Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tekecs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!tekecs!jeffw From: jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) Newsgroups: net.flame,net.women Subject: Re: Re: Re: Women and the consumption of toilet paper. Message-ID: <5454@tekecs.UUCP> Date: Sat, 15-Jun-85 19:11:27 EDT Article-I.D.: tekecs.5454 Posted: Sat Jun 15 19:11:27 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 17-Jun-85 04:10:07 EDT References: <302@sdcc12.UUCP> <2484@randvax.UUCP> <921@mnetor.UUCP> <1850@ukma.UUCP> <486@rtech.UUCP> Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR Lines: 24 Xref: watmath net.flame:10580 net.women:5854 > > In article <921@mnetor.UUCP> sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) writes: > > >Maybe I should speak for myself here. What actually happened was that I > > >originally meant to be kidding in my original posting. I also wanted to > > >be slightly insulting, and thought that this was acceptable given that > > >1/ the discussion was conducted in net.flame, where logic and civility > > >are outlawed anyway, 2/ the original discussion was insulting to women, > > >and what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. > > > > Now you have a change of face. Now you claim that you are kidding. Why? > > Perhaps you know when you are beaten and can't logically argue your way > > out of it, so you claim you were kidding. As for the original discussion > > being insulting to women, "two wrongs don't make it right". If you felt > > that you were insulted, your best defense you have been to argue your way > > out of it, instead of using the same techniques. This only displays > > hypocracy, where you feel that something is bad, and yet do it in turn. > > OH FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!! *I* knew it was a joke! Too bad some people have > no sense of humor. I'LL SECOND THAT!!! Must be something in my name, I know... > Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) Jeff Winslow