell no. I would say it was predictable. When you take idiots and
they try to create a newsgroup where they can frolic and spew hatred, it's
bound to self implode. Great job.
:-)
CWQ
Wow, look at this, four snarky comments in a row. Maybe this is why
you can't seem to catch up on other threads?
Jill
2007-01-16 21:52:02 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:34:09 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Viking
I just had a post rejected from soc.men.moderated because it took
feminists to task. A moderator explained that he *believed* that most
people *believed* that "feminist" is a synonym for "woman".
Therefore, taking feminsts to task, he argued, is the same as bashing
women, at least in "most people's" minds.
Taking feminists to task is the same as bashing women???
I did not think much of this reasoning either.
So what are you going to do about it? And don't tell me you can't do
anything...you made this mess and it really is up to you to fix what
you can.
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Viking
Looks like what posters here have been saying about smm is right. It's
a politically correct mess with a crippling charter where it's
impossible to actually discuss men's issues. Which I regret very much.
There is nothing in the charter about not criticizing feminists on smm.
This is a moderator's interpretation (one that I strongly disagree with,
BTW).
Looks like the charter is flawed just as was suggested last summer.
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Originally, I wanted a clause in the charter against bashing men. I didn't
want any of the "bitter boys" nonsense that keeps appearing here. I later
rephrased it to bashing based on gender, since it seemed fair to me that
the same rule should apply to men and women. I never imagined moderators
who would think that this meant feminists should not be criticizied.
What were you "imagining" while Andre and I were raising oppositional
points to your ideas last summer? You certainly weren't listening or
considering them. You dismissed them faster than we could post them.
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
I think that this charter would work fine with the right moderators. As
you may recall, I originally asked Grizzlie Antagonist and Mark Sobolewski
to be on the team.
Yes, I do remember that. But what we have now is you passing the
buck. It's apparently GA's and Mark's fault that they didn't make
certain your flawed plans and charter worked as you wanted.

Part of your "imaginings" for SMM should have been contingency plans
for when moderators didn't work out. Since 3 of your 4 initial
moderators flaked out right off the bat, this was an especially
important matter to have been more carefully considered.

This all boils down to incredibly poor planning on your part.
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
I doubt they would have interpretted the charter in
such an illogical way. Since neither of them ended up following through on
their agreement to be moderators, it became necessary to use moderators
without any background in understanding men's issues.
If you hadn't insulted most of the other regular posters in soc.men by
indicating they weren't suitable for moderating last summer, you
probably could have replaced the lapsed moderators with people with a
"background in understanding men's issues." You burned all of your
bridges with soc.men regulars during the RFD process which left you
now with two feminist men and a radically rabid female feminist as
moderators now.

Andre and I told you so.
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Much of what is wrong with smm could be fixed if the right moderators came
forward. It needs some people with time, understanding of moderation and
understanding of men's issues. Men who think that they have the necessary
qualities to moderate smm need to step up and take action, if there is to
be a soc.men.moderated that is useful for discussing men's issues.
It's way too late for that. That ship sunk months ago.
Andre Lieven
2007-01-16 22:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viking
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:34:09 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Viking
I just had a post rejected from soc.men.moderated because it took
feminists to task. A moderator explained that he *believed* that most
people *believed* that "feminist" is a synonym for "woman".
Therefore, taking feminsts to task, he argued, is the same as bashing
women, at least in "most people's" minds.
Taking feminists to task is the same as bashing women???
I did not think much of this reasoning either.
So what are you going to do about it? And don't tell me you can't do
anything...you made this mess and it really is up to you to fix what
you can.
Indeed. If you go into Google groups, for news.groups, and search for
the term " soc.men.moderated ", you will find a post where a V. Cordero
pretty much says that Jayne was the figurehead for him and others setting
up alt.usenet.kooks.moderated&polite. Aug 28, 2006, 10:29 PM is the post
to look for.

So, thats yet another item that Jayne was not... forthcoming about.
Post by Viking
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Viking
Looks like what posters here have been saying about smm is right. It's
a politically correct mess with a crippling charter where it's
impossible to actually discuss men's issues. Which I regret very much.
There is nothing in the charter about not criticizing feminists on smm.
This is a moderator's interpretation (one that I strongly disagree with,
BTW).
Looks like the charter is flawed just as was suggested last summer.
Yep. Along with installing Feminists and women as moderators.

A real men's group thats moderated would be moderated BY men FOR men.
smm isn't either. By design.
Post by Viking
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Originally, I wanted a clause in the charter against bashing men. I didn't
want any of the "bitter boys" nonsense that keeps appearing here. I later
rephrased it to bashing based on gender, since it seemed fair to me that
the same rule should apply to men and women. I never imagined moderators
who would think that this meant feminists should not be criticizied.
What were you "imagining" while Andre and I were raising oppositional
points to your ideas last summer? You certainly weren't listening or
considering them. You dismissed them faster than we could post them.
Indeed. Its pure crocodile tears from Jayne now.
Post by Viking
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
I think that this charter would work fine with the right moderators. As
you may recall, I originally asked Grizzlie Antagonist and Mark Sobolewski
to be on the team.
Yes, I do remember that. But what we have now is you passing the
buck. It's apparently GA's and Mark's fault that they didn't make
certain your flawed plans and charter worked as you wanted.
Indeed. Its noteworthy to see that Jayne, like ANY WomenFirster, wants
men to BE more responsible than she holds... herself.
Post by Viking
Part of your "imaginings" for SMM should have been contingency plans
for when moderators didn't work out. Since 3 of your 4 initial
moderators flaked out right off the bat, this was an especially
important matter to have been more carefully considered.
And, the " replacements " have all been WomenFirsters, as was the one
" survivor ".
Post by Viking
This all boils down to incredibly poor planning on your part.
Indeed.
Post by Viking
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
I doubt they would have interpretted the charter in
such an illogical way. Since neither of them ended up following through on
their agreement to be moderators, it became necessary to use moderators
without any background in understanding men's issues.
If you hadn't insulted most of the other regular posters in soc.men by
indicating they weren't suitable for moderating last summer, you
probably could have replaced the lapsed moderators with people with a
"background in understanding men's issues."
Quite. But, you know that Jayne, like any WomenFirster, wants to deflect
HER responsibility and the consequences for HER chosen actions, onto
others.
Post by Viking
You burned all of your
bridges with soc.men regulars during the RFD process which left you
now with two feminist men and a radically rabid female feminist as
moderators now.
Quite. alt.usenet.kooks.moderated&polite is certainly unfriendly to
men. Why should men read or post there, then ?
Post by Viking
Andre and I told you so.
Yep. And, we keep being proved more and more... right.
Post by Viking
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Much of what is wrong with smm could be fixed if the right moderators came
forward. It needs some people with time, understanding of moderation and
understanding of men's issues. Men who think that they have the necessary
qualities to moderate smm need to step up and take action, if there is to
be a soc.men.moderated that is useful for discussing men's issues.
It's way too late for that. That ship sunk months ago.
Yeah, at this point, Jayne is Bob Ballard, diving on the sunken Titanic...

Andre
Jill
2007-01-16 22:44:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Viking
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:34:09 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Viking
I just had a post rejected from soc.men.moderated because it took
feminists to task. A moderator explained that he *believed* that most
people *believed* that "feminist" is a synonym for "woman".
Therefore, taking feminsts to task, he argued, is the same as bashing
women, at least in "most people's" minds.
Taking feminists to task is the same as bashing women???
I did not think much of this reasoning either.
So what are you going to do about it? And don't tell me you can't do
anything...you made this mess and it really is up to you to fix what
you can.
Indeed. If you go into Google groups, for news.groups, and search for
the term " soc.men.moderated ", you will find a post where a V. Cordero
pretty much says that Jayne was the figurehead for him and others setting
up alt.usenet.kooks.moderated&polite. Aug 28, 2006, 10:29 PM is the post
to look for.
So, thats yet another item that Jayne was not... forthcoming about.
Is this the post you are referring to?

Begin Quote:

From: V. Cordero - view profile
Date: Mon, Aug 28 2006 9:29 pm
Email: "V. Cordero" <***@debian.polarhome.com>
Groups: news.groups, soc.men
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Viking
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
OK, I'm really slow and I don't understand what you're saying. "Big-V?"
is... ???
All I'm getting from this is that smm was some kind of troll, and
you-all put up Jayne for something?
A troll, heavens no, trolls were what we wanted to eliminate! We all
wanted soc.men.moderated to be created and decided that the best way to
succeed was to fade from the front and let Jayne run the public portion of
the campaign while we did the legwork. If you recall, there were
originally two RFDs, Jayne worked on one, Bret, V. Cordero, and I were
working on another - we were soon after advised to work together on a
collective RFD.
Got it. Mostly. By 'trolls' you mean the AUKers?
I'm not Dante, but I'll offer my two cents. My answer is, originally,
yes, especially on Jayne's part. Many other people on soc.men
complained about the crossposting. I was orginally skeptical about
that claim. However, there seemed to be some justification for it. I
looked at the correlation between traffic, both number of posters and
number of posts, and the top five groups that shared crossposts with
soc.men each year. The only group that consistently appeared when
traffic declined was AUK. My initial conclusion was to agree with
Jayne and the others who blamed AUK for the problems with soc.men. I
even said so in two posts.

http://groups.google.com/group/news.groups/msg/f7946a7d7991a69a
http://groups.google.com/group/news.groups/msg/ac38230ff5325070

Now, I don't believe that conclusion any more. What I've seen from
the
various threads about soc.men.moderated that I've read since I've got
online is that the AUKers were, if anything, more supportive than not
about the creation of the group, and, for them, very well behaved.
They managed to sustain civil, if not friendly, debate about the
merits
of the proposal, and nearly always refrained from crossposting back
into AUK, indicating their sincerity about discussing the proposal,
instead of merely mocking it. I was impressed.

On the other hand, the most vocal regulars of soc.men were
inflammatory, paranoid, rigidly doctrinaire, and downright hostile to
the idea of creating a group that, by its charter and moderation
policy, would protect them from the crossposting into and out of AUK
that they blamed for their troubles. They were being offered a group
that included the solution for their problems, as they themselves said
they saw it, and they rejected it because it would be insufficiently
pure for their tastes. I mean, really, who cares if a cat is black or
white, so long as it catches mice?

In retrospect, while I'm sorry I wasn't around to help Jayne for the
last 2 RFDs, I don't regret not being involved in the discussion here
on news.groups and soc.men at all. I found the behavior of the
soc.men
regulars, the people who this proposal was supposed to help, downright
shameful. I now think that the problem with soc.men wasn't the AUKers
crossposting into soc.men, but the vocal regulars who escalated and
became more hostile and extreme in response. Thank you, Andre L., Ken
Pangborn, MCP, connor_a, and Viking for convincing me of that; I was
on
your side, and you guys blew it.

So, I still agree that soc.men.moderated was intended to protect the
regulars from trolls. It's just that I now believe that the trolls
that the users of soc.men.moderated will be protected from will be the
internal trolls of soc.men, the ones the AUKers have labeled as kooks,
not the AUKers, who I expect will find nothing in soc.men.moderated to
attract them. In the meantime, the men's rights extremists I listed
above will remain in the unmoderated soc.men, subject to "attacks"
crossposted from AUK and allied groups, like alt.fan.art-bell and
alt.fucknozzles. As far as I'm concerned, they can stay outside,
where
they are unprotected from ridicule, until they are ready to behave and
follow the rules of a moderated group.

V. Cordero

End Quote.

Speaking of fucknozzles...Cordero is a real knob. Was he one of
Jayne's co-conspirators or whatver they called themselves?
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Viking
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Viking
Looks like what posters here have been saying about smm is right. It's
a politically correct mess with a crippling charter where it's
impossible to actually discuss men's issues. Which I regret very much.
There is nothing in the charter about not criticizing feminists on smm.
This is a moderator's interpretation (one that I strongly disagree with,
BTW).
Looks like the charter is flawed just as was suggested last summer.
Yep. Along with installing Feminists and women as moderators.
Did she have anything to do with making that Kathy feminist a
moderator? I thought Jayne was no longer in power then.
Post by Andre Lieven
A real men's group thats moderated would be moderated BY men FOR men.
smm isn't either. By design.
That was the way SMM was "imagined" by soc.men regs over the
years...something created by men for men. Of course, that was more
information that wasn't "useful" to Jayne at the time she imagined
SMM.

And yes, I agree the current SMM was designed to be the way it is.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Viking
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Originally, I wanted a clause in the charter against bashing men. I didn't
want any of the "bitter boys" nonsense that keeps appearing here. I later
rephrased it to bashing based on gender, since it seemed fair to me that
the same rule should apply to men and women. I never imagined moderators
who would think that this meant feminists should not be criticizied.
What were you "imagining" while Andre and I were raising oppositional
points to your ideas last summer? You certainly weren't listening or
considering them. You dismissed them faster than we could post them.
Indeed. Its pure crocodile tears from Jayne now.
Post by Viking
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
I think that this charter would work fine with the right moderators. As
you may recall, I originally asked Grizzlie Antagonist and Mark Sobolewski
to be on the team.
Yes, I do remember that. But what we have now is you passing the
buck. It's apparently GA's and Mark's fault that they didn't make
certain your flawed plans and charter worked as you wanted.
Indeed. Its noteworthy to see that Jayne, like ANY WomenFirster, wants
men to BE more responsible than she holds... herself.
Yes, in the last paragraph of her post, Jayne implores men to step up
and become moderators and indicates it is the "only" way SMM can be
saved. She made a mess and now she wants men to fix it. That's
classic behavior.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Viking
Part of your "imaginings" for SMM should have been contingency plans
for when moderators didn't work out. Since 3 of your 4 initial
moderators flaked out right off the bat, this was an especially
important matter to have been more carefully considered.
And, the " replacements " have all been WomenFirsters, as was the one
" survivor ".
Borgerson. Remember how much opposition we put up about him
moderating right from the start? We weren't wrong about that one
either.
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Viking
This all boils down to incredibly poor planning on your part.
Indeed.
Post by Viking
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
I doubt they would have interpretted the charter in
such an illogical way. Since neither of them ended up following through on
their agreement to be moderators, it became necessary to use moderators
without any background in understanding men's issues.
If you hadn't insulted most of the other regular posters in soc.men by
indicating they weren't suitable for moderating last summer, you
probably could have replaced the lapsed moderators with people with a
"background in understanding men's issues."
Quite. But, you know that Jayne, like any WomenFirster, wants to deflect
HER responsibility and the consequences for HER chosen actions, onto
others.
Post by Viking
You burned all of your
bridges with soc.men regulars during the RFD process which left you
now with two feminist men and a radically rabid female feminist as
moderators now.
Quite. alt.usenet.kooks.moderated&polite is certainly unfriendly to
men. Why should men read or post there, then ?
Post by Viking
Andre and I told you so.
Yep. And, we keep being proved more and more... right.
Indeed!
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Viking
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Much of what is wrong with smm could be fixed if the right moderators came
forward. It needs some people with time, understanding of moderation and
understanding of men's issues. Men who think that they have the necessary
qualities to moderate smm need to step up and take action, if there is to
be a soc.men.moderated that is useful for discussing men's issues.
It's way too late for that. That ship sunk months ago.
Yeah, at this point, Jayne is Bob Ballard, diving on the sunken Titanic...
You remembered my Titantic analogy during the RFD process! LOL.
Andre Lieven
2007-01-16 22:59:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jill
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Viking
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:34:09 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Viking
I just had a post rejected from soc.men.moderated because it took
feminists to task. A moderator explained that he *believed* that most
people *believed* that "feminist" is a synonym for "woman".
Therefore, taking feminsts to task, he argued, is the same as bashing
women, at least in "most people's" minds.
Taking feminists to task is the same as bashing women???
I did not think much of this reasoning either.
So what are you going to do about it? And don't tell me you can't do
anything...you made this mess and it really is up to you to fix what
you can.
Indeed. If you go into Google groups, for news.groups, and search for
the term " soc.men.moderated ", you will find a post where a V. Cordero
pretty much says that Jayne was the figurehead for him and others setting
up alt.usenet.kooks.moderated&polite. Aug 28, 2006, 10:29 PM is the post
to look for.
So, thats yet another item that Jayne was not... forthcoming about.
Is this the post you are referring to?
Scrolling down, yes, it is.
Post by Jill
From: V. Cordero - view profile
Date: Mon, Aug 28 2006 9:29 pm
Groups: news.groups, soc.men
Not yet rated
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Viking
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
OK, I'm really slow and I don't understand what you're saying. "Big-V?"
is... ???
All I'm getting from this is that smm was some kind of troll, and
you-all put up Jayne for something?
A troll, heavens no, trolls were what we wanted to eliminate! We all
wanted soc.men.moderated to be created and decided that the best way to
succeed was to fade from the front and let Jayne run the public portion of
the campaign while we did the legwork. If you recall, there were
originally two RFDs, Jayne worked on one, Bret, V. Cordero, and I were
working on another - we were soon after advised to work together on a
collective RFD.
Got it. Mostly. By 'trolls' you mean the AUKers?
I'm not Dante, but I'll offer my two cents. My answer is, originally,
yes, especially on Jayne's part. Many other people on soc.men
complained about the crossposting. I was orginally skeptical about
that claim. However, there seemed to be some justification for it. I
looked at the correlation between traffic, both number of posters and
number of posts, and the top five groups that shared crossposts with
soc.men each year. The only group that consistently appeared when
traffic declined was AUK. My initial conclusion was to agree with
Jayne and the others who blamed AUK for the problems with soc.men. I
even said so in two posts.
http://groups.google.com/group/news.groups/msg/f7946a7d7991a69a
http://groups.google.com/group/news.groups/msg/ac38230ff5325070
Now, I don't believe that conclusion any more. What I've seen from
the
various threads about soc.men.moderated that I've read since I've got
online is that the AUKers were, if anything, more supportive than not
about the creation of the group, and, for them, very well behaved.
They managed to sustain civil, if not friendly, debate about the
merits
of the proposal, and nearly always refrained from crossposting back
into AUK, indicating their sincerity about discussing the proposal,
instead of merely mocking it. I was impressed.
On the other hand, the most vocal regulars of soc.men were
inflammatory, paranoid, rigidly doctrinaire, and downright hostile to
the idea of creating a group that, by its charter and moderation
policy, would protect them from the crossposting into and out of AUK
that they blamed for their troubles. They were being offered a group
that included the solution for their problems, as they themselves said
they saw it, and they rejected it because it would be insufficiently
pure for their tastes. I mean, really, who cares if a cat is black or
white, so long as it catches mice?
In retrospect, while I'm sorry I wasn't around to help Jayne for the
last 2 RFDs, I don't regret not being involved in the discussion here
on news.groups and soc.men at all. I found the behavior of the
soc.men
regulars, the people who this proposal was supposed to help, downright
shameful. I now think that the problem with soc.men wasn't the AUKers
crossposting into soc.men, but the vocal regulars who escalated and
became more hostile and extreme in response. Thank you, Andre L., Ken
Pangborn, MCP, connor_a, and Viking for convincing me of that; I was
on
your side, and you guys blew it.
So, I still agree that soc.men.moderated was intended to protect the
regulars from trolls. It's just that I now believe that the trolls
that the users of soc.men.moderated will be protected from will be the
internal trolls of soc.men, the ones the AUKers have labeled as kooks,
not the AUKers, who I expect will find nothing in soc.men.moderated to
attract them. In the meantime, the men's rights extremists I listed
above will remain in the unmoderated soc.men, subject to "attacks"
crossposted from AUK and allied groups, like alt.fan.art-bell and
alt.fucknozzles. As far as I'm concerned, they can stay outside,
where
they are unprotected from ridicule, until they are ready to behave and
follow the rules of a moderated group.
V. Cordero
End Quote.
Speaking of fucknozzles...Cordero is a real knob. Was he one of
Jayne's co-conspirators or whatver they called themselves?
From reading the post it seems that hes from the group of knobs that
created the competng RFD, which looks a lot like it was intended to
forestall any possible actual men's rights SMM group from happening.

And, as he says, Jayne was their *public face*. Good choice, guys, she
really won over most of us on soc.men... <g>
Post by Jill
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Viking
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Viking
Looks like what posters here have been saying about smm is right. It's
a politically correct mess with a crippling charter where it's
impossible to actually discuss men's issues. Which I regret very much.
There is nothing in the charter about not criticizing feminists on smm.
This is a moderator's interpretation (one that I strongly disagree with,
BTW).
Looks like the charter is flawed just as was suggested last summer.
Yep. Along with installing Feminists and women as moderators.
Did she have anything to do with making that Kathy feminist a
moderator? I thought Jayne was no longer in power then.
She seemed to be saying, earlier, that she did.
Post by Jill
Post by Andre Lieven
A real men's group thats moderated would be moderated BY men FOR men.
smm isn't either. By design.
That was the way SMM was "imagined" by soc.men regs over the
years...something created by men for men. Of course, that was more
information that wasn't "useful" to Jayne at the time she imagined
SMM.
Quite.
Post by Jill
And yes, I agree the current SMM was designed to be the way it is.
And, Jayne fall for it... twice. She should be a Kook Legend.
Post by Jill
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Viking
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Originally, I wanted a clause in the charter against bashing men. I didn't
want any of the "bitter boys" nonsense that keeps appearing here. I later
rephrased it to bashing based on gender, since it seemed fair to me that
the same rule should apply to men and women. I never imagined moderators
who would think that this meant feminists should not be criticizied.
What were you "imagining" while Andre and I were raising oppositional
points to your ideas last summer? You certainly weren't listening or
considering them. You dismissed them faster than we could post them.
Indeed. Its pure crocodile tears from Jayne now.
Post by Viking
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
I think that this charter would work fine with the right moderators. As
you may recall, I originally asked Grizzlie Antagonist and Mark Sobolewski
to be on the team.
Yes, I do remember that. But what we have now is you passing the
buck. It's apparently GA's and Mark's fault that they didn't make
certain your flawed plans and charter worked as you wanted.
Indeed. Its noteworthy to see that Jayne, like ANY WomenFirster, wants
men to BE more responsible than she holds... herself.
Yes, in the last paragraph of her post, Jayne implores men to step up
and become moderators and indicates it is the "only" way SMM can be
saved. She made a mess and now she wants men to fix it. That's
classic behavior.
Indeed, and she hasn't figured out that men telling her " NO " trumps
her whines of futility.
Post by Jill
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Viking
Part of your "imaginings" for SMM should have been contingency plans
for when moderators didn't work out. Since 3 of your 4 initial
moderators flaked out right off the bat, this was an especially
important matter to have been more carefully considered.
And, the " replacements " have all been WomenFirsters, as was the one
" survivor ".
Borgerson. Remember how much opposition we put up about him
moderating right from the start? We weren't wrong about that one
either.
Damn skippy.
Post by Jill
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Viking
This all boils down to incredibly poor planning on your part.
Indeed.
Post by Viking
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
I doubt they would have interpretted the charter in
such an illogical way. Since neither of them ended up following through on
their agreement to be moderators, it became necessary to use moderators
without any background in understanding men's issues.
If you hadn't insulted most of the other regular posters in soc.men by
indicating they weren't suitable for moderating last summer, you
probably could have replaced the lapsed moderators with people with a
"background in understanding men's issues."
Quite. But, you know that Jayne, like any WomenFirster, wants to deflect
HER responsibility and the consequences for HER chosen actions, onto
others.
Post by Viking
You burned all of your
bridges with soc.men regulars during the RFD process which left you
now with two feminist men and a radically rabid female feminist as
moderators now.
Quite. alt.usenet.kooks.moderated&polite is certainly unfriendly to
men. Why should men read or post there, then ?
Post by Viking
Andre and I told you so.
Yep. And, we keep being proved more and more... right.
Indeed!
Its good to be us. :-)
Post by Jill
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Viking
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Much of what is wrong with smm could be fixed if the right moderators came
forward. It needs some people with time, understanding of moderation and
understanding of men's issues. Men who think that they have the necessary
qualities to moderate smm need to step up and take action, if there is to
be a soc.men.moderated that is useful for discussing men's issues.
It's way too late for that. That ship sunk months ago.
Yeah, at this point, Jayne is Bob Ballard, diving on the sunken Titanic...
You remembered my Titantic analogy during the RFD process! LOL.
Yes. <bg>

And, those diving to such placesought to be aware... machines have made
such people obsolete.

In the seas, unmanned underwater vehicles, and in newsgroups... FemiBorgs.

Andre
Masculist
2007-01-16 22:43:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viking
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:34:09 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Viking
I just had a post rejected from soc.men.moderated because it took
feminists to task. A moderator explained that he *believed* that most
people *believed* that "feminist" is a synonym for "woman".
Therefore, taking feminsts to task, he argued, is the same as bashing
women, at least in "most people's" minds.
Taking feminists to task is the same as bashing women???
I did not think much of this reasoning either.
So what are you going to do about it? And don't tell me you can't do
anything...you made this mess and it really is up to you to fix what
you can.
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminist's for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.

I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.

I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.

Tom
Post by Viking
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Viking
Looks like what posters here have been saying about smm is right. It's
a politically correct mess with a crippling charter where it's
impossible to actually discuss men's issues. Which I regret very much.
There is nothing in the charter about not criticizing feminists on smm.
This is a moderator's interpretation (one that I strongly disagree with,
BTW).
Looks like the charter is flawed just as was suggested last summer.
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Originally, I wanted a clause in the charter against bashing men. I didn't
want any of the "bitter boys" nonsense that keeps appearing here. I later
rephrased it to bashing based on gender, since it seemed fair to me that
the same rule should apply to men and women. I never imagined moderators
who would think that this meant feminists should not be criticizied.
What were you "imagining" while Andre and I were raising oppositional
points to your ideas last summer? You certainly weren't listening or
considering them. You dismissed them faster than we could post them.
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
I think that this charter would work fine with the right moderators. As
you may recall, I originally asked Grizzlie Antagonist and Mark Sobolewski
to be on the team.
Yes, I do remember that. But what we have now is you passing the
buck. It's apparently GA's and Mark's fault that they didn't make
certain your flawed plans and charter worked as you wanted.
Part of your "imaginings" for SMM should have been contingency plans
for when moderators didn't work out. Since 3 of your 4 initial
moderators flaked out right off the bat, this was an especially
important matter to have been more carefully considered.
This all boils down to incredibly poor planning on your part.
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
I doubt they would have interpretted the charter in
such an illogical way. Since neither of them ended up following through on
their agreement to be moderators, it became necessary to use moderators
without any background in understanding men's issues.
If you hadn't insulted most of the other regular posters in soc.men by
indicating they weren't suitable for moderating last summer, you
probably could have replaced the lapsed moderators with people with a
"background in understanding men's issues." You burned all of your
bridges with soc.men regulars during the RFD process which left you
now with two feminist men and a radically rabid female feminist as
moderators now.
Andre and I told you so.
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Much of what is wrong with smm could be fixed if the right moderators came
forward. It needs some people with time, understanding of moderation and
understanding of men's issues. Men who think that they have the necessary
qualities to moderate smm need to step up and take action, if there is to
be a soc.men.moderated that is useful for discussing men's issues.
It's way too late for that. That ship sunk months ago.
Viking
2007-01-16 23:28:44 UTC
Permalink
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminists for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
That's a more constructive way of looking at things.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
I applaude your idea and efforts. Should that be
soc.masculism.moderated?
Stephen Morgan
2007-01-17 09:27:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viking
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminists for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
That's a more constructive way of looking at things.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
I applaude your idea and efforts. Should that be
soc.masculism.moderated?
soc.masculism.emasculated, more like. If masculism can't get along
without censorship it doesn't deserve to be at all.
Masculist
2007-01-17 16:18:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Morgan
Post by Viking
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminists for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
That's a more constructive way of looking at things.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
I applaude your idea and efforts. Should that be
soc.masculism.moderated?
soc.masculism.emasculated, more like. If masculism can't get along
without censorship it doesn't deserve to be at all.
Read what I wrote to Viking and let me know what you think.

Tom
Andre Lieven
2007-01-17 17:44:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Morgan
Post by Viking
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminists for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
That's a more constructive way of looking at things.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
I applaude your idea and efforts. Should that be
soc.masculism.moderated?
soc.masculism.emasculated, more like. If masculism can't get along
without censorship it doesn't deserve to be at all.
I believe that Tom is suggesting a moderation format to keep out the
things that troll here, like the crossposted in racist and kook shit.

The way we were falsely told that alt.usenet.kooks.moderated&polite
was going to be... before it was handed over to the man hating
WomenFirster BIGOTS.

Andre
GL Fowler
2007-01-17 21:47:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Stephen Morgan
Post by Viking
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminists for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
That's a more constructive way of looking at things.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
I applaude your idea and efforts. Should that be
soc.masculism.moderated?
soc.masculism.emasculated, more like. If masculism can't get along
without censorship it doesn't deserve to be at all.
I believe that Tom is suggesting a moderation format to keep out the
things that troll here, like the crossposted in racist and kook shit.
The way we were falsely told that alt.usenet.kooks.moderated&polite
was going to be... before it was handed over to the man hating
WomenFirster BIGOTS.
Andre
No cross-posting and at least two concurring moderators to dump a post
appears to be a start.

Jerry
A jury is 12 individuals who decides who has the best lawyer.
- Mark Twain
Andre Lieven
2007-01-18 02:59:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by GL Fowler
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Stephen Morgan
Post by Viking
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminists for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
That's a more constructive way of looking at things.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
I applaude your idea and efforts. Should that be
soc.masculism.moderated?
soc.masculism.emasculated, more like. If masculism can't get along
without censorship it doesn't deserve to be at all.
I believe that Tom is suggesting a moderation format to keep out the
things that troll here, like the crossposted in racist and kook shit.
The way we were falsely told that alt.usenet.kooks.moderated&polite
was going to be... before it was handed over to the man hating
WomenFirster BIGOTS.
Andre
No cross-posting and at least two concurring moderators to dump a post
appears to be a start.
And, had they *stopped* there, we wouldn't be discussing that groups'
massive failure right now.

But, they've already censored posts for *contnt*, that is, not for trolling,
not for ad hominems, and not for osting whole copyrighted articles.

At this point, theres no real difference between
alt.usenet.kooks.moderated&polite and soc.feminism ( Which is moderated ).

Andre
Masculist
2007-01-18 19:25:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Stephen Morgan
Post by Viking
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminists for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
That's a more constructive way of looking at things.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
I applaude your idea and efforts. Should that be
soc.masculism.moderated?
soc.masculism.emasculated, more like. If masculism can't get along
without censorship it doesn't deserve to be at all.
I believe that Tom is suggesting a moderation format to keep out the
things that troll here, like the crossposted in racist and kook shit.
The way we were falsely told that alt.usenet.kooks.moderated&polite
was going to be... before it was handed over to the man hating
WomenFirster BIGOTS.
Exactly Andre, thank you.

Tom
Post by Andre Lieven
Andre
pandora
2007-01-19 00:47:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Masculist
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Stephen Morgan
Post by Viking
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminists for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
That's a more constructive way of looking at things.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
I applaude your idea and efforts. Should that be
soc.masculism.moderated?
soc.masculism.emasculated, more like. If masculism can't get along
without censorship it doesn't deserve to be at all.
I believe that Tom is suggesting a moderation format to keep out the
things that troll here, like the crossposted in racist and kook shit.
The way we were falsely told that alt.usenet.kooks.moderated&polite
was going to be... before it was handed over to the man hating
WomenFirster BIGOTS.
Exactly Andre, thank you.
Oh, how I LOVE it! Poor Jayne. She's being called a womanfirster bigot
now. It's so wonderful to see the *enemy* fighting in its own ranks.
Heh.

CWQ
Post by Masculist
Tom
So, Tom, where's that RFD you promised?
Post by Masculist
Post by Andre Lieven
Andre
Masculist
2007-01-17 16:16:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viking
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminists for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
That's a more constructive way of looking at things.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
I applaude your idea and efforts. Should that be
soc.masculism.moderated?
My idea of moderation is intervening rarely and only when there's a
clear disruption or spamming. Yes, it would have to be moderated in
order to complement this group. If there was a moderated group like
what I envision, then another unmoderated one would be OK. I'd want
cross posting on a moderated group. Even the racists posts things that
we should hear. Parg should be able to speak, but not hardly as much
as she has or in the bitter fashion <smile>

Good to have you back Viking.

Smitty
Sharon B
2007-01-17 16:42:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Masculist
Post by Viking
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminists for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
That's a more constructive way of looking at things.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
I applaude your idea and efforts. Should that be
soc.masculism.moderated?
My idea of moderation is intervening rarely and only when there's a
clear disruption or spamming. Yes, it would have to be moderated in
order to complement this group. If there was a moderated group like
what I envision, then another unmoderated one would be OK. I'd want
cross posting on a moderated group. Even the racists posts things that
we should hear. Parg should be able to speak, but not hardly as much
as she has or in the bitter fashion <smile>
Good to have you back Viking.
Smitty
You need to discuss this in news.groups. Added.

You'll also be advised to get one of the mentors--they'll likely stick
you with Jayne.

[yes, I realize I am entirely too helpful]
Aratzio
2007-01-17 17:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharon B
Post by Masculist
Post by Viking
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminists for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
That's a more constructive way of looking at things.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
I applaude your idea and efforts. Should that be
soc.masculism.moderated?
My idea of moderation is intervening rarely and only when there's a
clear disruption or spamming. Yes, it would have to be moderated in
order to complement this group. If there was a moderated group like
what I envision, then another unmoderated one would be OK. I'd want
cross posting on a moderated group. Even the racists posts things that
we should hear. Parg should be able to speak, but not hardly as much
as she has or in the bitter fashion <smile>
Good to have you back Viking.
Smitty
You need to discuss this in news.groups. Added.
You'll also be advised to get one of the mentors--they'll likely stick
you with Jayne.
[yes, I realize I am entirely too helpful]
I can help with the RFD.

Rationale: soc.men.moderated won't let us whine about the evul
wimmins. We need a protected place to vent our misogynistic and
moronic views about the evul wimmins. Especially since so many people
laugh at us and make fun of us. We are too big a bunch of pansies,
like the b8mb, to suffer people making fun of us for our own
stupidity. Please b8mb, let us hide from our detractors like you do!
We are just like you, so we need a plce just like yours too.

Justification: At least 4 or even 5 regular misogynists will support
this proposal and 2 or 3 may even post in the moderated group.

Moderation Policy: On-topic: Wimmins is evul and oppressive.
Off-topic: anything about real men or laughing at us for being morons.

Moderators: MarkS, Grizzly Antagonist, VjikQueen, Piggy and Kenny
Kakes. (fuck off smitty).

Pretty much covers the basics at this point.

Comments?
--
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
Masculist
2007-01-18 19:29:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aratzio
Post by Sharon B
Post by Masculist
Post by Viking
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminists for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
That's a more constructive way of looking at things.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
I applaude your idea and efforts. Should that be
soc.masculism.moderated?
My idea of moderation is intervening rarely and only when there's a
clear disruption or spamming. Yes, it would have to be moderated in
order to complement this group. If there was a moderated group like
what I envision, then another unmoderated one would be OK. I'd want
cross posting on a moderated group. Even the racists posts things that
we should hear. Parg should be able to speak, but not hardly as much
as she has or in the bitter fashion <smile>
Good to have you back Viking.
Smitty
You need to discuss this in news.groups. Added.
You'll also be advised to get one of the mentors--they'll likely stick
you with Jayne.
[yes, I realize I am entirely too helpful]
I can help with the RFD.
Rationale: soc.men.moderated won't let us whine about the evul
wimmins. We need a protected place to vent our misogynistic and
moronic views about the evul wimmins. Especially since so many people
laugh at us and make fun of us. We are too big a bunch of pansies,
like the b8mb, to suffer people making fun of us for our own
stupidity. Please b8mb, let us hide from our detractors like you do!
We are just like you, so we need a plce just like yours too.
OK, I have Aratzio in a forced bent over position. You first Andre
<smile>

It's a Phil Hendrie styled joke Aratzifuckhead. Lubbed and all.

Smitty
Post by Aratzio
Justification: At least 4 or even 5 regular misogynists will support
this proposal and 2 or 3 may even post in the moderated group.
Moderation Policy: On-topic: Wimmins is evul and oppressive.
Off-topic: anything about real men or laughing at us for being morons.
Moderators: MarkS, Grizzly Antagonist, VjikQueen, Piggy and Kenny
Kakes. (fuck off smitty).
Pretty much covers the basics at this point.
Comments?
--
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
Aratzio
2007-01-18 19:45:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Masculist
OK, I have Aratzio in a forced bent over position. You first Andre
<smile>
Wow, a homoerotic fantasy from a soc.froot. What a surprise.
Post by Masculist
It's a Phil Hendrie styled joke Aratzifuckhead. Lubbed and all.
Admission you can only plagiarize anothers homeerotic schtick.

I am still awaiting your pansified RFD.
--
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
Daedalus
2007-01-18 20:26:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aratzio
Post by Masculist
OK, I have Aratzio in a forced bent over position. You first Andre
<smile>
Wow, a homoerotic fantasy from a soc.froot. What a surprise.
These boys have watched Deliverance too many times. This is what
happens when your only male role models in life come from TV. You end
up with soc.men
Post by Aratzio
Post by Masculist
It's a Phil Hendrie styled joke Aratzifuckhead. Lubbed and all.
Admission you can only plagiarize anothers homeerotic schtick.
I am still awaiting your pansified RFD.
And an admission that you dream about raping Ned Beatty.

Jade
Aratzio
2007-01-18 20:38:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daedalus
Post by Aratzio
Post by Masculist
OK, I have Aratzio in a forced bent over position. You first Andre
<smile>
Wow, a homoerotic fantasy from a soc.froot. What a surprise.
These boys have watched Deliverance too many times. This is what
happens when your only male role models in life come from TV. You end
up with soc.men
Post by Aratzio
Post by Masculist
It's a Phil Hendrie styled joke Aratzifuckhead. Lubbed and all.
Admission you can only plagiarize anothers homeerotic schtick.
I am still awaiting your pansified RFD.
And an admission that you dream about raping Ned Beatty.
Jade
'bout time you got back to smackin' teh kooks, evul wimmin.
--
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
Daedalus
2007-01-18 20:50:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aratzio
Post by Daedalus
Post by Aratzio
Post by Masculist
OK, I have Aratzio in a forced bent over position. You first Andre
<smile>
Wow, a homoerotic fantasy from a soc.froot. What a surprise.
These boys have watched Deliverance too many times. This is what
happens when your only male role models in life come from TV. You end
up with soc.men
Post by Aratzio
Post by Masculist
It's a Phil Hendrie styled joke Aratzifuckhead. Lubbed and all.
Admission you can only plagiarize anothers homeerotic schtick.
I am still awaiting your pansified RFD.
And an admission that you dream about raping Ned Beatty.
Jade
'bout time you got back to smackin' teh kooks, evul wimmin.
Howdy! My how this froup has changed since December.

Jade
Aratzio
2007-01-18 20:59:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daedalus
Post by Aratzio
Post by Daedalus
Post by Aratzio
Post by Masculist
OK, I have Aratzio in a forced bent over position. You first Andre
<smile>
Wow, a homoerotic fantasy from a soc.froot. What a surprise.
These boys have watched Deliverance too many times. This is what
happens when your only male role models in life come from TV. You end
up with soc.men
Post by Aratzio
Post by Masculist
It's a Phil Hendrie styled joke Aratzifuckhead. Lubbed and all.
Admission you can only plagiarize anothers homeerotic schtick.
I am still awaiting your pansified RFD.
And an admission that you dream about raping Ned Beatty.
Jade
'bout time you got back to smackin' teh kooks, evul wimmin.
Howdy! My how this froup has changed since December.
Jade
Yes, it seems pointing out the chairman of the b8mb is a post forging
tard caused them to run and hide. Jeremy's hissy fit was especially
funny.
--
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
Daedalus
2007-01-18 21:05:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aratzio
Post by Daedalus
Post by Aratzio
Post by Daedalus
Post by Aratzio
Post by Masculist
OK, I have Aratzio in a forced bent over position. You first Andre
<smile>
Wow, a homoerotic fantasy from a soc.froot. What a surprise.
These boys have watched Deliverance too many times. This is what
happens when your only male role models in life come from TV. You end
up with soc.men
Post by Aratzio
Post by Masculist
It's a Phil Hendrie styled joke Aratzifuckhead. Lubbed and all.
Admission you can only plagiarize anothers homeerotic schtick.
I am still awaiting your pansified RFD.
And an admission that you dream about raping Ned Beatty.
Jade
'bout time you got back to smackin' teh kooks, evul wimmin.
Howdy! My how this froup has changed since December.
Jade
Yes, it seems pointing out the chairman of the b8mb is a post forging
tard caused them to run and hide. Jeremy's hissy fit was especially
funny.
I'm still catching up on all the posts and I haven't yet come across
the formal announcement that the B8 leadership has been a complete
failure followed by an apology.

Can you remember what day that was posted?

Jade
Aratzio
2007-01-18 21:10:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daedalus
Post by Aratzio
Post by Daedalus
Post by Aratzio
Post by Daedalus
Post by Aratzio
Post by Masculist
OK, I have Aratzio in a forced bent over position. You first Andre
<smile>
Wow, a homoerotic fantasy from a soc.froot. What a surprise.
These boys have watched Deliverance too many times. This is what
happens when your only male role models in life come from TV. You end
up with soc.men
Post by Aratzio
Post by Masculist
It's a Phil Hendrie styled joke Aratzifuckhead. Lubbed and all.
Admission you can only plagiarize anothers homeerotic schtick.
I am still awaiting your pansified RFD.
And an admission that you dream about raping Ned Beatty.
Jade
'bout time you got back to smackin' teh kooks, evul wimmin.
Howdy! My how this froup has changed since December.
Jade
Yes, it seems pointing out the chairman of the b8mb is a post forging
tard caused them to run and hide. Jeremy's hissy fit was especially
funny.
I'm still catching up on all the posts and I haven't yet come across
the formal announcement that the B8 leadership has been a complete
failure followed by an apology.
Can you remember what day that was posted?
Jade
It was rejected by the moderators of n.g.p as off-topic chatter.
--
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
Daedalus
2007-01-19 15:17:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aratzio
Post by Daedalus
Post by Aratzio
Post by Daedalus
Post by Aratzio
Post by Daedalus
Post by Aratzio
Post by Masculist
OK, I have Aratzio in a forced bent over position. You first Andre
<smile>
Wow, a homoerotic fantasy from a soc.froot. What a surprise.
These boys have watched Deliverance too many times. This is what
happens when your only male role models in life come from TV. You end
up with soc.men
Post by Aratzio
Post by Masculist
It's a Phil Hendrie styled joke Aratzifuckhead. Lubbed and all.
Admission you can only plagiarize anothers homeerotic schtick.
I am still awaiting your pansified RFD.
And an admission that you dream about raping Ned Beatty.
Jade
'bout time you got back to smackin' teh kooks, evul wimmin.
Howdy! My how this froup has changed since December.
Jade
Yes, it seems pointing out the chairman of the b8mb is a post forging
tard caused them to run and hide. Jeremy's hissy fit was especially
funny.
I'm still catching up on all the posts and I haven't yet come across
the formal announcement that the B8 leadership has been a complete
failure followed by an apology.
Can you remember what day that was posted?
Jade
It was rejected by the moderators of n.g.p as off-topic chatter.
Figures.

Jade
pandora
2007-01-18 22:43:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daedalus
Post by Aratzio
Post by Daedalus
Post by Aratzio
Post by Daedalus
Post by Aratzio
Post by Masculist
OK, I have Aratzio in a forced bent over position. You first Andre
<smile>
Wow, a homoerotic fantasy from a soc.froot. What a surprise.
These boys have watched Deliverance too many times. This is what
happens when your only male role models in life come from TV. You end
up with soc.men
Post by Aratzio
Post by Masculist
It's a Phil Hendrie styled joke Aratzifuckhead. Lubbed and all.
Admission you can only plagiarize anothers homeerotic schtick.
I am still awaiting your pansified RFD.
And an admission that you dream about raping Ned Beatty.
Jade
'bout time you got back to smackin' teh kooks, evul wimmin.
Howdy! My how this froup has changed since December.
Jade
Yes, it seems pointing out the chairman of the b8mb is a post forging
tard caused them to run and hide. Jeremy's hissy fit was especially
funny.
I'm still catching up on all the posts and I haven't yet come across
the formal announcement that the B8 leadership has been a complete
failure followed by an apology.
Can you remember what day that was posted?
It will be posted the first Tuesday after never.

CWQ
Post by Daedalus
Jade
pandora
2007-01-18 22:39:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aratzio
Post by Masculist
OK, I have Aratzio in a forced bent over position. You first Andre
<smile>
Wow, a homoerotic fantasy from a soc.froot. What a surprise.
Post by Masculist
It's a Phil Hendrie styled joke Aratzifuckhead. Lubbed and all.
Admission you can only plagiarize anothers homeerotic schtick.
I am still awaiting your pansified RFD.
Oh, the suspense! I can hardly wait to see it. Of course, I don't think
it will ever see the light of day or get as far as that. Just more of
Smitty's hallucinations and big plans to eradicate feminists.

CWQ
Turin
2007-01-18 23:51:08 UTC
Permalink
On 18 Jan 2007 11:29:37 -0800, "Masculisp"
Post by Masculist
OK, I have Aratzio in a forced bent over position. You
first Andre <smile>
Wow, a homoerotic fantasy from a soc.froot. What a
surprise.
Not really. I mean, it's not just a fantasy.
Post by Masculist
It's a Phil Hendrie styled joke Aratzifuckhead. Lubbed
and all.
Admission you can only plagiarize anothers homeerotic
schtick.
I am still awaiting your pansified RFD.
Whatever is on it, the actual group will consist of this
type of behavior.




- - -

This has been another enlightening moment, with:

Turin


I have such sites to show you...
------------------------

http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/
http://groups.google.com/group/Men_First/

------------------------

"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with,
deleteth, or maketh a lie about these words or causeth them
to not be known shall burn in hell forever and ever...."

-----
Masculist
2007-01-18 23:55:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aratzio
Post by Masculist
OK, I have Aratzio in a forced bent over position. You first Andre
<smile>
Wow, a homoerotic fantasy from a soc.froot. What a surprise.
Post by Masculist
It's a Phil Hendrie styled joke Aratzifuckhead. Lubbed and all.
Admission you can only plagiarize anothers homeerotic schtick.
I am still awaiting your pansified RFD.
Thanks for reminding me Aratzio. I'm off to check out what I need to
do.

Smitty
Post by Aratzio
--
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
Aratzio
2007-01-19 00:59:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Masculist
Post by Aratzio
Post by Masculist
OK, I have Aratzio in a forced bent over position. You first Andre
<smile>
Wow, a homoerotic fantasy from a soc.froot. What a surprise.
Post by Masculist
It's a Phil Hendrie styled joke Aratzifuckhead. Lubbed and all.
Admission you can only plagiarize anothers homeerotic schtick.
I am still awaiting your pansified RFD.
Thanks for reminding me Aratzio. I'm off to check out what I need to
do.
Smitty
Let me be of assistance:
http://www.big-8.org

Don't delay, the queue for moderated groups is filling fast and you
dont want to be back of the special bus like normal.
Daedalus
2007-01-19 15:16:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aratzio
Post by Masculist
Post by Aratzio
Post by Masculist
OK, I have Aratzio in a forced bent over position. You first Andre
<smile>
Wow, a homoerotic fantasy from a soc.froot. What a surprise.
Post by Masculist
It's a Phil Hendrie styled joke Aratzifuckhead. Lubbed and all.
Admission you can only plagiarize anothers homeerotic schtick.
I am still awaiting your pansified RFD.
Thanks for reminding me Aratzio. I'm off to check out what I need to
do.
Smitty
http://www.big-8.org
Don't delay, the queue for moderated groups is filling fast and you
dont want to be back of the special bus like normal.
You think they let him on the special bus?

I figured he had to hitch it in the institutional van.

Jade
Masculist
2007-01-19 17:41:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aratzio
Post by Masculist
Post by Aratzio
Post by Masculist
OK, I have Aratzio in a forced bent over position. You first Andre
<smile>
Wow, a homoerotic fantasy from a soc.froot. What a surprise.
Post by Masculist
It's a Phil Hendrie styled joke Aratzifuckhead. Lubbed and all.
Admission you can only plagiarize anothers homeerotic schtick.
I am still awaiting your pansified RFD.
Thanks for reminding me Aratzio. I'm off to check out what I need to
do.
Smitty
http://www.big-8.org
This link is better than the one I had when I wrote the proposal up.
I'll add the new stuff.

Thanks.

Smitty
Post by Aratzio
Don't delay, the queue for moderated groups is filling fast and you
dont want to be back of the special bus like normal.
ThePsyko
2007-01-19 19:44:32 UTC
Permalink
On 19 Jan 2007 I stormed the castle called news.groups and heard
Post by Masculist
Post by Aratzio
Post by Masculist
Post by Aratzio
Post by Masculist
OK, I have Aratzio in a forced bent over position. You first
Andre <smile>
Wow, a homoerotic fantasy from a soc.froot. What a surprise.
Post by Masculist
It's a Phil Hendrie styled joke Aratzifuckhead. Lubbed and all.
Admission you can only plagiarize anothers homeerotic schtick.
I am still awaiting your pansified RFD.
Thanks for reminding me Aratzio. I'm off to check out what I need
to do.
Smitty
http://www.big-8.org
This link is better than the one I had when I wrote the proposal up.
I'll add the new stuff.
Thanks.
Smitty
Post by Aratzio
Don't delay, the queue for moderated groups is filling fast and you
dont want to be back of the special bus like normal.
I think it's a great idea if it will keep the feminazis like Jade out.

I get so tired of hearing women try to tell me how great they are when
we all know men are the superior sex.
--
ThePsyko
Public Enemy #7
Daedalus
2007-01-19 20:09:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by ThePsyko
On 19 Jan 2007 I stormed the castle called news.groups and heard
Post by Masculist
Post by Aratzio
Post by Masculist
Post by Aratzio
Post by Masculist
OK, I have Aratzio in a forced bent over position. You first
Andre <smile>
Wow, a homoerotic fantasy from a soc.froot. What a surprise.
Post by Masculist
It's a Phil Hendrie styled joke Aratzifuckhead. Lubbed and all.
Admission you can only plagiarize anothers homeerotic schtick.
I am still awaiting your pansified RFD.
Thanks for reminding me Aratzio. I'm off to check out what I need
to do.
Smitty
http://www.big-8.org
This link is better than the one I had when I wrote the proposal up.
I'll add the new stuff.
Thanks.
Smitty
Post by Aratzio
Don't delay, the queue for moderated groups is filling fast and you
dont want to be back of the special bus like normal.
I think it's a great idea if it will keep the feminazis like Jade out.
Since I don't know you, I'll just assume you're another long time
fanboi in need of help to bust your cherry.
Post by ThePsyko
I get so tired of hearing women try to tell me how great they are when
we all know men are the superior sex.
Eh, in what way, Testosterator?

Jade
ThePsyko
2007-01-24 00:26:25 UTC
Permalink
On 19 Jan 2007 I stormed the castle called soc.men and heard Daedalus cry
Post by Daedalus
Post by ThePsyko
On 19 Jan 2007 I stormed the castle called news.groups and heard
Post by Masculist
Post by Aratzio
Post by Masculist
Post by Aratzio
Post by Masculist
OK, I have Aratzio in a forced bent over position. You first
Andre <smile>
Wow, a homoerotic fantasy from a soc.froot. What a surprise.
Post by Masculist
It's a Phil Hendrie styled joke Aratzifuckhead. Lubbed and all.
Admission you can only plagiarize anothers homeerotic schtick.
I am still awaiting your pansified RFD.
Thanks for reminding me Aratzio. I'm off to check out what I need
to do.
Smitty
http://www.big-8.org
This link is better than the one I had when I wrote the proposal up.
I'll add the new stuff.
Thanks.
Smitty
Post by Aratzio
Don't delay, the queue for moderated groups is filling fast and you
dont want to be back of the special bus like normal.
I think it's a great idea if it will keep the feminazis like Jade out.
Since I don't know you, I'll just assume you're another long time
fanboi in need of help to bust your cherry.
Interesting. You really DO search on those terms don't you.
Post by Daedalus
Post by ThePsyko
I get so tired of hearing women try to tell me how great they are when
we all know men are the superior sex.
Eh, in what way, Testosterator?
It's a subject that I'm sure has been covered many times?
--
ThePsyko
Public Enemy #7
Stephen Morgan
2007-01-18 11:35:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Masculist
Post by Viking
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminists for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
That's a more constructive way of looking at things.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
I applaude your idea and efforts. Should that be
soc.masculism.moderated?
My idea of moderation is intervening rarely and only when there's a
clear disruption or spamming.
That sounds all right but I couldn't posibly trust anyone bvut Jesus to
judge what should and shouldn't be allowed in, so I couldn't possibly
approve. I wouldn't want you become corrupted by power.
Post by Masculist
Yes, it would have to be moderated in
order to complement this group. If there was a moderated group like
what I envision, then another unmoderated one would be OK. I'd want
cross posting on a moderated group. Even the racists posts things that
we should hear.
If there's a reason to support moderation it's to keep out the
cross-posting trouble makers.
Post by Masculist
Parg should be able to speak, but not hardly as much
as she has or in the bitter fashion <smile>
SEE? Already talking about censoring for content. Might as well be
soc.feminism.
Jill
2007-01-18 14:51:07 UTC
Permalink
On 18 Jan 2007 03:35:32 -0800, "Stephen Morgan"
Post by Stephen Morgan
Post by Masculist
Post by Viking
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminists for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
That's a more constructive way of looking at things.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
I applaude your idea and efforts. Should that be
soc.masculism.moderated?
My idea of moderation is intervening rarely and only when there's a
clear disruption or spamming.
That sounds all right but I couldn't posibly trust anyone bvut Jesus to
judge what should and shouldn't be allowed in, so I couldn't possibly
approve. I wouldn't want you become corrupted by power.
Post by Masculist
Yes, it would have to be moderated in
order to complement this group. If there was a moderated group like
what I envision, then another unmoderated one would be OK. I'd want
cross posting on a moderated group. Even the racists posts things that
we should hear.
If there's a reason to support moderation it's to keep out the
cross-posting trouble makers.
I think it important to point out that one of Jayne's specific goals
in creating SMM was to make it a "comfortable" place for the
cross-posting trouble makers (AUKers) to post in. That decision was
probably the single one that doomed SMM regardless of any other
mistakes that were made.
Post by Stephen Morgan
Post by Masculist
Parg should be able to speak, but not hardly as much
as she has or in the bitter fashion <smile>
SEE? Already talking about censoring for content. Might as well be
soc.feminism.
Andre Lieven
2007-01-18 17:39:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jill
On 18 Jan 2007 03:35:32 -0800, "Stephen Morgan"
Post by Stephen Morgan
Post by Masculist
Post by Viking
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminists for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
That's a more constructive way of looking at things.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
I applaude your idea and efforts. Should that be
soc.masculism.moderated?
My idea of moderation is intervening rarely and only when there's a
clear disruption or spamming.
That sounds all right but I couldn't posibly trust anyone bvut Jesus to
judge what should and shouldn't be allowed in, so I couldn't possibly
approve. I wouldn't want you become corrupted by power.
Post by Masculist
Yes, it would have to be moderated in
order to complement this group. If there was a moderated group like
what I envision, then another unmoderated one would be OK. I'd want
cross posting on a moderated group. Even the racists posts things that
we should hear.
If there's a reason to support moderation it's to keep out the
cross-posting trouble makers.
I think it important to point out that one of Jayne's specific goals
in creating SMM was to make it a "comfortable" place for the
cross-posting trouble makers (AUKers) to post in. That decision was
probably the single one that doomed SMM regardless of any other
mistakes that were made.
From where I sit, its hard to separate out the choices that Jayne made
that made that place become run by Feminists, and the choices that she
made that opened the place up to kooks. In the latter case, it was
naming a *kook* as a moderator. In the former, it was, first, naming
a well known Feminist enabler as a moderator, and then, naming two more
out and out Feminist man haters as mods.

Jayne made it clear, early on, that she wanted this, no matter how fucked
up the conditions were going to be. It would have been better to abandon
the quest, once the Board madei clear that Feminists had to be taken on
board. Its clear that said Board was also full of man haters, as they
never insisted on such " balance " for soc.feminism.
Post by Jill
Post by Stephen Morgan
Post by Masculist
Parg should be able to speak, but not hardly as much
as she has or in the bitter fashion <smile>
SEE? Already talking about censoring for content. Might as well be
soc.feminism.
Well, more of censoring for ad hominems.

Andre
Jill
2007-01-18 17:57:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Jill
On 18 Jan 2007 03:35:32 -0800, "Stephen Morgan"
Post by Stephen Morgan
Post by Masculist
Post by Viking
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminists for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
That's a more constructive way of looking at things.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
I applaude your idea and efforts. Should that be
soc.masculism.moderated?
My idea of moderation is intervening rarely and only when there's a
clear disruption or spamming.
That sounds all right but I couldn't posibly trust anyone bvut Jesus to
judge what should and shouldn't be allowed in, so I couldn't possibly
approve. I wouldn't want you become corrupted by power.
Post by Masculist
Yes, it would have to be moderated in
order to complement this group. If there was a moderated group like
what I envision, then another unmoderated one would be OK. I'd want
cross posting on a moderated group. Even the racists posts things that
we should hear.
If there's a reason to support moderation it's to keep out the
cross-posting trouble makers.
I think it important to point out that one of Jayne's specific goals
in creating SMM was to make it a "comfortable" place for the
cross-posting trouble makers (AUKers) to post in. That decision was
probably the single one that doomed SMM regardless of any other
mistakes that were made.
From where I sit, its hard to separate out the choices that Jayne made
that made that place become run by Feminists, and the choices that she
made that opened the place up to kooks. In the latter case, it was
naming a *kook* as a moderator. In the former, it was, first, naming
a well known Feminist enabler as a moderator, and then, naming two more
out and out Feminist man haters as mods.
Jayne made it clear, early on, that she wanted this, no matter how fucked
up the conditions were going to be. It would have been better to abandon
the quest, once the Board madei clear that Feminists had to be taken on
board. Its clear that said Board was also full of man haters, as they
never insisted on such " balance " for soc.feminism.
The Board told Jayne she had to put Feminists on board? I thought it
was her idea. Did the Board also tell her she had to make SMM a safe
haven for AUKers?
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Jill
Post by Stephen Morgan
Post by Masculist
Parg should be able to speak, but not hardly as much
as she has or in the bitter fashion <smile>
SEE? Already talking about censoring for content. Might as well be
soc.feminism.
Well, more of censoring for ad hominems.
Andre
Andre Lieven
2007-01-18 18:02:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jill
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Jill
On 18 Jan 2007 03:35:32 -0800, "Stephen Morgan"
Post by Stephen Morgan
Post by Masculist
Post by Viking
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminists for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
That's a more constructive way of looking at things.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
I applaude your idea and efforts. Should that be
soc.masculism.moderated?
My idea of moderation is intervening rarely and only when there's a
clear disruption or spamming.
That sounds all right but I couldn't posibly trust anyone bvut Jesus to
judge what should and shouldn't be allowed in, so I couldn't possibly
approve. I wouldn't want you become corrupted by power.
Post by Masculist
Yes, it would have to be moderated in
order to complement this group. If there was a moderated group like
what I envision, then another unmoderated one would be OK. I'd want
cross posting on a moderated group. Even the racists posts things that
we should hear.
If there's a reason to support moderation it's to keep out the
cross-posting trouble makers.
I think it important to point out that one of Jayne's specific goals
in creating SMM was to make it a "comfortable" place for the
cross-posting trouble makers (AUKers) to post in. That decision was
probably the single one that doomed SMM regardless of any other
mistakes that were made.
From where I sit, its hard to separate out the choices that Jayne made
that made that place become run by Feminists, and the choices that she
made that opened the place up to kooks. In the latter case, it was
naming a *kook* as a moderator. In the former, it was, first, naming
a well known Feminist enabler as a moderator, and then, naming two more
out and out Feminist man haters as mods.
Jayne made it clear, early on, that she wanted this, no matter how fucked
up the conditions were going to be. It would have been better to abandon
the quest, once the Board madei clear that Feminists had to be taken on
board. Its clear that said Board was also full of man haters, as they
never insisted on such " balance " for soc.feminism.
The Board told Jayne she had to put Feminists on board? I thought it
was her idea.
It may well have been both. Do you recall that in all the early smm fuss,
it came out that there were two " competing " bids for a smm, and that
some of what had been prepared for the other one had to be taken into Jayne's
bid, by the command of the Board, in combining both bids.
Post by Jill
Did the Board also tell her she had to make SMM a safe
haven for AUKers?
As best as I can recall, that one was all Jayne.
Post by Jill
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Jill
Post by Stephen Morgan
Post by Masculist
Parg should be able to speak, but not hardly as much
as she has or in the bitter fashion <smile>
SEE? Already talking about censoring for content. Might as well be
soc.feminism.
Well, more of censoring for ad hominems.
Andre
Jill
2007-01-18 21:12:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Jill
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Jill
On 18 Jan 2007 03:35:32 -0800, "Stephen Morgan"
Post by Stephen Morgan
Post by Masculist
Post by Viking
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminists for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
That's a more constructive way of looking at things.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
I applaude your idea and efforts. Should that be
soc.masculism.moderated?
My idea of moderation is intervening rarely and only when there's a
clear disruption or spamming.
That sounds all right but I couldn't posibly trust anyone bvut Jesus to
judge what should and shouldn't be allowed in, so I couldn't possibly
approve. I wouldn't want you become corrupted by power.
Post by Masculist
Yes, it would have to be moderated in
order to complement this group. If there was a moderated group like
what I envision, then another unmoderated one would be OK. I'd want
cross posting on a moderated group. Even the racists posts things that
we should hear.
If there's a reason to support moderation it's to keep out the
cross-posting trouble makers.
I think it important to point out that one of Jayne's specific goals
in creating SMM was to make it a "comfortable" place for the
cross-posting trouble makers (AUKers) to post in. That decision was
probably the single one that doomed SMM regardless of any other
mistakes that were made.
From where I sit, its hard to separate out the choices that Jayne made
that made that place become run by Feminists, and the choices that she
made that opened the place up to kooks. In the latter case, it was
naming a *kook* as a moderator. In the former, it was, first, naming
a well known Feminist enabler as a moderator, and then, naming two more
out and out Feminist man haters as mods.
Jayne made it clear, early on, that she wanted this, no matter how fucked
up the conditions were going to be. It would have been better to abandon
the quest, once the Board madei clear that Feminists had to be taken on
board. Its clear that said Board was also full of man haters, as they
never insisted on such " balance " for soc.feminism.
The Board told Jayne she had to put Feminists on board? I thought it
was her idea.
It may well have been both. Do you recall that in all the early smm fuss,
it came out that there were two " competing " bids for a smm, and that
some of what had been prepared for the other one had to be taken into Jayne's
bid, by the command of the Board, in combining both bids.
No, I don't recall that. I don't believe I ever knew about that.
What were the parts taken from the other proposal and who made the
other proposal?
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Jill
Did the Board also tell her she had to make SMM a safe
haven for AUKers?
As best as I can recall, that one was all Jayne.
Post by Jill
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Jill
Post by Stephen Morgan
Post by Masculist
Parg should be able to speak, but not hardly as much
as she has or in the bitter fashion <smile>
SEE? Already talking about censoring for content. Might as well be
soc.feminism.
Well, more of censoring for ad hominems.
Andre
Andre Lieven
2007-01-18 23:24:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jill
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Jill
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Jill
On 18 Jan 2007 03:35:32 -0800, "Stephen Morgan"
Post by Stephen Morgan
Post by Masculist
Post by Viking
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminists for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
That's a more constructive way of looking at things.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
I applaude your idea and efforts. Should that be
soc.masculism.moderated?
My idea of moderation is intervening rarely and only when there's a
clear disruption or spamming.
That sounds all right but I couldn't posibly trust anyone bvut Jesus to
judge what should and shouldn't be allowed in, so I couldn't possibly
approve. I wouldn't want you become corrupted by power.
Post by Masculist
Yes, it would have to be moderated in
order to complement this group. If there was a moderated group like
what I envision, then another unmoderated one would be OK. I'd want
cross posting on a moderated group. Even the racists posts things that
we should hear.
If there's a reason to support moderation it's to keep out the
cross-posting trouble makers.
I think it important to point out that one of Jayne's specific goals
in creating SMM was to make it a "comfortable" place for the
cross-posting trouble makers (AUKers) to post in. That decision was
probably the single one that doomed SMM regardless of any other
mistakes that were made.
From where I sit, its hard to separate out the choices that Jayne made
that made that place become run by Feminists, and the choices that she
made that opened the place up to kooks. In the latter case, it was
naming a *kook* as a moderator. In the former, it was, first, naming
a well known Feminist enabler as a moderator, and then, naming two more
out and out Feminist man haters as mods.
Jayne made it clear, early on, that she wanted this, no matter how fucked
up the conditions were going to be. It would have been better to abandon
the quest, once the Board madei clear that Feminists had to be taken on
board. Its clear that said Board was also full of man haters, as they
never insisted on such " balance " for soc.feminism.
The Board told Jayne she had to put Feminists on board? I thought it
was her idea.
It may well have been both. Do you recall that in all the early smm fuss,
it came out that there were two " competing " bids for a smm, and that
some of what had been prepared for the other one had to be taken into Jayne's
bid, by the command of the Board, in combining both bids.
No, I don't recall that. I don't believe I ever knew about that.
What were the parts taken from the other proposal and who made the
other proposal?
That I don't recall ( In the last month and a half, I've gotten married
and taken a cruise. That kinda pushes out some other items' details. <g> ),
but I do recall Jane talking about it, and i recall reading about it to some
degree over on news.groups.

A Google Groups search for the relevent topic should turn it up.
Post by Jill
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Jill
Did the Board also tell her she had to make SMM a safe
haven for AUKers?
As best as I can recall, that one was all Jayne.
Post by Jill
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Jill
Post by Stephen Morgan
Post by Masculist
Parg should be able to speak, but not hardly as much
as she has or in the bitter fashion <smile>
SEE? Already talking about censoring for content. Might as well be
soc.feminism.
Well, more of censoring for ad hominems.
Andre
retardsman
2007-01-20 05:05:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Morgan
Post by Masculist
Post by Viking
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminists for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
That's a more constructive way of looking at things.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
I applaude your idea and efforts. Should that be
soc.masculism.moderated?
My idea of moderation is intervening rarely and only when there's a
clear disruption or spamming.
That sounds all right but I couldn't posibly trust anyone bvut Jesus to
judge what should and shouldn't be allowed in, so I couldn't possibly
approve. I wouldn't want you become corrupted by power.
did stephen morgan just make a joke? of faint self-deprecation no
less?

hold on, i'll go out see if the rain's rising...
Post by Stephen Morgan
Post by Masculist
Yes, it would have to be moderated in
order to complement this group. If there was a moderated group like
what I envision, then another unmoderated one would be OK. I'd want
cross posting on a moderated group. Even the racists posts things that
we should hear.
If there's a reason to support moderation it's to keep out the
cross-posting trouble makers.
Post by Masculist
Parg should be able to speak, but not hardly as much
as she has or in the bitter fashion <smile>
SEE? Already talking about censoring for content. Might as well be
soc.feminism.
Stephen Morgan
2007-01-20 09:32:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by retardsman
Post by Stephen Morgan
Post by Masculist
Post by Viking
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminists for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
That's a more constructive way of looking at things.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
I applaude your idea and efforts. Should that be
soc.masculism.moderated?
My idea of moderation is intervening rarely and only when there's a
clear disruption or spamming.
That sounds all right but I couldn't posibly trust anyone bvut Jesus to
judge what should and shouldn't be allowed in, so I couldn't possibly
approve. I wouldn't want you become corrupted by power.
did stephen morgan just make a joke? of faint self-deprecation no
less?
hold on, i'll go out see if the rain's rising...
I make a joke here:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/2b2887dfa8061f32/590a3755b6a41fb9?lnk=st&q=%22salad+eaters%22+group%3Asoc.men+author%3Amorgan&rnum=1&hl=en#590a3755b6a41fb9
Post by retardsman
Post by Stephen Morgan
Post by Masculist
Yes, it would have to be moderated in
order to complement this group. If there was a moderated group like
what I envision, then another unmoderated one would be OK. I'd want
cross posting on a moderated group. Even the racists posts things that
we should hear.
If there's a reason to support moderation it's to keep out the
cross-posting trouble makers.
Post by Masculist
Parg should be able to speak, but not hardly as much
as she has or in the bitter fashion <smile>
SEE? Already talking about censoring for content. Might as well be
soc.feminism.
Masculist
2007-01-20 20:41:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Morgan
Post by retardsman
Post by Stephen Morgan
Post by Masculist
Post by Viking
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminists for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
That's a more constructive way of looking at things.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
I applaude your idea and efforts. Should that be
soc.masculism.moderated?
My idea of moderation is intervening rarely and only when there's a
clear disruption or spamming.
That sounds all right but I couldn't posibly trust anyone bvut Jesus to
judge what should and shouldn't be allowed in, so I couldn't possibly
approve. I wouldn't want you become corrupted by power.
did stephen morgan just make a joke? of faint self-deprecation no
less?
hold on, i'll go out see if the rain's rising...
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/2b2887dfa8061f32/590a3755b6a41fb9?lnk=st&q=%22salad+eaters%22+group%3Asoc.men+author%3Amorgan&rnum=1&hl=en#590a3755b6a41fb9
Now that's a good joke alright. But what the hell was retardsman
talking about? I couldn't find the joke.

Smitty
Post by Stephen Morgan
Post by retardsman
Post by Stephen Morgan
Post by Masculist
Yes, it would have to be moderated in
order to complement this group. If there was a moderated group like
what I envision, then another unmoderated one would be OK. I'd want
cross posting on a moderated group. Even the racists posts things that
we should hear.
If there's a reason to support moderation it's to keep out the
cross-posting trouble makers.
Post by Masculist
Parg should be able to speak, but not hardly as much
as she has or in the bitter fashion <smile>
SEE? Already talking about censoring for content. Might as well be
soc.feminism.
Masculist
2007-01-20 20:38:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Morgan
Post by Masculist
Post by Viking
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminists for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
That's a more constructive way of looking at things.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
I applaude your idea and efforts. Should that be
soc.masculism.moderated?
My idea of moderation is intervening rarely and only when there's a
clear disruption or spamming.
That sounds all right but I couldn't posibly trust anyone bvut Jesus to
judge what should and shouldn't be allowed in, so I couldn't possibly
approve. I wouldn't want you become corrupted by power.
Post by Masculist
Yes, it would have to be moderated in
order to complement this group. If there was a moderated group like
what I envision, then another unmoderated one would be OK. I'd want
cross posting on a moderated group. Even the racists posts things that
we should hear.
If there's a reason to support moderation it's to keep out the
cross-posting trouble makers.
Cross posting is important for keeping both this list and the masculist
list tied together
Parg should be able to speak, but not hardly as much as she does by
spamming the group with ideological feminism. There's good discussion
here buried by garbage that will be more easily viewed without the
garbage. Plus there will be good people like you who are wary of
moderation and/or masculism that can contribute greatly.
Post by Stephen Morgan
Post by Masculist
as she has or in the bitter fashion <smile>
SEE? Already talking about censoring for content. Might as well be
soc.feminism.
I don't want to hear repeated stupid shit feminist agenda stuff over
and over again. I've had to listen to the stupid shit here clogging
things up for years now, plus everywhere else for 40 years! It's
"masculism" and "anti-feminism" and not it's cruel oppressor "feminism"
that we want to concentrate on. I didn't say to eliminate it
completely but encourage her to stop saying the same stupid feminist
stuff over and over again. That applies to EVERYONE, even me for
crissakes, and on every subject or advocacy.

Tom
Stephen Morgan
2007-01-22 09:20:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Masculist
Post by Stephen Morgan
Post by Masculist
Post by Viking
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminists for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
That's a more constructive way of looking at things.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
I applaude your idea and efforts. Should that be
soc.masculism.moderated?
My idea of moderation is intervening rarely and only when there's a
clear disruption or spamming.
That sounds all right but I couldn't posibly trust anyone bvut Jesus to
judge what should and shouldn't be allowed in, so I couldn't possibly
approve. I wouldn't want you become corrupted by power.
Post by Masculist
Yes, it would have to be moderated in
order to complement this group. If there was a moderated group like
what I envision, then another unmoderated one would be OK. I'd want
cross posting on a moderated group. Even the racists posts things that
we should hear.
If there's a reason to support moderation it's to keep out the
cross-posting trouble makers.
Cross posting is important for keeping both this list and the masculist
list tied together
This group is where the problems are. Here and auk.
Post by Masculist
Parg should be able to speak, but not hardly as much as she does by
spamming the group with ideological feminism. There's good discussion
here buried by garbage that will be more easily viewed without the
garbage.
There wouldn't be much traffic on this group without Parg and Marg and
their feminist cronies. They were major posters even before the
Pangborn/anti-Pangborn stuff got going and the auk-ers arrived.
Moderated groups put off newcomers too.
Post by Masculist
Plus there will be good people like you who are wary of
moderation and/or masculism that can contribute greatly.
I wouldn't be seen dead on a moderated group. I believe in freedom of
speech.
Post by Masculist
Post by Stephen Morgan
Post by Masculist
as she has or in the bitter fashion <smile>
SEE? Already talking about censoring for content. Might as well be
soc.feminism.
I don't want to hear repeated stupid shit feminist agenda stuff over
and over again. I've had to listen to the stupid shit here clogging
things up for years now, plus everywhere else for 40 years!
Well, this isn't going to help. You can't moderate the world. If
masculism's going to get anywhere it needs to do it in belligerent
confrontation with feminism, not off in some safe space.
Post by Masculist
It's
"masculism" and "anti-feminism" and not it's cruel oppressor "feminism"
that we want to concentrate on. I didn't say to eliminate it
completely but encourage her to stop saying the same stupid feminist
stuff over and over again. That applies to EVERYONE, even me for
crissakes, and on every subject or advocacy.
I still don't approve.
pandora
2007-01-17 04:16:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Masculist
Post by Viking
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:34:09 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Viking
I just had a post rejected from soc.men.moderated because it took
feminists to task. A moderator explained that he *believed* that most
people *believed* that "feminist" is a synonym for "woman".
Therefore, taking feminsts to task, he argued, is the same as bashing
women, at least in "most people's" minds.
Taking feminists to task is the same as bashing women???
I did not think much of this reasoning either.
So what are you going to do about it? And don't tell me you can't do
anything...you made this mess and it really is up to you to fix what
you can.
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminist's for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
Heads up news groupies. *Smitty* is on his way. Hehehehehehe.

CWQ
Post by Masculist
Tom
Post by Viking
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Viking
Looks like what posters here have been saying about smm is right. It's
a politically correct mess with a crippling charter where it's
impossible to actually discuss men's issues. Which I regret very much.
There is nothing in the charter about not criticizing feminists on smm.
This is a moderator's interpretation (one that I strongly disagree with,
BTW).
Looks like the charter is flawed just as was suggested last summer.
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Originally, I wanted a clause in the charter against bashing men. I didn't
want any of the "bitter boys" nonsense that keeps appearing here. I later
rephrased it to bashing based on gender, since it seemed fair to me that
the same rule should apply to men and women. I never imagined moderators
who would think that this meant feminists should not be criticizied.
What were you "imagining" while Andre and I were raising oppositional
points to your ideas last summer? You certainly weren't listening or
considering them. You dismissed them faster than we could post them.
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
I think that this charter would work fine with the right moderators. As
you may recall, I originally asked Grizzlie Antagonist and Mark Sobolewski
to be on the team.
Yes, I do remember that. But what we have now is you passing the
buck. It's apparently GA's and Mark's fault that they didn't make
certain your flawed plans and charter worked as you wanted.
Part of your "imaginings" for SMM should have been contingency plans
for when moderators didn't work out. Since 3 of your 4 initial
moderators flaked out right off the bat, this was an especially
important matter to have been more carefully considered.
This all boils down to incredibly poor planning on your part.
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
I doubt they would have interpretted the charter in
such an illogical way. Since neither of them ended up following through on
their agreement to be moderators, it became necessary to use moderators
without any background in understanding men's issues.
If you hadn't insulted most of the other regular posters in soc.men by
indicating they weren't suitable for moderating last summer, you
probably could have replaced the lapsed moderators with people with a
"background in understanding men's issues." You burned all of your
bridges with soc.men regulars during the RFD process which left you
now with two feminist men and a radically rabid female feminist as
moderators now.
Andre and I told you so.
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Much of what is wrong with smm could be fixed if the right moderators came
forward. It needs some people with time, understanding of moderation and
understanding of men's issues. Men who think that they have the necessary
qualities to moderate smm need to step up and take action, if there is to
be a soc.men.moderated that is useful for discussing men's issues.
It's way too late for that. That ship sunk months ago.
Sharon B
2007-01-17 04:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by pandora
Post by Masculist
Post by Viking
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:34:09 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Viking
I just had a post rejected from soc.men.moderated because it took
feminists to task. A moderator explained that he *believed* that most
people *believed* that "feminist" is a synonym for "woman".
Therefore, taking feminsts to task, he argued, is the same as bashing
women, at least in "most people's" minds.
Taking feminists to task is the same as bashing women???
I did not think much of this reasoning either.
So what are you going to do about it? And don't tell me you can't do
anything...you made this mess and it really is up to you to fix what
you can.
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminist's for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
Heads up news groupies. *Smitty* is on his way. Hehehehehehe.
*snork*
I so hope he brings it.
PorchMonkey4Life
2007-01-17 05:36:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharon B
Post by pandora
Post by Masculist
Post by Viking
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:34:09 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Viking
I just had a post rejected from soc.men.moderated because it took
feminists to task. A moderator explained that he *believed* that most
people *believed* that "feminist" is a synonym for "woman".
Therefore, taking feminsts to task, he argued, is the same as bashing
women, at least in "most people's" minds.
Taking feminists to task is the same as bashing women???
I did not think much of this reasoning either.
So what are you going to do about it? And don't tell me you can't do
anything...you made this mess and it really is up to you to fix what
you can.
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminist's for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
Heads up news groupies. *Smitty* is on his way. Hehehehehehe.
*snork*
I so hope he brings it.
Let's think who is Sharon B.
SameAsB4
2007-01-17 18:49:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by PorchMonkey4Life
Post by Sharon B
Post by pandora
Post by Masculist
Post by Viking
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:34:09 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Viking
I just had a post rejected from soc.men.moderated because it took
feminists to task. A moderator explained that he *believed* that most
people *believed* that "feminist" is a synonym for "woman".
Therefore, taking feminsts to task, he argued, is the same as >>
bashing
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Viking
women, at least in "most people's" minds.
Taking feminists to task is the same as bashing women???
I did not think much of this reasoning either.
So what are you going to do about it? And don't tell me you can't do
anything...you made this mess and it really is up to you to fix what
you can.
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminist's for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
Heads up news groupies. *Smitty* is on his way. Hehehehehehe.
*snork*
I so hope he brings it.
Let's think who is Sharon B.
Let's hope someone d1ck my up my butt before noontime. I need my anal
stimulation
PorchMonkey4Life
2007-01-18 05:33:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by SameAsB4
Post by PorchMonkey4Life
Post by Sharon B
Post by pandora
Post by Masculist
Post by Viking
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:34:09 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Viking
I just had a post rejected from soc.men.moderated because it took
feminists to task. A moderator explained that he *believed* that most
people *believed* that "feminist" is a synonym for "woman".
Therefore, taking feminsts to task, he argued, is the same as >>
bashing
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Viking
women, at least in "most people's" minds.
Taking feminists to task is the same as bashing women???
I did not think much of this reasoning either.
So what are you going to do about it? And don't tell me you can't do
anything...you made this mess and it really is up to you to fix what
you can.
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminist's for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
Heads up news groupies. *Smitty* is on his way. Hehehehehehe.
*snork*
I so hope he brings it.
Let's think who is Sharon B.
Let's hope someone d1ck my up my butt before noontime. I need my anal
stimulation
What do you expect out of a monkey? I must have me spanked as soon as
possible.
Aratzio
2007-01-17 14:41:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharon B
Post by pandora
Post by Masculist
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminist's for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
Heads up news groupies. *Smitty* is on his way. Hehehehehehe.
*snork*
I so hope he brings it.
n.g.p and the soc.froots. Hope the n.g.p moderators are wearing
bio-hazard suits.

I do so enjoy the trolls that just keep on giving.

ALL HALE THE SOC.MEN.MODERATION TROLLS

(Is this where we giggle at the board, again, because "we told ya so")
--
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
Sharon B
2007-01-17 22:01:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aratzio
Post by Sharon B
Post by pandora
Post by Masculist
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminist's for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
Heads up news groupies. *Smitty* is on his way. Hehehehehehe.
*snork*
I so hope he brings it.
n.g.p and the soc.froots. Hope the n.g.p moderators are wearing
bio-hazard suits.
oh dear...you think there will be flying spittle?
Post by Aratzio
I do so enjoy the trolls that just keep on giving.
ALL HALE THE SOC.MEN.MODERATION TROLLS
(Is this where we giggle at the board, again, because "we told ya so")
I doubt there will be a dry eye in the place once we all get a gander
at Masculist's RFD.
SameAsB4
2007-01-17 22:21:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharon B
Post by Aratzio
Post by Sharon B
Post by pandora
Post by Masculist
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminist's for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
Heads up news groupies. *Smitty* is on his way. Hehehehehehe.
*snork*
I so hope he brings it.
n.g.p and the soc.froots. Hope the n.g.p moderators are wearing
bio-hazard suits.
oh dear...you think there will be flying spittle?
Post by Aratzio
I do so enjoy the trolls that just keep on giving.
ALL HALE THE SOC.MEN.MODERATION TROLLS
I feel left out. Why don't you hale the child raping, animal raping,
gerbil stuff trolls like me!!! :-(
Post by Sharon B
Post by Aratzio
(Is this where we giggle at the board, again, because "we told ya so")
I doubt there will be a dry eye in the place once we all get a gander
at Masculist's RFD.
PorchMonkey4Life
2007-01-18 05:31:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by SameAsB4
Post by Sharon B
Post by Aratzio
Post by Sharon B
Post by pandora
Post by Masculist
No matter who's to fault, SMM has been taken over by feminist's for
good. As we know here, feminism can't survive without censorship which
means control of the media and the academy. This is the media and a
high priorority for feminist control.
I suggest we form a soc.masculism. That way it's clear who is in
control and the excellence of moderation. Masculism is also the best
tool for regaining control of the other feminist bastion, the academy.
I thought about this yesterday and will get to work on it.
Heads up news groupies. *Smitty* is on his way. Hehehehehehe.
*snork*
I so hope he brings it.
n.g.p and the soc.froots. Hope the n.g.p moderators are wearing
bio-hazard suits.
oh dear...you think there will be flying spittle?
Post by Aratzio
I do so enjoy the trolls that just keep on giving.
ALL HALE THE SOC.MEN.MODERATION TROLLS
I feel left out. Why don't you hale the child raping, animal raping,
gerbil stuff trolls like me!!! :-(
They must a way to get my monkey spanked while being an asshole.
Post by SameAsB4
Post by Sharon B
Post by Aratzio
(Is this where we giggle at the board, again, because "we told ya so")
I doubt there will be a dry eye in the place once we all get a gander
at Masculist's RFD.
pandora
2007-01-17 04:13:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Viking
I just had a post rejected from soc.men.moderated because it took
feminists to task. A moderator explained that he *believed* that most
people *believed* that "feminist" is a synonym for "woman".
Therefore, taking feminsts to task, he argued, is the same as bashing
women, at least in "most people's" minds.
Taking feminists to task is the same as bashing women???
I did not think much of this reasoning either.
You rarely think at all.
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Post by Viking
Looks like what posters here have been saying about smm is right. It's
a politically correct mess with a crippling charter where it's
impossible to actually discuss men's issues. Which I regret very much.
There is nothing in the charter about not criticizing feminists on smm.
This is a moderator's interpretation (one that I strongly disagree with,
BTW).
OF course you do. Since that is what you wanted smm for in the first
place, how sad it must be when you actually have a moderator with
integrity.
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Originally, I wanted a clause in the charter against bashing men. I
didn't want any of the "bitter boys" nonsense that keeps appearing here.
I later rephrased it to bashing based on gender, since it seemed fair
to me that the same rule should apply to men and women. I never
imagined moderators who would think that this meant feminists should not
be criticizied.
Of course you didn't since that was what you wanted all along. Perhaps
others have tweaked to your agenda and are causing you a few problems?
Maybe. It would be about time, eh?
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
I think that this charter would work fine with the right moderators. As
you may recall, I originally asked Grizzlie Antagonist and Mark
Sobolewski to be on the team. I doubt they would have interpretted the
charter in such an illogical way.
Of course not since they bash feminists and women all the time anyway.
Right up your alleyway.

Since neither of them ended up
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
following through on their agreement to be moderators, it became
necessary to use moderators without any background in understanding
men's issues.
Heh. Tell that to them. They seem to be male but that doesn't count in
your book I guess since they disagree with you.
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Much of what is wrong
with smm could be fixed if the right moderators
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
came forward. It needs some people with time, understanding of
moderation and understanding of men's issues.
Translation: It needs men who hate and despise females and are willing to
blame them for all the ills of the world. Got it.

Men who think that they
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
have the necessary qualities to moderate smm need to step up and take
action, if there is to be a soc.men.moderated that is useful for
discussing men's issues.
Hehehehehe. Go fuck yourself.

CWQ
Mark Borgerson
2007-01-16 21:20:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viking
I just had a post rejected from soc.men.moderated because it took
feminists to task. A moderator explained that he *believed* that most
people *believed* that "feminist" is a synonym for "woman".
Therefore, taking feminsts to task, he argued, is the same as bashing
women, at least in "most people's" minds.
Taking feminists to task is the same as bashing women???
Looks like what posters here have been saying about smm is right. It's
a politically correct mess with a crippling charter where it's
impossible to actually discuss men's issues. Which I regret very much.
Looks like the serious men's activist is left with only two
alternatives to post on usenet--this place, which is a mentally-ill
circus packed, unfortunately, with racists, trolls, and many true
women-haters, and a politically-correct neutered and censored forum
that most posters consider too boring to bother with.
I would think that, by definition, if you're posting to a group, you're
not bored with it.

You've posted to SMM 19 times in the last 16 days. If that's boredom,
moderating is going to be a lot more work if you get interested!
Post by Viking
Sic transit gloria sm.
Sic transit gloria smm.
LOL! Anyone who thinks that newsgroups need glory or fame to persist
hasn't studied the history of newsgroups.


Mark Borgerson
Viking
2007-01-16 23:24:44 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:20:00 -0800, Mark Borgerson
Post by Mark Borgerson
I would think that, by definition, if you're posting to a group, you're
not bored with it.
You've posted to SMM 19 times in the last 16 days. If that's boredom,
moderating is going to be a lot more work if you get interested!
*smile* Let me say this is *not* an attack against you, Mark. You've
done a good job, and I respect you for the work you've put in. My 19
posts were a conscious effort to liven up the place.
Post by Mark Borgerson
Post by Viking
Sic transit gloria sm.
Sic transit gloria smm.
LOL! Anyone who thinks that newsgroups need glory or fame to persist
hasn't studied the history of newsgroups.
That was a personal statement. If taking femists to task is bashing
women on smm, I'm going to disavow it.
krp
2007-01-16 22:48:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viking
I just had a post rejected from soc.men.moderated because it took
feminists to task. A moderator explained that he *believed* that most
people *believed* that "feminist" is a synonym for "woman".
Therefore, taking feminsts to task, he argued, is the same as bashing
women, at least in "most people's" minds.
Welcome to reality and soc.misandry.
Andre Lieven
2007-01-16 23:03:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by krp
Post by Viking
I just had a post rejected from soc.men.moderated because it took
feminists to task. A moderator explained that he *believed* that most
people *believed* that "feminist" is a synonym for "woman".
Therefore, taking feminsts to task, he argued, is the same as bashing
women, at least in "most people's" minds.
Welcome to reality and soc.misandry.
Jill and I made clear, right from the start, that any demand for " equal
time " would in reality,become a demand for total silencing of any men's
views, whenever they dared to contrast from FemiBorgism.

We were 100% right, and that the emplacing of Big Daddy Sir Galahad
Feminist Enabler Borgerson nailed that truth down.

And, if it is that Borgerson was the last of the original moderators,
then he is directly and wholly responsible for emplacing a pair of
Man haters in as the new moderators. Thats proof of Borgerson's own
*misandry*.

As well as proving that of Jayne's deep gullibility.

Alt.usenet.kooks.moderated&polite is worth nothing more than to be
laughed at.

Andre
krp
2007-01-17 14:18:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by krp
Post by Viking
I just had a post rejected from soc.men.moderated because it took
feminists to task. A moderator explained that he *believed* that most
people *believed* that "feminist" is a synonym for "woman".
Therefore, taking feminsts to task, he argued, is the same as bashing
women, at least in "most people's" minds.
Welcome to reality and soc.misandry.
Jill and I made clear, right from the start, that any demand for " equal
time " would in reality,become a demand for total silencing of any men's
views, whenever they dared to contrast from FemiBorgism.
What smm would evolve into did not take any great skills of
prognostication. It was obvious from the start that it would be one more
vaginal canal.
Post by Andre Lieven
We were 100% right, and that the emplacing of Big Daddy Sir Galahad
Feminist Enabler Borgerson nailed that truth down.
And, if it is that Borgerson was the last of the original moderators,
then he is directly and wholly responsible for emplacing a pair of
Man haters in as the new moderators. Thats proof of Borgerson's own
*misandry*.
As well as proving that of Jayne's deep gullibility.
Alt.usenet.kooks.moderated&polite is worth nothing more than to be
laughed at.
Momma Jayne got what she wanted, SMM a vagina in her own image.
Andre Lieven
2007-01-17 17:54:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by krp
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by krp
Post by Viking
I just had a post rejected from soc.men.moderated because it took
feminists to task. A moderator explained that he *believed* that most
people *believed* that "feminist" is a synonym for "woman".
Therefore, taking feminsts to task, he argued, is the same as bashing
women, at least in "most people's" minds.
Welcome to reality and soc.misandry.
Jill and I made clear, right from the start, that any demand for " equal
time " would in reality,become a demand for total silencing of any men's
views, whenever they dared to contrast from FemiBorgism.
What smm would evolve into did not take any great skills of
prognostication. It was obvious from the start that it would be one more
vaginal canal.
Well, we possessed far more of that ability than did Jayne...
Post by krp
Post by Andre Lieven
We were 100% right, and that the emplacing of Big Daddy Sir Galahad
Feminist Enabler Borgerson nailed that truth down.
And, if it is that Borgerson was the last of the original moderators,
then he is directly and wholly responsible for emplacing a pair of
Man haters in as the new moderators. Thats proof of Borgerson's own
*misandry*.
As well as proving that of Jayne's deep gullibility.
Alt.usenet.kooks.moderated&polite is worth nothing more than to be
laughed at.
Momma Jayne got what she wanted, SMM a vagina in her own image.
And the really *funny* part is that after blowing off allof our now
PROVEN correct criticisms, Jjayne and her lap dog Vic are whining about
what she did.

" Mommy, I don't like consequences ! " Daughter of a friend of my wife's.

Andre
krp
2007-01-17 20:58:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by krp
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by krp
Post by Viking
I just had a post rejected from soc.men.moderated because it took
feminists to task. A moderator explained that he *believed* that most
people *believed* that "feminist" is a synonym for "woman".
Therefore, taking feminsts to task, he argued, is the same as bashing
women, at least in "most people's" minds.
Welcome to reality and soc.misandry.
Jill and I made clear, right from the start, that any demand for " equal
time " would in reality,become a demand for total silencing of any men's
views, whenever they dared to contrast from FemiBorgism.
What smm would evolve into did not take any great skills of
prognostication. It was obvious from the start that it would be one more
vaginal canal.
Well, we possessed far more of that ability than did Jayne...
Do you still not realize that SMM is exactly as Jayne intended it?
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by krp
Post by Andre Lieven
We were 100% right, and that the emplacing of Big Daddy Sir Galahad
Feminist Enabler Borgerson nailed that truth down.
And, if it is that Borgerson was the last of the original moderators,
then he is directly and wholly responsible for emplacing a pair of
Man haters in as the new moderators. Thats proof of Borgerson's own
*misandry*.
As well as proving that of Jayne's deep gullibility.
Alt.usenet.kooks.moderated&polite is worth nothing more than to be
laughed at.
Momma Jayne got what she wanted, SMM a vagina in her own image.
And the really *funny* part is that after blowing off all of our now
PROVEN correct criticisms, Jjayne and her lap dog Vic are whining about
what she did.
But the design is what Jayne iitended all along.
Jayne Kulikauskas
2007-01-18 00:12:50 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:58:42 GMT, krp wrote:

[...]
Post by krp
Do you still not realize that SMM is exactly as Jayne intended it?
I certainly did not intend SMM to be a group in which criticizing feminists
was not allowed (especially not on the grounds that it is a form of women
bashing). At any rate, the numerous posts objecting to the moderators'
decision seems to have had some effect on them, since they did later post a
message from Viking highly critical of feminists. (I'm not clear on
whether this was the same as or similar to the rejected one.)

The moderators are only human and two of them are not familiar with men's
issues or soc.men. It is natural that they would need some time to learn
what the group's participants expect from them.
--
Jayne Check out soc.men.moderated.
If your news provider doesn't carry it, ask.
Now available on Google:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men.moderated?lnk=srg&hl=en
pandora
2007-01-18 23:55:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
[...]
Post by krp
Do you still not realize that SMM is exactly as Jayne intended it?
I certainly did not intend SMM to be a group in which criticizing feminists
was not allowed (especially not on the grounds that it is a form of women
bashing).
Well, I have to agree with you there; bashing feminists is NOT JUST
bashing women since many men are feminists as well, or at least they
support equality for women.

At any rate, the numerous posts objecting to
the moderators'
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
decision seems to have had some effect on them, since they did later
post a message from Viking highly critical of feminists. (I'm not clear
on whether this was the same as or similar to the rejected one.)
Sure, the mods caved in to popular demand. Figures.
Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
The moderators are only human and two of them are not familiar with
men's issues or soc.men. It is natural that they would need some time
to learn what the group's participants expect from them.
Indeed. It is to be expected that the mods didn't realize that ALL of the
ills of humanity can be traced to those *evil* feminists. Uhuh.

CWQ
Andre Lieven
2007-01-18 02:55:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by krp
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by krp
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by krp
Post by Viking
I just had a post rejected from soc.men.moderated because it took
feminists to task. A moderator explained that he *believed* that most
people *believed* that "feminist" is a synonym for "woman".
Therefore, taking feminsts to task, he argued, is the same as bashing
women, at least in "most people's" minds.
Welcome to reality and soc.misandry.
Jill and I made clear, right from the start, that any demand for " equal
time " would in reality,become a demand for total silencing of any men's
views, whenever they dared to contrast from FemiBorgism.
What smm would evolve into did not take any great skills of
prognostication. It was obvious from the start that it would be one more
vaginal canal.
Well, we possessed far more of that ability than did Jayne...
Do you still not realize that SMM is exactly as Jayne intended it?
" Never attribute to malice what is more easily explainable by stupidity. "
Both are viable possibilities...
Post by krp
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by krp
Post by Andre Lieven
We were 100% right, and that the emplacing of Big Daddy Sir Galahad
Feminist Enabler Borgerson nailed that truth down.
And, if it is that Borgerson was the last of the original moderators,
then he is directly and wholly responsible for emplacing a pair of
Man haters in as the new moderators. Thats proof of Borgerson's own
*misandry*.
As well as proving that of Jayne's deep gullibility.
Alt.usenet.kooks.moderated&polite is worth nothing more than to be
laughed at.
Momma Jayne got what she wanted, SMM a vagina in her own image.
And the really *funny* part is that after blowing off all of our now
PROVEN correct criticisms, Jjayne and her lap dog Vic are whining about
what she did.
But the design is what Jayne iitended all along.
Well, she and her both hubby complained about the cenorship there, so...

Andre
pandora
2007-01-17 04:09:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viking
I just had a post rejected from soc.men.moderated because it took
feminists to task. A moderator explained that he *believed* that most
people *believed* that "feminist" is a synonym for "woman".
Most seem to. Those here have even done the same. Why are you surprised?
Post by Viking
Therefore, taking feminsts to task, he argued, is the same as bashing
women, at least in "most people's" minds.
Since MOST people *here* seem to believe they are one and the same and
profess that daily, why would a moderator of smm believe differently?
Post by Viking
Taking feminists to task is the same as bashing women???
You've done it yourself. Admit it.
Post by Viking
Looks like what posters here have been saying about smm is right. It's a
politically correct mess with a crippling charter where it's impossible
to actually discuss men's issues. Which I regret very much.
Of course you do. So sad. Sorry.
Post by Viking
Looks like the serious men's activist is left with only two alternatives
to post on usenet--this place, which is a mentally-ill circus packed,
unfortunately, with racists, trolls, and many true women-haters, and a
politically-correct neutered and censored forum that most posters
consider too boring to bother with.
Take it to a mailing list. It's what other misogynists have done. Why
not you?

Bye.

CWQ
Post by Viking
Sic transit gloria sm.
Sic transit gloria smm.
Heidi Graw
2007-01-17 08:36:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viking
I just had a post rejected from soc.men.moderated because it took
feminists to task. A moderator explained that he *believed* that most
people *believed* that "feminist" is a synonym for "woman".
Therefore, taking feminsts to task, he argued, is the same as bashing
women, at least in "most people's" minds.
Taking feminists to task is the same as bashing women???
Viking, if your post smacked too much of ad hominen attacks, then the
moderators did the right thing. The theme for soc.men.moderated is
to discuss the *issues* that affect men. What are the *issues?*

If your post claimed "Slimeball feminists are robbing men of their
hard earned dollars." Well....such a post would be rightfully
rejected.

If, however, you wrote: "Men are being robbed of their hard-earned
dollars." the focus is now on the issue. That post would have been
accepted by the moderators. We can then discuss *the laws* and
the *court decisions* which rob men of their money. And we can
also discuss whether or not such laws and decisions do in fact
amount to robbery.

Do you see the difference?

In any case, Mark edited your concerns and made up a list of *issues.*
That list was way too long to respond to, so I've taken on the task
to post one issue at a time under seperate threads so that the *issues*
that affect men can be more clearly discussed in a more organized
manner. You want your men's *issues* discussed, don't you?

Heidi
pandora
2007-01-18 23:31:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Heidi Graw
Post by Viking
I just had a post rejected from soc.men.moderated because it took
feminists to task. A moderator explained that he *believed* that most
people *believed* that "feminist" is a synonym for "woman".
Therefore, taking feminsts to task, he argued, is the same as bashing
women, at least in "most people's" minds.
Taking feminists to task is the same as bashing women???
Viking, if your post smacked too much of ad hominen attacks, then the
moderators did the right thing. The theme for soc.men.moderated is
to discuss the *issues* that affect men. What are the *issues?*
Why are you bringing problems in another newsgroup to this one? Deal with
these difficulties in your own *moderated* forum. Thanks.

CWQ
Post by Heidi Graw
If your post
claimed "Slimeball feminists are robbing men of their hard
Post by Heidi Graw
earned dollars." Well....such a post would be rightfully rejected.
If, however, you wrote: "Men are being robbed of their hard-earned
dollars." the focus is now on the issue. That post would have been
accepted by the moderators. We can then discuss *the laws* and the
*court decisions* which rob men of their money. And we can also discuss
whether or not such laws and decisions do in fact amount to robbery.
Do you see the difference?
In any case, Mark edited your concerns and made up a list of *issues.*
That list was way too long to respond to, so I've taken on the task to
post one issue at a time under seperate threads so that the *issues*
that affect men can be more clearly discussed in a more organized
manner. You want your men's *issues* discussed, don't you?
Heidi
Turin
2007-01-19 00:51:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by pandora
Post by Heidi Graw
Post by Viking
I just had a post rejected from soc.men.moderated
because it took feminists to task. A moderator
explained that he *believed* that most people
*believed* that "feminist" is a synonym for "woman".
Therefore, taking feminsts to task, he argued, is the
same as bashing women, at least in "most people's"
minds.
Taking feminists to task is the same as bashing
women???
Viking, if your post smacked too much of ad hominen
attacks, then the moderators did the right thing. The
theme for soc.men.moderated is to discuss the *issues*
that affect men. What are the *issues?*
Why are you bringing problems in another newsgroup to
this one? Deal with these difficulties in your own
*moderated* forum. Thanks.
Pandora seems to have a knack for correctly zeroing in on
the central issue when others are chicken-shitting around
with the politics. Heidi may or may not be right about the
censorship, but Pandora definitely is in saying for them to
take their bullshit out of here.


It's long been established that Jayne had an
ulterior/personal agenda in creating SMM. It should have
also been clear, equally, by now that the way to deal with
her is to quit giving her free advertising and opportunity
to push you around.

She's a power-tripper who thrives on lecturing you guys like
little boys. But, you can't grasp that because your whiny
ideas of "traditional" women closely resemble mother figures.


I think you guys ought to simply support Tom's new group so
that the rest of us can all set our watches and place bets
as to how long it takes before you get bored with your phony
mission (of cleaning up the "feminist" junk) and start
having your group wars with Jayne to get even.

You're not fooling anyone.
And, just think: you'll get Bullshittin' Bob back.


But, either-way, do us a favor and STFU. Stop posting your
tattletale stories onto this group, because she's not gonna
reform and we're tired of hearing it.

Most of you little fuckers supported her until she knifed
you - even having been warned that she was a feminist -
because you thought you were spiting others. You got what
you deserved for trying to form cliques.


What you'll get with Tom will be his boozy renditions of
"masculism", coupled with his political mood swings. Have
fun listening to endless pet theorizing ...because, boy,
you're gonna get your fill of it.

You'll also get the same kind of favorites-playing that you
currently get from Jayne. Tom's a control-freak to equal
her. Be extra nice, and you may even become part of the
chain of asses-to-kiss...




- - -

This has been another enlightening moment, with:

Turin


I have such sites to show you...
------------------------

http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/
http://groups.google.com/group/Men_First/

------------------------

"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with,
deleteth, or maketh a lie about these words or causeth them
to not be known shall burn in hell forever and ever...."

-----
Post by pandora
CWQ
Post by Heidi Graw
If your post
claimed "Slimeball feminists are robbing men of their
hard
Post by Heidi Graw
earned dollars." Well....such a post would be
rightfully rejected.
If, however, you wrote: "Men are being robbed of their
hard-earned dollars." the focus is now on the issue.
That post would have been accepted by the moderators.
We can then discuss *the laws* and the *court
decisions* which rob men of their money. And we can
also discuss whether or not such laws and decisions do
in fact amount to robbery.
Do you see the difference?
In any case, Mark edited your concerns and made up a
list of *issues.* That list was way too long to respond
to, so I've taken on the task to post one issue at a
time under seperate threads so that the *issues* that
affect men can be more clearly discussed in a more
organized manner. You want your men's *issues*
discussed, don't you?
Heidi
pandora
2007-01-19 01:48:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turin
Post by pandora
Post by Heidi Graw
Post by Viking
I just had a post rejected from soc.men.moderated
because it took feminists to task. A moderator
explained that he *believed* that most people
*believed* that "feminist" is a synonym for "woman".
Therefore, taking feminsts to task, he argued, is the
same as bashing women, at least in "most people's"
minds.
Taking feminists to task is the same as bashing
women???
Viking, if your post smacked too much of ad hominen
attacks, then the moderators did the right thing. The
theme for soc.men.moderated is to discuss the *issues*
that affect men. What are the *issues?*
Why are you bringing problems in another newsgroup to
this one? Deal with these difficulties in your own
*moderated* forum. Thanks.
Pandora seems to have a knack for correctly zeroing in on
the central issue when others are chicken-shitting around
with the politics. Heidi may or may not be right about the
censorship, but Pandora definitely is in saying for them to
take their bullshit out of here.
Thanks for the support. I calls em as I sees em. I consider it bad
netiquette to discuss/post the problems one is facing (whatever they may
be) from one group to another. The difficulties experienced in smm are
NOT relevant to sm. I could have said, clean up your mess.
Post by Turin
It's long been established that Jayne had an ulterior/personal agenda in
creating SMM. It should have also been clear, equally, by now that the
way to deal with her is to quit giving her free advertising and
opportunity to push you around.
I have no knowledge of exactly what Jayne's personal agenda is, but it
simply isn't relevant to THIS newsgroup, to discuss the problems faced by
posters in another newsgroup.
Post by Turin
She's a power-tripper who thrives on
lecturing you guys like little
Post by Turin
boys. But, you can't grasp that because your whiny ideas of
"traditional" women closely resemble mother figures.
There may be that. Although some, like patrick, seem to feel that
"traditional" women are the shits and are not worthy of the air they
breathe. Whatever one's opinion on Jayne, these discussions don't belong
here on soc.men.
Post by Turin
I think you guys ought to simply support Tom's new group so that the
rest of us can all set our watches and place bets as to how long it
takes before you get bored with your phony mission (of cleaning up the
"feminist" junk) and start having your group wars with Jayne to get
even.
Time will tell if he even can get up an RFD and a charter. Whatever.
Post by Turin
You're not fooling anyone.
And, just think: you'll get Bullshittin' Bob back.
But, either-way, do us a favor and STFU. Stop posting your tattletale
stories onto this group, because she's not gonna reform and we're tired
of hearing it.
Most of you little fuckers supported her until she knifed you - even
having been warned that she was a feminist - because you thought you
were spiting others. You got what you deserved for trying to form
cliques.
I don't believe that Jayne is a feminist but she does have an agenda.
What it is, no one really can know.
Post by Turin
What you'll get with Tom will be his boozy renditions of "masculism",
coupled with his political mood swings. Have fun listening to endless
pet theorizing ...because, boy, you're gonna get your fill of it.
You'll also get the same kind of favorites-playing that you currently
get from Jayne. Tom's a control-freak to equal her. Be extra nice, and
you may even become part of the chain of asses-to-kiss...
If a moderated newsgroup is what is wanted, go for it. It will sink or
swim on its own merits. Usenet is a big place and there's room for all
*sorts* of players. If Tom wants a moderated group where he can imagine
he's getting somewhere, so be it.

CWQ
Post by Turin
- - -
Turin
I have such sites to show you...
------------------------
http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/
http://groups.google.com/group/Men_First/
------------------------
"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or
maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall
burn in hell forever and ever...."
-----
Post by pandora
CWQ
Post by Heidi Graw
If your post
claimed "Slimeball feminists are robbing men of their hard
Post by Heidi Graw
earned dollars." Well....such a post would be rightfully rejected.
If, however, you wrote: "Men are being robbed of their hard-earned
dollars." the focus is now on the issue. That post would have been
accepted by the moderators. We can then discuss *the laws* and the
*court decisions* which rob men of their money. And we can also
discuss whether or not such laws and decisions do in fact amount to
robbery.
Do you see the difference?
In any case, Mark edited your concerns and made up a list of *issues.*
That list was way too long to respond to, so I've taken on the task to
post one issue at a time under seperate threads so that the *issues*
that affect men can be more clearly discussed in a more organized
manner. You want your men's *issues* discussed, don't you?
Heidi
Masculist
2007-01-19 02:17:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turin
Post by pandora
Post by Heidi Graw
Post by Viking
I just had a post rejected from soc.men.moderated
because it took feminists to task. A moderator
explained that he *believed* that most people
*believed* that "feminist" is a synonym for "woman".
Therefore, taking feminsts to task, he argued, is the
same as bashing women, at least in "most people's"
minds.
Taking feminists to task is the same as bashing
women???
Viking, if your post smacked too much of ad hominen
attacks, then the moderators did the right thing. The
theme for soc.men.moderated is to discuss the *issues*
that affect men. What are the *issues?*
Why are you bringing problems in another newsgroup to
this one? Deal with these difficulties in your own
*moderated* forum. Thanks.
Pandora seems to have a knack for correctly zeroing in on
the central issue when others are chicken-shitting around
with the politics. Heidi may or may not be right about the
censorship, but Pandora definitely is in saying for them to
take their bullshit out of here.
It's long been established that Jayne had an
ulterior/personal agenda in creating SMM. It should have
also been clear, equally, by now that the way to deal with
her is to quit giving her free advertising and opportunity
to push you around.
She's a power-tripper who thrives on lecturing you guys like
little boys. But, you can't grasp that because your whiny
ideas of "traditional" women closely resemble mother figures.
I think you guys ought to simply support Tom's new group so
that the rest of us can all set our watches and place bets
as to how long it takes before you get bored with your phony
mission (of cleaning up the "feminist" junk) and start
having your group wars with Jayne to get even.
You're not fooling anyone.
And, just think: you'll get Bullshittin' Bob back.
But, either-way, do us a favor and STFU. Stop posting your
tattletale stories onto this group, because she's not gonna
reform and we're tired of hearing it.
Most of you little fuckers supported her until she knifed
you - even having been warned that she was a feminist -
because you thought you were spiting others. You got what
you deserved for trying to form cliques.
What you'll get with Tom will be his boozy renditions of
"masculism",
Come on Turdy, ligthen up and have a drink with me. [Tom pulling out
his special drink for the Turdy's of the world...Thunderbird]
Post by Turin
coupled with his political mood swings.
I do that for arguments sake Mr Turd. Lots of truth in it too.
Politics is an art Turdy.
Post by Turin
Have
fun listening to endless pet theorizing ...because, boy,
you're gonna get your fill of it.
I'd love to hang with you and share my theories, but I have to go back
to work. Someone has to keep the society going while you mentally
disabled play around on the net.
Post by Turin
You'll also get the same kind of favorites-playing that you
currently get from Jayne. Tom's a control-freak to equal
her.
Your obnoxious ass is still on my AUM list for crissakes. That's the
thanks I get?
Post by Turin
Be extra nice, and you may even become part of the
chain of asses-to-kiss...
Ahem Turdy, it'll be my ass you be kissin <smile>

Smitty
Post by Turin
- - -
Turin
I have such sites to show you...
------------------------
http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/
http://groups.google.com/group/Men_First/
------------------------
"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with,
deleteth, or maketh a lie about these words or causeth them
to not be known shall burn in hell forever and ever...."
-----
Post by pandora
CWQ
Post by Heidi Graw
If your post
claimed "Slimeball feminists are robbing men of their
hard
Post by Heidi Graw
earned dollars." Well....such a post would be
rightfully rejected.
If, however, you wrote: "Men are being robbed of their
hard-earned dollars." the focus is now on the issue.
That post would have been accepted by the moderators.
We can then discuss *the laws* and the *court
decisions* which rob men of their money. And we can
also discuss whether or not such laws and decisions do
in fact amount to robbery.
Do you see the difference?
In any case, Mark edited your concerns and made up a
list of *issues.* That list was way too long to respond
to, so I've taken on the task to post one issue at a
time under seperate threads so that the *issues* that
affect men can be more clearly discussed in a more
organized manner. You want your men's *issues*
discussed, don't you?
Heidi
Turin
2007-01-18 22:38:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viking
I just had a post rejected from soc.men.moderated because
it took feminists to task. A moderator explained that he
*believed* that most people *believed* that "feminist" is
a synonym for "woman".
Therefore, taking feminsts to task, he argued, is the
same as bashing women, at least in "most people's" minds.
Taking feminists to task is the same as bashing women???
Yeah, Stupid. This ain't your little AM right wing radio
world, where you can make up definitions.
Post by Viking
Looks like what posters here have been saying about smm
is right.
How many more times you gonna come to that conclusion?
Post by Viking
It's a politically correct mess with a
crippling charter where it's impossible to actually
discuss men's issues. Which I regret very much.
You guys don't talk about Men's Issues even out here. You
fixate on and complain about women. Incessantly. And, it's
boring as all hell.
Post by Viking
Looks like the serious men's activist is left with only
two alternatives to post on usenet--this place, which is
a mentally-ill circus packed, unfortunately, with
...with you.
Post by Viking
racists, trolls, and many true women-haters, and a
politically-correct neutered and censored forum that most
posters consider too boring to bother with.
Most posters also aren't fooled by the false dichotomy
between "politically correct" and complaining about
women-hating.

Most of them also aren't fooled from the fact that the real
circus here is the phony Andre vs. Jayne feud, which was
invented in order to keep SMM in our faces. Go suck Jill's
dick.
Post by Viking
Sic transit gloria sm. Sic transit gloria smm.
Sic transit gloria idiota. Sic transit gloria idiotas...



- - -

This has been another enlightening moment, with:

Turin


I have such sites to show you...
------------------------

http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/
http://groups.google.com/group/Men_First/

------------------------

"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with,
deleteth, or maketh a lie about these words or causeth them
to not be known shall burn in hell forever and ever...."

-----
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...