Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhall
From: edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics
Subject: Re: Ed Hall clarifies
Message-ID: <2524@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Jun-85 13:51:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: randvax.2524
Posted: Tue Jun  4 13:51:15 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Jun-85 21:03:54 EDT
References: <385@ttidcc.UUCP> <305@mhuxr.UUCP> <327@h-sc1.UUCP>
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 34
Xref: watmath net.women:5657 net.politics:9344

> 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.
> 
> 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

Gladly.  Not only did I never mention you by name in the original article,
I didn't even have you in mind.  In case you didn't notice, there had
been other people arguing the pride issue.  But they've been quiet for
almost a month now.  (Don't ask me who--our news has a one-week expiration
time.)

Now it's my turn.

		-Ed Hall
		decvax!randvax!edhall