From: alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss)
Subject: Re: Liberty (was something relevant about CO-2 long ago...)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:52:45 GMT
Organization: (speaking only for myself from Austin, Texas)

In article <1992Dec20.113945.26727@panix.com> mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik) writes:
>
>
>Ya know, I think I'm gonna *scream*.

Feel better now :-)


>Melinda Shore-- more patiently than I was able to do-- tried to
>explain to the world in general that women's feelings about being
>excluded by what is supposed to be the "inclusive" use of the
>masculine might not be the same as men's.  Sure, she's annoyed.
>We've been through this many times, in this and in other newsgroups.

Uh huh.

>And then, along comes alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss) 
>who says:
>  >>I didn't miss the point of the posting.  I've heard the
>  >>same "point" over and over and over and over and over and
>  >>over and over.
> >Not from me, since I'm new to these parts ..... 
>
>But, of course, he doesn't make any *better* point, and he doesn't
>offer any argument that overcomes Melinda's position.

I made several points about marketing your viewpoints to the rest
of society.  You missed it.

>  The fact that
>*he* is new to these parts means that we (for some value of we) owe
>him not to be upset at hearing him mouth the same stuff that's been
>annoying us for all those years.

I never said, "don't flame me."  :-)   People who run from controversy
are so -- boring.  Dull.  Smug.  Stuck in safe-space.  The
*real* challenge can't be found screaming at me over some electronic
backyard fence.


>It won't wash.

So you say.  I translate this into, "I didn't convince you."

> >First of all, Melinda (herm says, going all gender-neutral
> >parental on you ;-)  I didn't USE any gender-specific language.
> >Herm was decrying the use of it IN GENERAL.

Did you bother to listen to anything I said, or was it just
a "general impression" kind of take?

>Bleah.  I do have friends who would celebrate the demise of the
>genderlinked pronoun-- for good reason.  They don't identify
>comfortably with either masculine or feminine.  But that wasn't what
>Melinda was arguing, and it's not what I'm arguing either.  (I'm
>not yet revolutionary enough to feel the need for genderless
>personal pronouns, although I gotta say that there is some
>interesting potential in the idea.)

OK.  Got it.


> >Secondly, you're absolutely correct about one thing:  I don't
> >think this is a very big priority, in my life.  No, I'm not
> >insensitive or boorish or stooopid --> 
>I guess you're just a pretty good actor, then.  You sure had me
>fooled.

Then you fool pretty easy.  And, clearly, I'm wasting my time
here with you, since you do not choose to see *any* validity
in *anything* I said.  Which means you are either stupid, boorish,
or insensitive.  This is quite dismaying - I just can't believe
that you are *that* stuck on auto-pilot, Mara.  It must be
my fault, then - I didn't communicate clearly enough.

Besides, Melinda jumped into the conversation on a piggyback,
just like I did (and now you, too).  Can we get back to the original
point? 


>
>-- 
>
>  Mara Chibnik
>  mara@panix.com                Life is too important to be taken seriously.
				 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Really.


-- 
   _  Alan R. Weiss   IBM AWS Austin-AIX Kernel   11501 Burnet Rd, Bld 905
 _| ~-. alan%auntbea.austin.ibm.com@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com | Austin, TX 78758
 \, *_} auntbea.austin.ibm.com!alan@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com | 512-838-8281
   \(   DISCLAIMER:  Working at, not speaking for, IBM  | alan@auntbea
Xref: sparky soc.bi:17398 alt.sex.bondage:24923