Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site unmvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!unmvax!cliff
From: cliff@unmvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Re: In defense of Jeff S. in net.women.o
Message-ID: <562@unmvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Dec-84 23:30:39 EST
Article-I.D.: unmvax.562
Posted: Mon Dec 24 23:30:39 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Dec-84 03:09:48 EST
References: <637@bunker.UUCP> <8200053@acf4.UUCP>
Organization: Univ. of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Lines: 119

> > No.  I am against the idea of many things, but few are worth the trouble
> > it would take to dismantle them.
> 
> Oh...I see.... You'd rather just bitch about it...and you talk about me
> being a "wimp":

I was not bitching about net.women.only!  I was bitching about your assinine
"well, that is the rule, so it must be abided" attitude!  I suspect I see
your difficulty and I will elaborate on it further down in this followup.

> >                  My comment wasn't a flame at the women; it was a
> > flame at YOU for your wimpy "well, that is the rule, so it must be abided"
> > attitude.

Isn't it interesting that you cut out the part where you tell me to use
net.flame and I point out that the message IS posted in net.flame...  Why
admit to an error that you can carefully edit out?

> As long as it is the rule, then you SHOULD abide by it.  I don't know 
> what your backround is, cliff.  My backround involved demonstrating
> and working very hard to change some of the rules of society that I didn't
> like.

What do you want to know about my background?  I'm a shiftless sophist that
has never done a full days work.  I hope that other people will continue
to do all my work for me so I can sit back in my easy chair and keep these
followups coming.  Is that what you expected me to say?  My background still
involves demonstrating.  I havn't been in a position of serious civil
disobedience since I racked up several Class B Felonies for encouraging people
not to register for the draft.  I wasn't arrested, but I did break the law.
In many countries demonstrating itself is against the law, in fact that is
how it was in the 50's and still is some circumstances in this very country.

> And I found that by merely breaking those rules, little was
> accomplished.  There is a rule (call it a 'law' if you wish) regarding a
> specific net group that is for women only.  And I feel that it is our
> obligation as members and contributers to the net to abide by this rule.
> If you don't like it, then change it.  But don't wimp out as you accuse me
> of doing.  I was following what I consider to be a matter of integrity.
> Being that you certainly don't have any, you might consider that wimpish.

I guess you have never heard of civil disobedience, much less the famous
sit ins of the 50's.  Maybe I should have explicitly mentioned Martin Luther
King so at least you would recognize the name and then trot off to your local
high school and refresh your history a little bit.  MLK was arrested for
holding marches (i.e. demonstrations) where it wasn't permitted.  He was not
abiding by the current rules.  I applaud his action--I don't think he should
have abided by those laws.  Civil disobedience is an american legacy from
before Thoreau to King and beyond.  I guess since it is obvious that you didn't
know what you were talking about I should give you a chance to either

	1) Pull a Rossane Rossanadana and say "never mind"

		or

	2) Publicly announce your distaste for civil disobedience

> > Get it Ross?  It's not Jeff that I am objecting to, nor the proponents of
> > net.women.only.  I am objecting to the reasoning that "he knew that he
> > didn't belong there.  We all know he did not belong there.  But there he
> > was, typing away."  How are you to know whether he did or did not know that
> > he "didn't belong there?"
> 
> Because, unlike you, Jeff has usually written some intelligent (and a 
> bit confused) commentary.  And has been on the net long enough to know.
> And this discussion took place about six months ago. And .... well, even
> you probably get the point...

Yes, I get the point.  You like to jump to conclusions and are so arrogant that
you actually believe that you know what another person is thinking.

> > Now I don't know exactly why he posted there; he didn't appear to be trying
> > to stir up trouble, but if he was trying to stir up trouble because he thought
> > that the segregation was morally reprehensible then he might very well
> > have had "a place in there."
> 
> Hmmmm. maybe you didn't get the point. All right: I'll use small words.
> It doesn't matter what Jeff was trying to do or not do in net.women.only.
> And it doesn't matter how he feels about the group. The only thing that
> matters is that he posted to a group that he shouldn't have.

Yes, it does matter why someone breaks a rule.  If a person lies down in the
middle of a road where it is prohibited to do so he is breaking a rule.
If this person is lying down because he has seen no sign prohibiting it and
noone has told him not to then his breaking of the law is not deliberate; it
is an act of ignorance.  If a person lies down on a road with intent to stop
the vehicle that will be carrying arms to some despot then the law breaking is
a deliberate act of civil disobedience; if he is on the road in hopes that
future travellers will stop to offer him assistance and he can then catch them
by surprise and mug them then he is deliberately not abiding the rule for
personal gain.  The judicial system of this country recognizes such differences
and for this reason judges are allowed considerable slack in prescribing
a convict's sentence.  There are many other examples of where intent is
taken into consideration before sentencing, flaming etc., however if you
can't see how this applies it is unlikely that you will see how any of the
other examples apply.

In summary:  If Jeff's letter was an attempt to rectify a situation that was
morally reprehensible then it had it's place in there.  By Jeff's own admission
(I can't profess to be able to read his mind) it wasn't, but your attitude
"As long as it is the rule, then you SHOULD abide by it." is spineless and
leads to blindly following unjust laws/rules.  Your denial of the importance of
intent when judging a person's actions is most likely either not well thought
out or hypocritical.  I doubt that you are actually as blind as you profess to
be.

> Now do you get the point?? Hopefully....this discussion has gone on far
> too long....
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Ross M. Greenberg  @ NYU   ----> { allegra,ihnp4 }!cmcl2!acf4!greenber  <----

I get the point.  You impress me.

	--Cliff [Matthews]
	{purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff
	{csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff
	4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque  NM  87108 - (505) 265-9143