Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/28/84; site lll-crg.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!muffy
From: muffy@lll-crg.ARPA (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.women
Subject: Re: Discrimination and affirmative action
Message-ID: <656@lll-crg.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 23-Jun-85 15:39:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: lll-crg.656
Posted: Sun Jun 23 15:39:48 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Jun-85 05:21:25 EDT
References: <468@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <196@kontron.UUCP> <318@spar.UUCP> <252@kontron.UUCP>
Reply-To: muffy@lll-crg.UUCP (Muffy Barkocy)
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Labs, CRG group
Lines: 20
Xref: watmath net.politics:9562 net.women:6057

In article <252@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>     who are OVERPRIVILEGED.
>> 
>> -michael
>
>Could you define "overprivileged"?  Don't you just mean, someone who
>has more than I think they should have?


Actually, people should be careful of this word, "overprivileged."  It
implies that someone has "too much privilege," which further implies
that there is some quantity of privilege which is *not* too much, and
this quantity may be non-zero.  Now, "privilege" generally means that
someone is allowed or given something that someone else, or many other
people don't have, so this word *could* mean that it is okay for some
people to have things or rights that other people don't.  I suspect
that the intent was just to make the word seem even more forceful:
"he's not just privileged, he's OVERPRIVILEGED."

                  Muffy