From: drmax@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marianna Max)
Subject: Re: playing with jackals
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:25:24 GMT

In article <SHAFER.92Aug27085123@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>On Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:53:47 GMT, drmax@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marianna Max) said:
>
>MM> In article <BtM8B8.6t5.2@cs.cmu.edu> dst+@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky) writes:
>
>MM> All I wanted to point out
>MM> is that if one uses ones position of authority to post something here or
>MM> anywhere I think it would be a service to all if one would actually find
>MM> out more than just a surface understanding of the problems one is talking
>MM> about.
>
>Margaret's only "position of authority" here is that she has computer
>access to the Net.  That's it.  That's all that any of us, including
>you and me, have.

Margaret can talk about eco-issues here because she couch's them in terms
of flying. I was just told in email not to post my views on her post here
because they were not about flying. That is the problem with stating
political views in this group where no rebutal is allowed and that is why I
think Margaret "owes" some consideration to both sides of an issue if she
is going to be using her position as a pilot to talk about them in this
forum, not because she is an expert on trees.

>
>Now, if you want to regard her as some sort of expert, that's your
>decision.  But don't expect her to do anything to satisfy you.  She
>has no obligation to you.
>
>This goes the other way, too.  I won't ask you to prove that
>clearcutting doesn't harm the environment, even though that's what
>you claimed.
>
Point to where I claimed that please. I said there were many sides to the
issue and that Margaret only portrayed one of them. I did not state my
personal views on clear cutting one way or another. It seems you are as
narrow minded and knee jerk in your response as many of the people on both
sides of this issue and its this reflex unthinking response to problems
that just make it impossible to find creative solutions.


>Just because Margaret sounds like a crypto-socialist tree-hugger and
>you sound like a dupe of the eco-raping
>sell-out-our-heritage-for-a-fast-buck companies, doesn't mean that I'm
>going to be particularly swayed one way or the other.
>
Your characterization of both me and Margaret is as impolite as many that
people have been objecting to here. You may not be swayed by either
arguement but many people are swayed by one-sided presentations of issues,
especially if they appear in a public forum. And yes I do think that in a
public forum where one can influence public opinion one should think about
the impact of ones statements. Now if Margaret wants to push the no clear
cutting issue, then this isn't the forum for it. If she doesn't want to
push it but wants to talk about it relative to her flying in this group 
I do think she has some obligation to try to present a balanced view. 
This is of course just my opinion and I would be as opposed to someone
pushing their view that clear cutting is the best thing in the world for
the environment (sic) while telling a story about flying. The problem isn't
what the particular view is, its the fact that one can't take issue with
the view in this forum without violating what the forum is actually for.


Newsgroups: rec.aviation