From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:27:27 GMT
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY

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.

[stuff deleted]
>In article <trtya8-@rpi.edu>, by vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten):
>jve> I implore the two of you to stop and think critically about what I
>jve> wrote.  The fact the Linda is female is completely irrelevant to the
>jve> implied "relationship" between you two.  If Linda had been Larry
>jve> instead, I would have joked about him being your brother or father
>jve> (obviously I would not have said "boyfriend").  Can't you see that?
>jve> My joke had nothing to do with women, and said absolutely nothing
>jve> against them.
>
>I'm glad to hear you say this.  Although I'm still amazed by your 
>authoritarian pretenses, it's good to know that you would have 
>been equally reluctant to "let" fathers, husbands, and brothers 
>cast their "votes" about Ferrell's ongoing participation in the 
>newsgroup.  

Russell, I've never said that anyone shouldn't have voted, and no
matter how many times you try to assert this, it will forever be
false.  Is that the only way you can admit Linda's error about trying
to label me as "sexist," by trying to accuse me of some other "lesser"
false crime?  I'm not asking you or Linda to appologize for the false
remark about me being "sexist" and "demeaning," Russell, but further
false accusations strike me as a bit much.


>jve> ... I'm glad she voiced her opinion.  Do *you* consider girlfriends, 
>jve> wives, and mothers to be in some sort of "secondary, subservient 
>jve> capacity?" I doubt it.  So what makes you so quick to think that 
>jve> I do?  Think about that.  
>
>Fair enough.  I'll accept your statements at face-value, and I'll
>let Linda know where you stand.  [You're in her killfile, I believe.]
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It does my heart good to hear this, and I want you to be sure to tell
her to keep me right in there, Russell.


>The fact remains, however, that you made the apparently diminutive 
>assumption that Linda's comments had arisen from some sort of 
>personal relationship with me.

Wrong, I made no such assumption.  Did you read all of what I wrote
(-and let's momentarily cast aside the fact that you still haven't
figured out that it wasn't serious-)?  Is there some reason why the
"or whatever" didn't represent some other form of perhaps professional
relationship?  Any assumption that it was strictly *personal* was
yours, and not a very good one.  I think it's a safe bet that two
people that post their votes in the same message must know each other,
which even if taken seriously (by some confused soul) was all that was
implied by my words when read without the smileys.


>   While she's neither pro-AR nor
>anti-AR, I can assure you that she's quite familiar with the issues
>and would have little trouble debating either side with considerable
>expertise.  By dismissing her opinion, you were casting doubt on
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>her integrity as well as my own.

Clearly you are confused, as ever.  I've never dismissed anyone's
opinion.  As far as your integrity is concerned, after trying to tell
this forum that *I* was the one that called for the vote on Ferrell
Wheeler's posting, I think you do it far more harm than anyone else
ever could. <wishing I could put a smiley here>


>jve> My joke was merely about the fact that both your votes were sent 
>jve> in the same message, since the similar timestamp caught my eye.  
>jve> I still think you two are blowing this whole thing out of 
>jve> proportion.  
>
>Once again, let me remind you that you're not the official censor 
>of t.p.a.

You crack me up, Russell.  Still trying to bail out your sinking ship
with the word "censor."  You're wrong about that.  You're wrong about
me starting the vote.  You're wrong about me being "sexist" and
"demeaning."  You're wrong about me "still reading child pornography."
You're wrong about me being "prejudiced" and a "racist."  So why don't
you abandon your name-calling before you make yourself look even more
silly (as much as I enjoy seeing your vivid imagination in action)?


>  As such, you're not charged with the responsibility of 
>"verifying" personal opinions.  Be that as it may, I can 
>understand your curiosity about the identical (not similar) 
>timestamp and would have seen no harm if you had chosen to 
>correspond with Linda to ask her if Ferrell's posting reflected 
>her true opinion.

I had no reason to doubt that was indeed her true opinion.


>  However, your innuendo that her opinion 
>stemmed from some sort of sexual or familial relationship with me 
>was totally out-of-line.  

I said nothing about her opinion, nor did I imply anything.  I would
have made my joke about the two votes being cast at the same time and
from the same site regardless of whether Linda had voted "yes" or
"no," just as I would have done so regardless of whether Linda was
female or male.


>rl> If I'm wrong, please explain why it would have mattered if Linda 
>rl> were a "girlfriend", or a wife", or a "mother".  
>
>jve> It *doesn't*, Russell.  That's the whole point. :-)
>
>The fact remains that you attempted to discount her opinion on the
>basis of your presumption about a sexual or familial relationship.

This is at least the third time you've said this.  I said *nothing*
about the validity of her opinion.


>If that was a simple mistake, let's learn from the experience and
>move on. 

We'll move on after we settle the issue.  You've learned that my
remarks were not "sexist" or "demeaning" to women.  You still need to
learn a few more things.  Epsilon by precious epsilon, Russell.  But
at least we're making progress on this one, unlike some other debates
we've had in the past. :-)


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"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals