From: venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh)
Subject: Re: playing with jackals
Reply-To: venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh)
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown NJ
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 17:27:14 GMT

In article <SHAFER.92Aug27085123@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov> 
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes in response to M Max:

>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.

Hmmm... try again. Here is the relevant excerpt from M Max's post:

	...Clear cutting is ugly but
	laws do exist that limit the amount of damage to streams and errosion 
	sensitive areas. Perhaps more laws are needed but simplistic polarizing
	propaganded is almost never helpful in solving a problem that has 
	many facets.

Now what is it that you say the claim is? 

>
>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.

Sorry. To me, you definitely seem to be swayed one way. It is rather easy to 
get personal when someone doesn't agree with you, isn't it? What happened to 
all the grandiose appeals against name-calling (however subtle it might be
above)?

This is exactly the problem I was trying to address in my posts when I asked
people to show restraint on controversial issues. Reproduced below is a
letter I sent by e-mail to Margaret and everyone that mailed me in response
to my posts. I am not going to say any more on this topic.


Dear Margaret,

I am writing this to you because I have received two kinds of e-mail responses
to my posts. Derision on my "support for lack of civility" and thank you
notes for pointing out things that people find it difficult to do on the 
net with its extreme political correctness.

First of all, although you may have already deduced, I don't condone the
use of personal attacks on anyone. I believe the person that started it
has been sufficiently chastised for it. But that is only one of the issues.
I am *not* trying to justify that behavior by any means. Let us suppose that
people eventually learn to behave in civil ways. 

But that still leaves the issue of the responsibility of the posters on
controversial issues. I admire your dedication for your cause. I think there
is a definite case for considering envionmental impacts of many activities.
However, people draw lines at various points. A very dedicated environmentalist
might decry the use of airplanes burning petroleum-based fuels for
recreational purposes. Most people on the net would have no problem in
considering that an extreme viewpoint and draw a line above it. So it
shouldn't surprise you that some other people have drawn lines on environmental
impact, civil-liberties, etc that are different from yours. I don't wish
to claim that one or the other is in the right. That is something that needs
to be discussed and hashed out to learn about each other's point of view.

Unfortunately, rec.aviation is not a forum for debating such issues. Hence,
when one viewpoint is prevalent just because it happens to be tied to
flying, it is unfair for people that are interested in educating people on
alternate points of view. A lot of people are interested in your flying
activities, and a lot of people are interested in your environmental
activities. I would suggest using the net for the former and forming an
e-mail list for the latter. I realize that it is difficult to seperate
the two. But as long as you are aware of the problem, I am sure your
judgment is sufficient to focus on the flying rather than on the cause.

Regards,

venky