Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.13 $; site uiucdcs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!stank
From: stank@uiucdcs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Trish's ORIGINAL statement - (nf)
Message-ID: <31600079@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Jul-84 16:33:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.31600079
Posted: Wed Jul 11 16:33:00 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Jul-84 23:48:10 EDT
References: <8299@watmath.UUCP>
Lines: 23
Nf-ID: #R:watmath:-829900:uiucdcs:31600079:000:1015
Nf-From: uiucdcs!stank    Jul 11 15:33:00 1984

#R:watmath:-829900:uiucdcs:31600079:000:1015
uiucdcs!stank    Jul 11 15:33:00 1984

<>

The defense here is pretty silly.  In some contexts "I think that..."
is short for "I think that..., but I'm not sure": e.g., "I think
that its still raining".  However, it is quite common to say "I think
that ..." to mean "I assert that ...".  In the case of the attack
of 999 out of 1000 straight men, it is clear that the stronger meaning
of "I think" was intended. Indeed, if the original authoress did not
actually wish to assert the truth of her statement, why did 
she bother posting it to the network??

Now about the "thought crimes" issue:  no one is suggesting that force
be used to make someone think like everyone else.  However, in a
rational society, a person, who makes her/his thoughts public, makes
those thoughts a subject for discussion.  We are obligated to allow
this person to HAVE these thoughts, but we are NOT obligated to meekly
sit back and listen to their promulgation.

                                     S. Krolikoski
                                     U. of Illinois at U-C