From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Three party posts, was ( Re: At the Barricades )
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 03:12:39 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Oct9084426@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.053556.28239@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>>>>_Playboy_ exists in a context.  
>>>>
>>>>>Everything exists in some context, this is another distinction where
>>>>>there is no difference.
>
>Rich, if you claim to understand that things exist in a context, how is
>it that you do not understand when I give you some examples of that
>context?  Rini is absolutely correct, I have not been giving you
>examples of what Playboy *causes*, I have been giving you examples of
>the CONTEXT it appears in.

Rini has misconstrued almost everything I posted, and been quite nasty
about it. I am preparing a reply, but rini is a seperate case.

You have not demonstrated that Playboy -causes- anything. Nor that the
context is meaningful, or causal. And -most- of the time, normal things
happen in exactly the same social context. What do the exceptions prove?
No really, what do they prove. I suspect that commercial advertisments
would have a larger effect tham Playboy as far as widespread attitudes
and beliefs. They are professionlly prepared, reach a -far- larger 
audience, and far far more often. They are viewed by children, teenagers,
and all sorts of impressionable people.

If you made the case that ADVERTISMENT caused the context, rather then
a medium that reaches a much smaller audience, I would find it easier to
understand.

But what you gave were basically context free impressions of a few
incidents where you were involved. And your conclusions. It was not
clear what the context was, except in the most general terms.

>>the context.  Look, payner, Muffy did *not* say Muffy caused or
>>enforced this behavior.  You asked for CONTEXT, she gave it.
>
>That should be "Muffy did *not* say Playboy caused or enforced this
>behavior."  In fact, I think that it *illustrates* this sort of
>behavior, rather than causing it.
>
>>>> my SO and I get negative comments if we kiss in
>>>>public, because that's not something that "should be" displayed.  
>>>This seems to be more of a regional thing than a Playboy thing. 
>
>It has absolutely nothing to do with Playboy.  Where did you get the
>idea that it did?

What are rini's comments doing here? She cannot even figure out my name,
despite the fact that I sign every post with "Rich". From there her
deductive powers have declined rapidly, along with any hint of manners,
politeness, or socilization.

But then, you did not even reply to my post, so much for netiquette.

>>>>  If a person has a
>>>>non-standard orientation, such as homosexuality, bisexuality, or BDSM,
>>>>they are subject to quite a lot of hatred, to the point of being killed
>>>>for their sexuality.  Yes, our society has a lot of hatred for sexuality
>>>>in it.
>>>So are you claiming that Playboy espouses killing homosexuals? I suspect
>>>that their lawyers might want to talk to you if you are. 
>
>Maybe I should send *my* lawyers to talk to you, to stop you from
>claiming that I said that Playboy caused all these things when I didn't?
>You can't *possibly* be as stupid as this article makes you appear.

Go right ahead. And the word 'stupid' really shows your commitment to
a reasonable discussion. It seems that we have been arguing slightly
different points. Does that make you 'stupid' for not responding to what
I did post? 
 
>>Egad.  When will this stop?  Please, try to *understand* what people
>>*say* before you start blubbering!  She's giving you CONTEXT because
>>THAT is what YOU asked for!
>
>Exactly.

No, I asked for examples, quotes, text from the offending magazine, not
nebulous, possibly meaningless abstractions about what these things mean.
Obviously you read -my- post. <sigh>
 
>>> And I suggest that this is just the
>>>type of intolerance that caused 7-11 to stop carrying Playboy, not what
>>>Playboy espouses. Intolerance is everybodies problem. Playboy is not it's
>>>cause.
>
>>Payner, I get the idea that Muffy is not one of the people who is
>>all that put off by Playboy, okay?  And, once again, she never said
>>that Playboy was the *cause*.
>
>Indeed.  In fact, I like parts of it, but not enough to pay for it.  My
>SO buys the occasional Playboy or Penthouse and I like to read through
>it, but I'd rather buy things that I personally am more interested in...
>Anything That Moves, for example...*smile*.

Why is it that you respoded to rini's post rather than mine? Did it occur
to that this edited the context of my post (thereby changing it). Now convince
me that you are sensitive to context. 

>Muffy
>Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism