From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 19:57:45 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:

>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...
>lg> 
>lg> Do you think it's amusing to "fun" an individual by making 
>lg> demeaning, sexist comments about his coworkers?  
>
>In article <#jsy6mq@rpi.edu>, vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>jve> Linda, I have two comments here.  The first is that you seem to 
>jve> share Russell's lack of a sense of humour, which is too bad -- I 
>jve> genuinely feel sorry for you about that.  
>
>In drawing such a hasty conclusion, you're ignoring the likely
>possibility that your remark was completely witless.  To test my
>hypothesis, why don't you share your remarks with some of your
>female coworkers to see if they share your hilarious sense of humor.

It seems you're not familiar with the term "sense of humour," Russell,
which I find odd since I learned what it meant in the third grade
(again, perhaps the education system is lacking these days).  A sense
of humour is whether or not one can tell if something was intended as
a joke, and it has very little to do with whether or not the
individual found the joke to be funny.  You and Linda are more than
welcome to not laugh, but I'm afraid that doesn't give you the right
to take my words seriously.


>jve> The second is that you seem to share his propensity for unfounded 
>jve> attacks on another person's character (which saddens me as well).  
>jve> Do you honestly feel that my remarks were sexist?  Do you think 
>jve> that they for some reason would not have correspondingly read 
>jve> "boyfriends (or husbands or fathers" if Russell were female and 
>jve> you were male?  
>
>Linda didn't attack your character, John.  She pointed out that
>your assumptions were both sexist and demeaning.   They would have
>been just as sexist and just as demeaning if the sex roles had
>been reversed.  

I'm sorry, Russell, but even with crutches this can't walk.  My words
were not sexist, nor were they in any way demeaning (unless she
considers it demeaning to be associated you :-).  One of you really
needs to explain this "sexist and demeaning" tripe.  It just won't
wash.


>Is it reasonable, or just plain stupid, for someone to assume that
>a man and woman who post from the same site must be personally
>involved in some way?

Russell, my old lying friend, please calm down and tell me just where
I assumed "that a man and woman who post from the same site must be
personally involved in some way."  Did you read the "or whatever" in
what I wrote, or was the blood welling up in your eyes before you got
that far?  Also, did you really take my words seriously, despite the
double smiley?  I find this whole thing so bizzare.  Like they say,
some people just don't get it, although I suppose I should make an
effort to be nicer to sensitive types like yourself.


>Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that the woman in
>such a case is, indeed, the wife or mother or girlfriend of the
>man.   Would it be reasonable, or just plain stupid, for someone
>to dismiss her opinions on the basis of the perceived sexual
>or familial relationship?

Russell, please explain to me why you might be dumb enough to assume I
would think this.  Do you have any reason?  I'm highly confused.  Did
I say anything about Linda not having the right to cast her vote?
You'll be quite hardpressed to make such an assertion unless you lie,
but as such seems to disappointingly be the norm for you these days,
I'll leave that one up to you.  Have at it, old chum.


>jve> I realize that hatred may have blinded you since 
>jve> I don't mince my words while dealing with your friend, and you 
>jve> are more than welcome to dislike me for that, but calling what I 
>jve> said "demeaning" and "sexist" is rather unfounded.  
>
>Your assumption that Linda is "blinded by hatred" is just as 
>unwarranted and demeaning as your assumption about Linda's status 
>as wife or mother or girlfriend.   Was it reasonable, or just
>plain stupid, for you to make such an assumption?

Since Linda incorrectly stated that my words were "sexist" and
"demeaning," I think it's safe to assume that there must be a reason
why she would make such a patently false statement.  "Hatred" was
merely one suggestion, hence the "may."  If that's not the
explanation, perhaps she would like to tell us why she said what she
did, since it was untrue.


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--