From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda (Was: Value of...)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 05:59:10 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
   
>>>Suppose none of this was true? I have problems when supposes must be 
>>>stacked too high. 
>>
>>Then his argument wouldn't apply and there is no reason to flame him.
>
>Show me the personal attack. Otherwise you are flaming me.

Oh boy -- time to get out the dictionary and start defining "flame"...
And, btw, in case you haven't noticed, YES, I AM flaming you....

>>Well, inability to work well with colleagues is not exactly *desirable*.
>>I'm not saying that I would definately fire you out of hand, but
>>disputes should often be mediated by the boss, IMO.
>
>Who has this inability? Me of the person who does not like my calendar?

Can't tell.  Would have to know the parties involved and see who's
being unreasonable.  That's the way the world goes 'round.

>>Who ever said that this is a one way street?  If you have spend a lot
>>of time in -her- environment and it offends you, it *is* courteous of
>>her to remove it.  
>
>Not a whole lot offends me. The point is that different people have 
>different sensibilities. And some bitch at everything. Why must all
>live life to suite the most extreme members?

It doesn't.  I never said it did.

>>Often, employers make rules to enforce curteousness, too.
>
>And if they do not? 

That's their problem.  What do I care?   This is like saying,
"What if some employers don't serve coffee????!!!"  BFD.  
I don't care.  Especially if I don't work there.

>>(I did ask a secretary to turn off a boiling pot pourri thing once,
>>because it bothered me.  She did.  She was nice.)
>
>And if she did not? There is nothing wrong with a potpourri pot.

I would've been very irritated, both physically, and psychologically
because she couldn't do a simple little thing for me that I asked
her to do very nicely.

>>Ah -- I see -- got an axe to grind about some particular legislation?
>>Fine, grind it.  Sexist legislation should go.  What's the legislation
>>that bothers you?  Got the text?  *That* would be something to flame
>>over, not Lynch's post that he thought people should treat eachother
>>with respect.
>
>Once again, NO ONE HAS BEEN FLAMED. It is not a flame till there is a
>personal attack. I can disagree with you without flaming you. But to
>accuse me of flaming -is- a personal attack. And I do take offense.

Well, that's your definition of flame.  For me, personally, flaming
has to do with adamantly and vehemently arguing against what 
somewhat else said.  By my understanding of the term, yes, payner, 
I am flaming you.
  
>>>This question was asked a bit ago, and a female poster (whos name
>>>escapes me) responded with a story about playboy centerfolds, completely
>>>missing the point and the question. It seems to some extent, you have done
>>>the same. 
>>
>>Playboy centerfolds do hang in some offices -- and what we are talking
>>about is [possibly] offensive material in work envinonments, right?
>>So what are you saying?  
>
>I am saying that talking about them is an inappropriate and incorrect
>answer to questions -specifically- about bikini calenders. You seem to
>have a problem with either the concept, or with the question. 

Just seems silly to talk about JUST bikini calendars.  Or maybe we
should get more specific -- let's see -- would that be the 1992 or
the *1993* Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Calendar??

>>                      That your calendar is okay, but that Playboy...
>>well now, *that's* a different issue?  How is it different?  Is it, um,
>>*offensive*??
>
>My point exactly, it's not just a different issue, it's the wrong issue.

Very funny.  Very funny.  I totally fail to see how it is a different
*issue*.   Are you saying that your calendar is okay, Playboy's calendar
is not?

>>>And as I stated, these calanders are at my home. 
>>
>>Great.  Then why worry?  No one can make you take them down, except for
>>maybe an offended spouse. :)
>
>I give clarification, and you make stupid remarks. But then, we have not
>communicated much so far. Most of his response assumed, incorrectly,
>that the calendars were at work, despite the fact that I had stated
>where they were quite clearly. 

Remember, payner, how Lynch's post started out with a bunch of "supposes"?
Those were laid out the situation that he was addressing.

>Most of the above is an inappropriate
>response, and your comment says that I am off target. 

Well, then, I am misguided.  I thoughted you wanted to talk about
*issues*, not YOUR calendars.  I could give a shit about YOUR
calendars.  Sorry to bother you with talking about *principals*.
I see now that that is not what you wanted to discuss.  

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism