Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!dmcanzi
From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics
Subject: Re: Ed Hall speaks his mind.
Message-ID: <1441@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 31-May-85 01:05:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1441
Posted: Fri May 31 01:05:06 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 31-May-85 06:26:00 EDT
References: <385@ttidcc.UUCP> <305@mhuxr.UUCP> <327@h-sc1.UUCP> <2473@randvax.UUCP> <1377@watdcsu.UUCP> <2502@randvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 42
Xref: watmath net.women:5393 net.politics:9159
Summary: Very well, Ed, no pussyfooting, I'll call you a liar.

I had been saying that it doesn't make sense for a member of some group
to be proud of the accomplishments of other members of his/her/its
group.  This was meant to apply, in full generality, to whites, blacks,
men, women, short people, liberals, and wombats.  Here is how Ed Hall
chose to interpret what I was saying:

>    ...there are a couple of people who are making the outrageous and
>dangerous claims that:
>  ...
>  2. It is wrong for women to be proud when they manage to overcome
>     discrimination.
>  ...

The most obvious feature of this is the way Ed chose to take *one*
special implication of what I was saying and express it in isolation
from the others.  Thus, anybody reading it without knowing what I
*really* said can leap to the wrong conclusion.

The sentence is also ambiguous, as I've pointed out, and can be taken
to mean that an individual woman should not be proud when she manages
to overcome discrimination.  (Reread the sentence, just to check.) This
implication may not be deliberate, but I can't be sure.  And that is
what prompted me to say "be very careful what your statements imply, or
can be taken to imply, or you may move me to resentment", a statement
which Ed appeared to find puzzling.

Part of Ed Hall's response to my response follows:

>> Of course, if Ed was not referring to what I've been saying, then I
>> apologize for any nasty implications about his honesty that people
>> may mistakenly derive from the above.
>
>What??? I didn't even catch anything remotely like an accusation that
>I was dishonest.  I'd be upset if you had... 

Very well. I say you have deliberately taken some of my words out of
context and distorted them for the purpose of character assassination.
Now, get upset.
-- 
	David Canzi

"All in all you're just another prick in the stall." -- men's room graffiti