From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Date: 1 Sep 1992 19:31:03 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <Btrtwz.2ns@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (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> 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.

>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.  

>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?

>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?

>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?

>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000


Hey!  Maybe all of this is reasonable or maybe it's plain stupid.  Why 
doesn't everybody just shut their yap and get on with the animal issues.

No offense but, maybe Russell should stop spending as much time being
"cute" and "intelligent" and get on with the show.  It would seem that
everybody at wpg.com is pretty thin skinned.  

Mike Linan

























Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals