Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site allegra.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alan
From: alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Et tu, Chuq?
Message-ID: <2606@allegra.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 15-Jul-84 20:17:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: allegra.2606
Posted: Sun Jul 15 20:17:50 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 16-Jul-84 00:03:21 EDT
References: <2596@allegra.UUCP>, <1188@nsc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 24

> My comments were because I felt that the attacks were aimed at Trish
> personally, not on her comments and her ideas. If the flames had been
> limited to what she had said I might have felt differently, but attacking
> the person in an attempt to invalidate her comments bothered me.

Chuq, I think you side-stepped my question.  I didn't ask why you
criticized me, I asked why you have been inconsistent in choosing
who to criticise.

Now, I know what you think I'm "guilty" of.  My question is, why
the double standard in "sentencing"?  It reminds me of our legal
system, where members of minorities tend to get longer sentences
for the same crime.  The discrimination seems to be in the other
direction, though.  Is it the desire to side with the under dog?
(Uh-oh.  I'm walking on shells, here.  I bet I'll get flamed.)

We've come full circle.  My position hasn't changed.  Let's drop
all this crap and start treating individuals as individuals.

-- 

	Alan ("Controversial") Driscoll
	AT&T Bell Laboratories