From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Sheep in Organizations
Date: 23 Jan 93 04:34:14 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <58993@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu writes:

 > In American English, the de-facto world standard, "environment",
 > "environmental science" and "environmentalism"
 > have a more specific meaning. That's why we are conversing  on
 > "sci.environment" although neither the scientific nor the environmental
 > content of this "conversation" is notable.

You are not really trying to tell me that American English is now the
defacto world standard language, are you Victor?

This bullshit grows increasingly preposterous by the minute!

 > Perhaps if you were a little less quick to denounce people as fanatics
 > or to take the least sensible interpretation of their words, you would
 > find conversations here a little more informative.

Well, as I have discussed with you previously, I strive to bring the
debate up to something more closely resembling international standard
given the extent to which you people have bogged it down in defacto
language instead.

 > Nice of them. But the long established and flxbile methods of problem
 > solving, that you have offered as an alternative to the Horror of
 > American Fanaticism, did not afford any rights at all to women, for
 > example.

Curiouser and curiouser. I would still like to know from what source
you derive these recent comments of yours about women, that I might
finally do them some justice.

In other words, what the fuck are you on about?

 > So, experience with American tourists in Australia qualifies you to 
 > make pronoucements about US environmental politics and such issues
 > as Alaskan land access without having to learn anything else?

No, not at all. I find myself limited to what gets posted here right
now. As said, an attractive shop-front displaying American expertise
this is *NOT*.

 > As I noted before, if you were able to restrain yourself and avoid
 > the use of such epithets as "old scrotum" to refer to those you disagree
 > with, it would be a good idea.

Oh, don't you think that's funny? I do, especially when it is applied
so appropriately to such a pompous jackass as McGowen.

 > No. I am annoyed when people, like yourself, evade confronting the concrete
 > points made other posters by attacking the presumed ideological basis
 > of the opponent. I'm especially annoyed when these presumptions are
 > way off the mark.

I yet await any concrete points at all, Victor, unless what you mean
to say here is "points set in concrete", rather than substantial debate
arising from evidence.

 > This is just false. Arguably the first shots were fired by the 
 > slavers who kidnapped Africans for the slave trade. Even on a closer
 > historical time frame, Brown's adventure at Harper's Ferry postdated
 > the bloodshed in Kansas which can be blamed pro-slavers as much as
 > anyone else. Your argument is quit clearly  based on a misunderstanding
 > of American history.

My argument, and here you provide it with substance (thank you), is
concerned with the fact that you people have historically been unable
to settle your differences beyond shooting at one another. That one
lot fired on the other, and the other fired back, is just exactly what
I have been talking about, yes?

 > Have a nice day.

I will indeed. Made vastly more enjoyable and stimulating arguing with
you here.

Bye,

Gil
Newsgroups: sci.environment