From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Larry shows his prejudice.(Was Blame the victim)
Date: 14 Apr 92 07:05:53 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia


Desotto writes,

>db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>
>[......]
>
>>Quite frankly I find the tactics of some of the gunners (not
>>you) quite despicable. There is some guy asking me if I am a cleaning
>>lady or a woman. Why can't people accept people with differing views
>>and not try to make out their opponents in argument are people
>>they obviously despise. What is so bad about being a cleaner anyway?
>>Can't cleaners hold views? I digress a bit, but I think it is
>>important to point out to you my side of the picture.
>
>That was me.  I see you are good at passing out insults but not quite
>so good at taking them Katie.  Anyway, you, as usual, quoted out of 
>context.  

	I didn't "quote you out of context".  I MENTIONED that you were
asking if I was a "cleaner".  Its interesting that you have to ask what
I do for a crust.  What does that have to do with my opinions? Also,
I assume you think it is some kind of insult to call me by a female name.
Wierd!

	Could it be that in your mind you have some strange concept that
a person who does a menial job cannot have opinions as good as your own?

>		After you accused me of being "anti-intellectual," which
>presumably means I disagree with your views, I asked you just what
>you do at vut.  

	When I was calling you "anti-intellectual" I was referring to your
attitude towards Salman Rushdie's insights into American life. I
was referring to you making the claim that SR was a self-proclaimed
intellectual and making derogatory remarks about his views.


	Your attitude was that basically Rushdie's opinion could be 
considered for nothing as he had now a need to be protected from possibly
mad gun wielding assassins from Iran.  Don't you think that was rather
anti-intellectual of you or is it the case that because a person's
personal circumstances change that therefore their comments can no longer
be considered valid? 

>			Cleaning lady was one of the items in the list.  YOU
>chose to quote out of context and make a valuation on the relative
>merits of the occupation.  BTW Pissant, when I was an undergraduate
>20 years ago, I worked as a janitor in the ME machine shop for money
>to go to school.  It paid enough I didn't actually go hungry and I got
>to play with the machine tools...

	Wow!  Weren't you lucky then?  Who cares about how you went through
Uni.  You should be bloody thankful that you have been given the chance to
even get to school, let alone a chance at studying at Uni.  A lot of people
around the world don't even get presented with that sort of chance, you
know. And so what you worked as a cleaner. What's that got to
do with the price of fish?

>Here is the question again Pissant as you chose not to answer the first
>time...What do you do at vut?  Student/staff? What department?  Cleaning
>lady? Put up or shut up.

	Before I answer perhaps you'd care to explain _exactly_ what 
bearing such a question has on the matter we are discussing?

>Pissant:  An insult.  Extended to you for recognition of intellectual 
>dishonesty above and beyond the usual.

	Interesting isn't it that its always the pro-gun side which resorts
to the use of insults and questions about qualification to post opinions
when they can't counter the argument?

-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.