From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:57:40 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <2513@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.152715.24814@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>Sheheryar, a scan of names shows, unfortunately, that the net is
>>composed of a preponderance of white, Northern European males.  This
>                                ^^^^^
>
>You can look at a name and tell if the bearer is white or black?  I
>find that amusing.  No, I find it hilarious.  My last name is Mays,
>Ed.  Am I white or black?

I presume that the frequency of blacks on the net is kind of low because
of the racism of the people who hire computer types.  Andy Freeman over
at Stanford and yourself, probably, are black, and of course many blacks
in our society retain names given them by whites.  This is completely
irrevelant to my point, that the net is dominated by a white male
perspective.  
>
>>Although the name Nilges is uncommon and some posters may think it's
>>Hispanic (a business card printer once mistook my name as Hispanic and
> ^^^^^^^^
>
>I have never seen a name less Hispanic in my life.  I sincerely doubt
>that anyone thinks this.  We don't assault your posts because of your
>name, Ed.  We assault them because you are consistently illogical.  You
>have never once stated a reason for your opposition to the Hate-speech
>law which stands up to any logical refutation.  You have consistently
>misinterpreted posts you attempt to respond to, displayed a large 
>degree of hypocrisy, ignored postings which point to logical fallacies
>and inconsistencies in your own postings, and, as a last resort,
>called a huge number of people racist.

I'm uncertain what this "logic" to which you refer might be.  I see it,
frequently, as a rhetorical figure of speech in which the poster accuses
his correspondent of bad logic.  Interestingly, the word often occurs in
contexts where the poster is making elementary logical mistakes, showing
that while one is busy telling us what a logical fellow he is one is not
actually doing logic.  You yourself commit what I guess is the informal
fallacy of wasting many people's valuable time with the fact that I
cannot guess your color, for that fact is COMPLETELY irrevelant to my
point. 

Feminists listening to male texts often are jarred by these unanalysed
references to "logic" and "reason".  Unfortunately, they (like Ms.
Andrea Nye, in Words and Power) conclude, overhastily in my opinion, that
these terms are used in good faith, causing them to reject the PRACTISE
of logic as a male "thang."  My analysis is instead that ideally we'd
discuss issues, using logical rules but (in the manner of the observant
Jew and the name of God?) never mention Logic.  Wittgenstein tells us
that logic is nameless, a pure practice.  It is therefore a species of
impiety to accuse a fellow of a lack of Logic as if this were some sort
of thing he had, or lacked.  An impiety akin, in my opinion, to the
impiety Christ named in the Sermon on the Mount: "and I say unto you,
whoever calls his brother 'Raca', 'thou fool', shall be in danger of the
judgement."  In short, Joe, try to SHOW me that I'm a fool, don't SAY 
that I'm a fool.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16658 alt.politics.correct:5192 alt.censorship:7255