🚀 go-pugleaf

hiscdcj@lux.latrobe.edu.au (Dwayne Jones-Evans) writes:

>Christopher Mountford (cjmount@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU) wrote:
>: >My point is, Rosie has an online history of responding to legitimate
>: >criticism with personal attacks and engaging in the very tactics
>: >described, i.e. she attempts to delegitimise the other's position in
>: >totality, 

>: I have seen no evidence of this and would prefer to ignore it since it's 
>: just hearsay. 

>What would it take to convince you of this?  I have, ooh, about 6 or so
>private email messages saying exactly this. But that's all just hearsay.

>Apparently rosie was subjected to sexist behaviour.

>But that's just hearsay.

>Not biased, are you?

Look mate, let's get this crystal clear.

I do not care if Rosie is a bitch or not. 
I do not care about your personal argument with her, sysadmins and legal suits
all that.

What I have witnessed here (these crosspostings) is a beat up and my defence
of a person's right to object to sexist attitudes. I have seen the way people
treat Rosie and think that's fucked, they write her off as a loonie because
she disagrees with their conclusion that they are (in the words of Neal
Stephenson, in _Snow Crash_) "too smart to be sexist". I believe someone
has a right to discuss the matter using an alternate assumption, namely that
you and many others cannot actually determine without discussion whether it
is a FACT or not that Rosie is treated sexistly. I have seen this situation
and I believe it clouds the issue to be talking about the above things I
have mentioned that I don't care about.

Will not accept that Rosie is not treated sexistly just because you or
anyone else says so. I have been talking about only what I have seen in 
these newsgroups and this includes little FROM Rosie, but enough here to
illicit many people to write her off. I may in the future if I ever meet
her or have significant email with her, actually make a judgement about
her personally but not from what anyone I don't know (you) tells me about
her.

And yes I am biased. I am biased by what I have seen myself, mostly in 
other cases about the EXISTENCE of what Rosie alleges. I KNOW that what
Rosie has said HAPPENED is POSSIBLE. If it didn't happen, then perhaps
that makes my argument all hypothetical, as you and others have said, 
but even this is beside the most important point. This is the NATURE
of structural sexism. I have used Rosie's objection to sexism to 
say that I know this happens. It may be the case that Rosie is making it 
all up and that you are caught in the crossfire, but I don't want to know.
All I want to achieve is for people to hear Rosie's complaint and 
acknowledge by their own openmindedness that she has a point, a 
theoretical point. She has repeatedly been denied (in her relative absence)
that creedence by what I term a LYNCH MOB who neither likes her or sees
the irrelevance of this with the legitimacy of such claims as hers.
I have seen such situations as this before and I don't want to be part of
a thoughtless rejection of unpopular views. 

Unpopular views have the tedious tendency to be extremely lengthy in their
description, it is right that this be so, because if I say it is a lynch
mob, I should explain. So I apologise to everyone for the verbose debate
should it clog their hard drives, but I stand by my opinion which has had
surprisisingly little opposition, apart from the stupid little abusive
bouts of namecalling, and outright unjustified rejection of my arguments
without reasons. I am constantly told it is simply a FACT that Rosie has
nothing to complain about. It is not my experience that such facts are
as absolute as they are assumed to be. 

Dwayne, stop trying to prolong an expose' of your s and Rosie's fight,
I am not Rosie and I am not a substitute for her. I represent only
myself, and I don't think that my ideas are above anyone's ability to
think "straight" (my bias) but if someone want's to show faults in 
my reasoning I welcome it. You yourself have not had a problem with 
my REASONING, just my relevance to what you perceive transpired.  
You should be well pleased with the articulation of your assertion
that your comments and everyone's to Rosie were not sexist, but Rosie
disagrees and you must bear it. You cannot just call her a loony and 
say that she won't and I won't accept the "reality" that you are not
sexist. I hope you are not, that would be all the better, but Rosie
has as much right as you to make a statement on that without being
jumped on by the boys.


>: I don't support any alleged call to censorship made by
>: Rosie. But I won't make personal attacks on her either.

>Because you yourself have no personal knowledge of it. good on you.  But
>what of us who *do* have personal knowledge? Why do you dismiss us
>completely, yet accept rosie at face value?

I don't dismiss you, I take you at face value too, but I will not
just accept your views as the only possible contenders for actuality.

>: >and she also wrongfully paints her position (on _anything_) as a
>: >totalised "feminist" position (i.e. one that ALL feminists must hold, by
>: >deafult). 

>: Well I am against this as well bu have not seen Rosie doing it.

>Yes you have.  There are megabytes of explanation supporting this, from
>myself and also elsewhere.

I have never seen anything by Rosie which says that she represents any
other feminists than herself. Email me where she has said this, and I 
will reject the legitimacy of her claims. But I don't think this particular 
topic, the particular feminist views of Rosie Cross have anything to do
with me.

>Yippee. Start with the root cause of this thread, false allegations made
>about my behaviour.

NO. This is the cause of your fight with her. This THREAD is about why
Rosie is angry. Her PERCEPTION of her treatment is what I say is a
legitimate complaint that you cannot fight with arbitrary "FACT",
you can debate it if you wish, but I don't think you want to talk to her
at all. If she is as bad as you say, then I don't blame you for not wanting
to, but you simply cannot tell ME that she has no case categorically.
I do not judge you or her. You must be getting this by now.

>: But Scott, that's just what I've been saying all along. It seems people 
>: don't want a debate. They want blood.

>Funny that. A call for a jihad against me seems to have turned against
>the person calling for it. Damn those pesky net people, they seem to be
>able to think for themselves!

>Dwayne.

Right, by whatever means, there seems to be two personal battles, neither
of which concern me, and I don't support either. I am sorry you feel so
wrongly done by Rosie, I sympathise with your "stuck" position as you see
it (being unable to call her a name because you think she will make it
into something it's not) but I don't want to know about your opinion of
her. No matter what you think of her, even if you are right, and 
especially if you are wrong, You cannot state as fact that she MAY NOT
feel oppressed in a sexist way. This has to be talked about. This has
happened. I am satisfied, but please don't tell me anything more about
Rosie or what wrong she has done you, I don't speak about the wrong 
Rosie thinks you have done her, despite what you think, I talk of her
right to say it, something that has been under fire.

End.
Engine.




>--


>-|-+-|-     r e t u r n     t o       t h e     s o u r c e     -|-+-|-
>                 internet: hiscdcj@lux.latrobe.edu.au
>-|-+-|-       OurAimIsWakefulnessOurEnemyIsDreamlessSleep       -|-+-|-

>looking for * permaculture * resources on the net. Mail me with URLs 

>NEXUS:.settling.the.electronic.frontier..     mail listserv@netcom.com
>http://www.latrobe.edu.au/nexus/              "subscribe nexus-gaia"