🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <cjmount.783652206@extro>, Christopher Mountford (cjmount@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU) wrote:
 > larryc@teleport.com (Larry Caldwell) writes:

 > >Second, the content of the letter was not particularly abusive, the 
 > >writer did not call her names or attack her, and she was given full 
 > >opportunity to defend her views if she wished.  

 > We are not talking about abusive content. We are talking about 
 > abusive context. How can she defend her views to people who wont
 > take her seriously?

You want to talk about context?  Well hear this:  Rosie's message was
out of the context of this forum, which would go a good way towards
explaining why she isn't being taken seriously.  aus.org.efa is a newsgroup
for discussing legal issues of electronic communications -- Should we
take her seriously?  alt.cyberpunk is about "alternative" new philosophies
taking advantage of technology -- Should they take her seriously?
alt.feminism is about pushing the feminist cause, and we've seen precious
little feminist input (perhaps they're too clever to get involved in these
sorts of fart-in-the-breeze style flamewars, or maybe they just know who
Rosie is and why she's getting so much flak).

It's obvious that you're taking her seriously, but the way you're expressing
that seriousness is by attacking posters who really couldn't give a flying
fuck one way or the other, ie:  readers in every newsgroup on the
Newsgroups: line except your own.

If you, Rosie, or anyone else has a bone to pick, choose the right forum
otherwise you'll be stonewalled.  Christ, I'm flabbergasted at the thought
that you expected anything more than that!


 > You dismiss her as a whiner.

Yup, bingo.

 > That's convenient

I don't care.

 > You just repeat the accepted dogma.

Rubbish, tripe and hogwash:  I'm putting forward my personal opinion.
I'm insulted by the way you seem to think that nobody participating in
this so-called "debate" is capable of independent thought, and that we're
all just trotting out the "dogma" extolled by some mythical cabal.

I have news for you, spotty:  Some people who have experience with Rosie's
blatherings have a genuine dislike for them, and that has sweet fuck-all
to do with sexism, dogma or control-freakery.  That's just life, deal with
it.

 > She is trying to address that and it's a pity
 > you wont accept the possible legitimacy of her agenda.

Why should I care a whit about her agenda?  Why should anyone?  It's her
bloody agenda, let her worry about it.

   - mark

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I tried an internal modem,                newton@cleese.apana.org.au
     but it hurt when I walked.                          Mark Newton
----- Voice: +61-8-3735575 --------------- Data: +61-8-3736006 -----