From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 00:59:17 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:

>In article <tcwyp6b@rpi.edu>, John S. Van Etten writes:
>jve> Russell, I've never said that anyone shouldn't have voted, and no
>jve> matter how many times you try to assert this, it will forever be
>jve> false.  Is that the only way you can admit Linda's error about trying
>jve> to label me as "sexist," by trying to accuse me of some other "lesser"
>jve> false crime?  I'm not asking you or Linda to appologize for the false
>jve> remark about me being "sexist" and "demeaning," Russell, but further
>jve> false accusations strike me as a bit much.
>
>In case anybody got the wrong idea, here's what you said in response
>to Ferrell's summary of Linda's views:
>
>	"I didn't know we could let our girlfriends (or wives or mothers
>	 or whatever) vote in this."

Russell, Russell, Russell.  You truly disappoint me.  This is the
second time you've quoted this completely out of context with the
intent to malign my character.  So let me remind everyone (ad nauseum
-- is anyone getting as tired as I am of this lad's temper tantrum?)
what was truly said:

     "I didn't know we could let our girlfriends (or wives or mothers
      or whatever) vote in this. :-) :-)  Just funnin' ya, Russell."

And just so you know that I'm not the only person in the world who
doesn't think it's right to quote someone out of context, here's what
Bob Black had to say about that very subject today:

>From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
>Message-ID: <1992Sep1.173735.4816@clpd.kodak.com>:
>
>As a paragon of clear writing, you are well aware of the ways in which
>removing a statement from its surrounding context can radically alter
>the intended meaning - especially when the removal is done selectively
>by one who is hostile to the views being dissected. 

Seems to me his words apply all too well here, Russell.  Now I don't
mind at all if you want to quote me, but let's be a good chap and do
it correctly.  I'll even give you a lollipop. :-)


[stuff about killfiles deleted]
>jve> Clearly you are confused, as ever.  I've never dismissed anyone's 
>jve> opinion.  As far as your integrity is concerned, after trying to 
>jve> tell this forum that *I* was the one that called for the vote on 
>jve> Ferrell Wheeler's posting, I think you do it far more harm than 
>jve> anyone else ever could.  <wishing I could put a smiley here> 
>
>I'm not accusing you of calling for the "vote" on the matter of
>Ferrell's posting privileges.  I realize that Ferrell himself asked
>people to give him feed-back on the usefulness of the material.  The
>problem that I perceived arose from your attempt to turn informal
>feedback into some sort of official process.   Your insistence that
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And how indeed did you come to this rather bizzare conclusion?  Did I
ever say that any such vote would be binding on Ferrell? [No.]  So
please tell me where you came up with this.  It's a rather odd
misperception.  It seems to me that Ferrell is the only one that said
he would listen to the vote.  I requested copies, but only to make
sure the tally was correct.  I never said Ferrell had to follow any
mandate.


>people send carbon copies to you in order to "keep Ferrell honest"
>struck me as particularly high-handed. 

You missed the smiley on that one, too.  I'm not scared of the truth.
I guess such a fear must be some inbred defense mechanism for folks on
your side of the fence. :-(


Just so people (that haven't fallen asleep) keep this straight,
Russell has incorrectly attributed my words to himself here:
>rl> You crack me up, Russell.  Still trying to bail out your sinking ship
>rl> with the word "censor."  You're wrong about that.  You're wrong about
>rl> me starting the vote.  You're wrong about me being "sexist" and
>rl> "demeaning."  You're wrong about me "still reading child pornography."
>rl> You're wrong about me being "prejudiced" and a "racist."  So why don't
>rl> you abandon your name-calling before you make yourself look even more
>rl> silly (as much as I enjoy seeing your vivid imagination in action)?
>
>Thanks for "letting" one of the female employees of my company 
                                 ^^^^^^
>voice her expressions of gratitude to Ferrell Wheeler for posting 
>material that she found useful.  

Two comments.  First, why do you need to say Linda is a *female*
employee?  A non-sexist person like myself would have merely said she
was an employee, not a *female* employee.  Why do you draw this
distinction?  Second, what on Earth are you talking about?  She's free
to do what she wants, and since I've never said or implied otherwise,
you should take the advise to remain silent, rather than remove our
doubts.


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