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