From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 04:57:28 GMT


John S. Van Etten writes:
jve> I didn't know we could let our girlfriends (or wives or mothers or
jve> whatever) vote in this. :-) :-) Just funnin' ya, Russell.

Linda Guidry writes:
lg> I've been employed at this site since 1985 and I've been involved 
lg> with usenet in various capacities since 1987, primarily as a 
lg> system administrator.  Do you think it's amusing to "fun" an 
lg> individual by making demeaning, sexist comments about his 
lg> coworkers?  

In article <trtya8-@rpi.edu>, by vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten):
jve> I implore the two of you to stop and think critically about what I
jve> wrote.  The fact the Linda is female is completely irrelevant to the
jve> implied "relationship" between you two.  If Linda had been Larry
jve> instead, I would have joked about him being your brother or father
jve> (obviously I would not have said "boyfriend").  Can't you see that?
jve> My joke had nothing to do with women, and said absolutely nothing
jve> against them.

I'm glad to hear you say this.  Although I'm still amazed by your 
authoritarian pretenses, it's good to know that you would have 
been equally reluctant to "let" fathers, husbands, and brothers 
cast their "votes" about Ferrell's ongoing participation in the 
newsgroup.  

jve> ... I'm glad she voiced her opinion.  Do *you* consider girlfriends, 
jve> wives, and mothers to be in some sort of "secondary, subservient 
jve> capacity?" I doubt it.  So what makes you so quick to think that 
jve> I do?  Think about that.  

Fair enough.  I'll accept your statements at face-value, and I'll
let Linda know where you stand.  [You're in her killfile, I believe.]

The fact remains, however, that you made the apparently diminutive 
assumption that Linda's comments had arisen from some sort of 
personal relationship with me.   While she's neither pro-AR nor
anti-AR, I can assure you that she's quite familiar with the issues
and would have little trouble debating either side with considerable
expertise.  By dismissing her opinion, you were casting doubt on
her integrity as well as my own.

jve> My joke was merely about the fact that both your votes were sent 
jve> in the same message, since the similar timestamp caught my eye.  
jve> I still think you two are blowing this whole thing out of 
jve> proportion.  

Once again, let me remind you that you're not the official censor 
of t.p.a.  As such, you're not charged with the responsibility of 
"verifying" personal opinions.  Be that as it may, I can 
understand your curiosity about the identical (not similar) 
timestamp and would have seen no harm if you had chosen to 
correspond with Linda to ask her if Ferrell's posting reflected 
her true opinion.  However, your innuendo that her opinion 
stemmed from some sort of sexual or familial relationship with me 
was totally out-of-line.  

rl> If I'm wrong, please explain why it would have mattered if Linda 
rl> were a "girlfriend", or a wife", or a "mother".  

jve> It *doesn't*, Russell.  That's the whole point. :-)

The fact remains that you attempted to discount her opinion on the
basis of your presumption about a sexual or familial relationship.
If that was a simple mistake, let's learn from the experience and
move on. 

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals