Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.lang,misc.news.internet.discuss,news.admin.policy,news.misc,alt.mens-rights,soc.men
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!comp.vuw.ac.nz!actrix.gen.nz!atlantis!zohrab_p
From: Peter Zohrab <zohrab_p@actrix.gen.nz>
Subject: David Lawrence should resign
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960309055606.19251A-100000@atlantis>
X-Sender: zohrab_p@atlantis
Sender: news@actrix.gen.nz (News Administrator)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Organization: Actrix Networks -- NZ Internet Service Providers.
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 17:06:46 GMT
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: atlantis.actrix.gen.nz
Lines: 342
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu news.groups:193000 sci.lang:51277 news.misc:19788

If anyone is wondering why this is crossposted to sci.lang, the reason is 
that there are linguistic issues involved, and input from Linguists would 
be welcome, from my point of view.

Peter Zohrab

P.S. In this article, I quote freely from email correspondence from David 
Lawrence to me.  I do not apologise for this.  The role of Moderator of 
news.announce.newgroups is a very public one, and the comments he emailed 
to me should, in my view, have been posted to Usenet in the first place.  
I have not included any quotation that is not directly relevant to the 
matter at hand.
P.Z.

(Creator of the Usenet newsgroup "alt.mens-rights" and Secretary of the NZMRA)
ASK ME TO EMAIL MY FREE alt.mens-rights FAQ (manifesto + resource-list).
GO: http://www.he.net/~menmedia/conf for Men's Media International (MMI).
MEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFINE WHAT ACHIEVING EQUALITY WITH WOMEN WOULD MEAN.


David Lawrence Should Resign.

I think David Lawrence should resign as Moderator of
news.announce.newgroups.

I provisionally retract my accusation of unethical behaviour,
because it is possible that I was wrong in reading his term "news
administrators" as meaning "system administrators", in the
following excerpt from a message of his to me:

(start of quotation of email message)

"From tale@uunet.uu.net Wed Feb 21 18:09 NZD 1996
Received: from rodan.UU.NET (rodan.UU.NET [153.39.130.10]) by
atlantis.actrix.gen.nz (8.6.11/8.6.9) with ESMTP id SAA11449 for
<zohrab_p@actrix.gen.nz>; Wed, 21 Feb 1996 18:09:48 +1300
Received: by rodan.UU.NET
     id QQadvg01585; Wed, 21 Feb 1996 00:09:44 -0500
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 00:09:44 -0500
Message-Id: <QQadvg01585.199602210509@rodan.UU.NET>
To: Peter Zohrab <zohrab_p@actrix.gen.nz>
From: newgroups-request@uunet.uu.net (David Lawrence)
Cc: group-advice@uunet.uu.net
Reply-To: group-advice@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Re: naming of talk.masculism
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960209210955.14384A-100000@atlantis>
References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960209210955.14384A-100000@atlantis>
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 4471
Status: RO
X-Status: A

<snip>

Peter Zohrab writes:
> Would you and your colleagues vote against such a group if you
didn't
> like the name ?  Would you vote for it if you did like the name
?

As it is, I will definitely be voting against this group and
letting
several news admins know my reasoning.  Whether they consider
those
reasons good enough to also vote against I cannot say.

<snip>"

(end of quotation of email mesage)

If all he is talking about is administrators of newsgroups, then
I see no problem with that.  But if he is talking about telling
systems administrators (a group which I don't have equal access
to) that (in effect) this newsgroup should not be supported, even
if it passes the voting process, then I do consider that
unethical, because that would be inviting them to ignore the
result of a democratic vote.

*Irrespective* of that issue, however, I think he should resign.
The point is that he (and possibly some of his colleagues, for
all I know) combine arrogance and condescension with ignorance.

The Internet is supposed to be the ultimate vehicle for freedom
of information, yet David Lawrence (and possibly some of his
colleagues) seek to restrict Usenet in arbitrary and
controversial ways:

Instructions on proposing new newsgroups state that proponents
should observe the workings of the system for six months before
submitting proposals -- and if they want to submit them earlier,
then they should wait even longer !  I do sympathise with the
frustration that these volunteers may have had in the past with
ignorance on the part of proponents, but that requirement is
symptomatic of the general and indiscriminate highhandedness that
I have experienced from David Lawrence.  The newsgroup proposal
process is not all that complicated, for people of a reasonable
amount of intelligence, and it is insulting and offensive to be
treated like a slightly stupid child !

David Lawrence appeared (early on in our correspondence) to call
me "naive", though he later said that he hadn't meant that.

He miswrote "talk.masculism" as "talk.masculine" in the subject
line of one of his early emails to me.  I consider that to be a
gibe -- or at least an indication of a lack of dispassionate
objectivity in the matter.  I don't believe it was an honest
mistake -- Feminists, in my experience, are very good at
discriminating against men "by accident, on purpose".  I consider
his behaviour here to be unethical.

The people who write the FAQ's and Guidelines on proposing new
newsgroups, and on naming newsgroups, and so on, seem to
habitually express personal opinions as God's Truth.  David
Lawrence and one of his colleagues have adopted this attitude in
the "advice" they have given me on alternative names for
"talk.masculism".  They seem unable to realise that outsiders
(people from outside their experienced clique) are capable of
having ideas that haven't occurred to them, and which might
actually be valid.

If the general tone of arrogance and high-handedness I have found
to be present in the writings of David Lawrence and others were
backed up by relevant specialist knowledge, then it would be at
least understandable -- though not excusable.  But it is not !

David Lawrence's background is in Information Science, which has
a certain historical "logic" to it, given the relative newness of
the Internet, and the consequent preponderance of technological
specialists, who have no doubt been needed to keep the whole
thing running reasonably smoothly.

But there is no significant technological component, as far as I
am aware, in the process of newsgroup creation.  It is (as David
Lawrence himself has pointed out to me) a *political* process.
It also has a lot to do with taxonomy (classification), and with
words.  So specialists in practical politics, in taxonomy, and in
words (Linguists, Translators, Lexicographers, etc.) would be
useful.  I myself have long been a professional in the area of
words (Translator, Linguist and Language Teacher).

But the most relevant professional background would be a legal
one.  I have been very frustrated by David Lawrence's total
ignoring of my quasi-legal argument for the name
"talk.masculism".  He ignores it, because he has to answer to it.

I have tried to explain to him that Masculists require parity
with Feminists on the Internet. We require it.  We demand it.  It
is our right.

There are several Feminist newsgroups on Usenet, such as
soc.feminism, alt.feminism, and soc.women.  Masculists already
have alt.mens-rights and soc.men, but I want some equivalent to
soc.feminism.  That is why I proposed talk.masculism.

I did not do that for the trivial reason of wanting some sort of
numerical equivalence to Feminist groups.  I did it because the
"alt" hierarchy does not reach many sites, and because "soc.men",
judging by its description, is not supposed to be mainly about
men's *rights*.

Ideally, then, I would have gone for something like
"soc.masculism".  However, I judged that the existence of
"soc.men" would be used as an argument (however specious) against
that name, so I decided it would be tactically wiser to opt for a
different hierarchy.  The "talk" hierarchy seemed appropriate for
the sort of theoretical discussion which would cement Masculism's
claim to be a philosophical and political theory on a par with
Feminism.

David Lawrence has some unexpressed dislike of the "talk"
hierarchy.  My feeling is that he wants it to wither away,
because he thinks it is unnecessary, from the point of view of a
net and orderly classification.  He has never given me a proper
reason for preferring the "soc" hierarchy over the "talk"
hierarchy.

David Lawrence's response to my suggested name was to suggest
choosing between the names "soc.men.rights" and "soc.rights.men".
Later he narrowed the choice down to just "soc.rights.men".  His
reasons were reasonably cogent -- within his terms of reference.
What I am saying is that his terms of reference are too narrow.

I told him that I didn't want my newsgroup to be buried any
further down the hierarchy than the equivalent, soc.feminism, is.
I felt that "soc.rights.men" is a lower-profile name than
"talk.masculism".  What I am talking about here is profile, in a
competitive political battle with Feminism.  If you like, I am
talking in political marketing terms.

He replied that groups like soc.feminism had been formed in the
days before group naming had been made systematic.  He favoured
changing the name of "soc.feminism" to "soc.rights.women" -- but
I would have to get the agreement of the "soc.feminism" community
to that change.  I find that suggestion wildly unrealistic.
There is no way that they would agree to that change.

I said that, if the news administrators (if that is what they are
called) don't have the power to make *all* groups conform to
their naming criteria, then they have no credibility.  It is
palpably unfair to enforce naming rules on newer groups, which
the older groups don't have to conform to.  "Fairness" is a
moral, political, and quasi-legal concept (akin to "natural
justice").

From a quasi-legal point of view, the name "soc.feminism" is a
precedent.  People like David Lawrence tell me that I can't have
a name based on that precedent, because they have established
some arbitrary rules which make that impossible.  I maintain that
David Lawrence is trampling on my political and "legal" rights.
He was not elected by the Usenet community as a whole (as far as
I know), and he has no proprietary rights over Usenet (as far as
I know).

I feel that David Lawrence and his colleagues don't take enough
account of the fact that the newsgroup-creation process is a
political one.  Because it is a political process, political
considerations should carry more weight than arbitrary concepts
of classificational neatness, which seem to have been imposed
just for the sake of imposing some rules on the chaotic anarchy
of cyberspace.

Here is an excerpt from his discussion (by email) with me on this
topic:

(START OF QUOTATION FROM CORRESPONDENCE)

David Lawrence: "The name soc.rights.men is also very clear
regarding the content of the newsgroup and does not use any
contrived words to indicate it.

<COMMENT: I KNOW WHAT HE MEANS, BUT IT IS OFFENSIVE TO MASCULISTS
FOR HIM TO DESCRIBE THE WORD "MASCULIST" AS "CONTRIVED".  FROM A
LINGUISTIC POINT OF VIEW, HE IS BEING NAIVE.  ALL WORDS ARE
CREATED AS NEOLOGISMS, AS "FEMINISM" WAS, AND THEY OBTAIN AN AURA
OF LEGITIMACY AS A RESULT OF FREQUENT USAGE, AMONGST OTHER
THINGS.  HE IS ALSO IGNORANT OF THE WIDE CURRENCY THAT THE WORD
"MASCULISM" HAS IN MEN'S RIGHTS CICLES>

<snip>

Peter Zohrab:> Is it just that you are psychologically attracted
to tidy classifications, or is there more to it than that ?

David Lawrence: My concern is for the overall usability of the
namespace for both users and news administrators.  I approach it
from the viewpoint of an information scientist and apply the same
general rules regarding clarity, consistency, propagation, and
manageability to all group names.  Tidy classifications are
desirable only insofar as they contribute to the usability of the
namespace without significanly sacrificing the real life
understanding that the universe is not given to tidy
classifications.

<COMMENT: I QUESTION THE NEED FOR THE ABOVE, RATHER TRIVIAL
CONSIDERATIONS TO TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER NATURAL JUSTICE, AND OTHER
POLITICO-LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS>

Peter Zohrab:> I know that "obscure" names are frowned upon, but,
in mitigation, I would say:
>
> 1. The description of the newsgroup would tell people what
"masculism" is about;

David Lawrence: Many people don't ever see the newsgroup
description.  It can only be considered an extension of the name
of the group, and so the name must bear the brunt of the work is
describing what the group is. "Masculism" does a very poor job of
that because it is not a standard English word (I have four
English dictionaries, none of which list it) and so doesn't even
describe the group to native English speakers, much less those
millions of net users around the world who use the
English namespace but for whom English is a second language.

<COMMENT: DAVID LAWRENCE'S ARGUMENT HERE IS A BIT STRONGER.  AS A
TEACHER OF LANGUAGES (WHO HAS TAUGHT ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN
LANGUAGE), THOUGH, I'D JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT NON-NATIVE
SPEAKERS OF ENGLISH ARE PROBABLY MORE OPEN TO NEOLOGISMS LIKE
"MASCULISM" THAN NATIVE SPEAKERS LIKE DAVID LAWRENCE ARE.  THAT
IS BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ENGLISH VOCABULARY, IN MOST
CASES, TO HAVE DEVELOPED THE LINGUISTIC PREJUDICES AGAINST NEW
WORDS THAT MANY NATIVE SPEAKERS HAVE.  THEY DON'T KNOW WHICH ARE
NEW WORDS, WHICH ARE ARCHAIC -- THEY ARE ALL JUST POTENTIAL
ENGLISH WORDS.>

 Peter Zohrab:> 2. Usenet is an educational tool -- it does not
just reflect people's state of knowledge -- it can increase their
knowledge.  I would like people to learn, if they don't already
know, that Masculism exists as a philosophy that is opposed to
Feminism.

David Lawrence:It should be the job of speech to educate people.
It is the job of a namespace to help people find topic areas they
are interested in.

<COMMENT: THE NAMESPACE DOESN'T HAVE A "JOB".  THE NAMESPACE JUST
"IS".  IT IS INANIMATE.  IT IS A TOOL FOR PEOPLE TO USE ANY WAY
THEY WANT.  I WANT TO USE THE NAMESPACE FOR "FLAG-WAVING", TO
ANNOUNCE THE ARRIVAL OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF MASCULISM.  DAVID
LAWRENCE HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DEFINE THE "JOB" OF THE NAMESPACE.>

You would be completely free to educate people within a
soc.rights.men group about the masculism philosophy, labelling it
"masculism" in every single article you post on the topic.

<COMMENT: THIS IS TRUE, BUT I COULD ONLY EDUCATE THE PEOPLE WHO
WERE ALREADY SUBSCRIBED TO THE NEWSGROUP.  THE PEOPLE I WANT TO
ANNOUNCE THE WORD "MASCULISM" TO ARE IN THE USENET COMMUNITY AS A
WHOLE.>

By naming the group talk.masculism you are shutting out many
people who would be readily drawn to a group named soc.rights.men
because it would be clear to them what the group is about.
Instead they will skip over talk.masculism because it won't ever
hit their search criteria when looking at men-oriented newsgroups
and even if they do see the group name they won't have a good
idea what's going on in the group.  ("What is this, something for
macho people to brag in?")  The vast majority of the Usenet
public will not have the time to waste to find out what is being
discussed within the group and will thus not be educated as to
what this new word "masculism" means.  I sincerely believe
soc.rights.men would be more of a magnet for your cause then
talk.masculism.

<THIS IS A GOOD ARGUMENT.  CLEARLY, THERE IS A TRADE-OFF INVOLVED
HERE.  I HAVE HAD TO DECIDE WHETHER I WANT TO RISK PEOPLE WHO USE
COMPUTERISED SEARCHES MISSING talk.masculism ALTOGETHER.  MY
DECISION HAS BEEN THAT PEOPLE WHO CARRY OUT SUCH SEARCHES WILL
FIND soc.men AND alt.mens-rights, AND THROUGH THOSE GROUPS THEY
WILL FIND OUT ABOUT THE WORD "MASCULISM", AND ABOUT THE NEWSGROUP
talk.masculism. *BUT THAT IS MY DECISION, NOT DAVID LAWRENCE'S*.
IF HE FEELS THAT HE HAS TO VOTE AGAINST MY PROPOSAL JUST BECAUSE
I DON'T ACCEPT HIS AUTHORITY TO BULLY ME ON THE NAMING QUESTION,
THEN I SAY HE IS ON A POWER TRIP, AND HE SHOULD RESIGN.>

(END OF QUOTATION FROM CORRESPONDENCE)


David Lawrence has no Godlike standing.  He has no right to make
the kinds of influential judgements that he makes, or to pass
them off as definitive.  He has no specialist qualifications.  He
has no mandate to restrict Usenet in arbitrary ways.

