From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Why I Am a Feminist
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 02:34:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.011813.2326@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.160349.27570@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov6.213744.27000@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov6.053803.22887@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Nov6.000026.15585@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>>In article <1992Nov5.163209.3920@netcom.com> 
>>>>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>I think a valid point that is usually missing in most feminist postings
>>>>>>is that most of the things men do most of the time are productive and/or
>>>>>>constructive.
>>>>>
>>>>>Okay, I'm with ya so far...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Men and women both have good points and bad points, strengths and
>>>>>>weaknesses. Reading posts here gives one the impression that the only
>>>>>>things men do deserving consideration is to rape, sexually harrass, have
>>>>>>sex with their children, etc... 
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh please.  You're tempting me to pull your post that says, "Who here has
>>>>>said this!  Give examples!  If things are as you paint, you should be
>>>>>able to point just about *any* post to prove your point!" or something
>>>>>like that.  (Then we could have 50,000 follow-ups where I go, "BUT IS
>>>>>THIS REPRESENTATIVE!!".)  But I think it's not a good idea to get Rich
>>>>>started.  :)
>>>>
>>>>Well, there are a few duplications, but there were 175 instances of the
>>>>word rape in the last 10 days. Here is a list, I can compress the posts
>>>>and mail them to you if you want.
>>>>
>>>>There is some duplication here, I need to write some filter scripts.
>>>>But this is just the last 10 days.
>>>>
>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>[175 lines with the word rape gone]
>>>
>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>While I don't want to read all 175 myself, will you concede that *some* of
>>>these could actually have contained the word rape
>>
>>Are you implying that my 'grep' is broken? Every line contained the word
>>rape, and I will mail you the posts if you want to re-read all them all.
>
>No, you idiot.  I am not implying that your 'grep' is broken.
>Please do mail me the posts, 

Done.

>                             so I can re-read them all and do what you should
>have done in the first place.  Evaluate their *CONTENT* based on what they said
>rather than the inclusion of a value-neutral word.

You idiot, -rape- is not a value-neutral word. And if you want to see a
word debate on much less offensive words, check out the thread rini
started in sci.skeptic.
 
>>BTW, if you are too lazy to read them, you should not be posting about
>>the content. 
>
>Got me there.  Send 'em to me.  Actually, I already read them, and I can
>guarantee that *some* of them were pro-male, or at least neutral towards men
>in general.

Not material to the point that I am making.
 
>>>, but been pro-male?
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Btw, why did you break this part of the sentence off?  It's kind of an
>important clause, and without it explains why you come to the stupid conclusion
>that I would think grep is broken.

No, you said "maybe some of these [lines] could actually contain the word rape"
This clearly states that some do -not-. Go back and re-read. 
 
>>Where did this come from? Rape is not a pro-male topic, ever.
>
>Not all men rape.

So, rape still is not a pro-male topic.

>The preceding sentence could be construed as pro-male.  It contains the word
>rape.

And in implies that the rest do. 

[...]
 
>"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu


Rich

payner@netcom.com