Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdahl!apple!andyr From: andyr@apple.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.flame Subject: MES sticks both feet in mouth again (long) Message-ID: <6600@apple.UUCP> Date: Mon, 2-Nov-87 01:42:48 EST Article-I.D.: apple.6600 Posted: Mon Nov 2 01:42:48 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 3-Nov-87 01:16:54 EST Distribution: na Organization: Apple Computer, Inc., Cupertino, USA Lines: 216 Keywords: Mark E. Smith, foot, mouth, flames This is comming over from soc.women. And its long, so be warned. >In article <6568@apple.UUCP> andyr@apple.UUCP (Andy Rundquist) writes: >>> In article <3975@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> David Canzi writes: >>> >>>In article <5473@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, Mark Ethan Smith writes: >> >>> It should be noted, however, as longtime readers of this group >>> will recall from my earlier postings, that Judge Patel, all other >>> judges involved in the case, and the United States Attorney's >>> Office, along with the Department of the Navy, conceded my right >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> to equal, inclusive, nonsexual pronouns, as stipulated in the >>> contract under which I was employed and in the court rules. >> >>> Suffice it to say that I am accustomed to equal terms, have >>> successfully defended my right to equal terms in a United >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> States federal court, and I will continue to defend my right to >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> equal, inclusive terms. > >>How does your statement that you have "successfully defended my right to >>equal terms" come from what you have presented? As I see it, during your >>litigation, the parties involved may indeed have "conceded" to your >>position for whatever reasons, but no orders where entered; no precedent >>set or sited; in short, nothing that I can see as useable by another to >>aquire what you claim to have aquired. > >All I said was that I defended *my* rights, and since you have >quoted this as underlined and emphasized by the previous poster, >you should be able to read it. "My" is only a two-letter word. You, >like someone else before you, as Mike Robinson pointed out, are >taking a lot of trouble to try to clumsily refute a point that >was never made. I did not say others could use my case as a >precedent. Read the statements you have quoted several times >carefully, or have somebody read them to you, and you will see that >I never said anyone could use my case as a precedent. The point here is not if you said that your case could be used as precedent, but rather whether you were even successful at all. If you had been successful, then someone else could use your case as precedent. But the plain truth of the matter is that the case was dismissed. Period. By the way, how is asking a question and explaining my reason for asking attempting to refute your contention? Oh, I see. By not taking your contention as fact, by asking you to explain yourself, I am trying to refute your point. Good logic. Silly me. >>In fact, I really do not see that >>you aquired any such rights. The concesions that was made during your >>litigation appear to me to cary no weight in so far as no order was ever >>issued by the court. Would you please clarify this for me. I ask this >>not as an attempt to flame, but rather out of genuine interest. > >The courts conceded that I had already gained the right to equal >terms, and that this right, therefore, could not be legally taken >away from me. ... *ONLY* within the context of the case that was before the court. NO FURTHER!! Seeing as how your brain doesn't seem to comprehend this fact, let me see if I can spell this out for you in terms that somebody with limited mental powers (such as yourself) can understand. When the court and the other parties to your litigation did not challenge your contention during the case, they were saying nothing more than "We don't feel like fighting this at this time. It's really not related to the case and we don't want to waste our time with it." >... The right itself was granted by my Creator, not by >the courts. ... I'm not all that interested in getting into religion with you, so I'll skip this bit. > ... I understand that you, Bork, and probably Ginsburg, >along with Meese and Reagan, are upset with all Supreme Court >decisions beyond Dred Scott and would reverse them. You would ask >an escaped slave to show the paper where a slaveowner or court had >granted freedom, or be returned to slavery. Freedom is an inalienable >right granted by the Creator, that no court can take away. The >Constitution merely guarantees our inalienable rights. I'll get to this part in a monent. >I believe the case you need is Plessy vs. Ferguson, although I'm >not an attorney and I could be wrong. If I recall, the court ruled >that blacks who were segregated on railroad trains did not lose >any rights, since they had always been segregated on railroad trains. >Now take the case of a ligh-skinned black who had passed as white >and had been riding with the white folks on those trains for ten >years. The Ku Klux Klan comes along and tells everybody that this >person has a black grandmother. They then try to remove this person >from the white folks' car to the segregated Jim Crow car. This is >clearly a violation of rights once gained, since the person was already >accustomed to equal treatment. No court had granted that right, >but the right had been gained and was challenged due to a violation >of privacy. Similarly, in my case, I had gained the right to equal >terms, and had only to defend that right, not to have a right I >had already gained be "granted" to me by a court as if I did >not already have it. The government tried, while we were in court, >to take away my right, I explained to them the governing rules and >laws, and the circumstances, and they backed down and didn't try >it again. > >It happens, as I have already explained in more than one lengthy >posting, that my right to equal terms actually had been stipulated >in the contract under which I was employed. To answer your irrelevant >question, as I have said in another posting, now that people have >brought it up, women who find themselves working under contracts >that use inclusive terms, or in legal districts where the court >stipulate inclusive terms, can use such contracts, laws, or >court rules as precedents if they should wish the right to equal terms. >But that is beside the point. No, this is not beside the point. This *was* what I was trying to get at. However, I still don't see what you think has happened. Yes, it may indeed be that your contract had such a stipulation in it (I can't comment without seeing it). But, the terms of the contract only bind those who are a party to the contract. And then, only for the term of the contract. Oh, by the way, is your contention in the above paragraph that "women who find themselves working undercontracts that use inclusive terms, or in legal districts where the court stipulates inclusive terms, can use such contracts, laws, or court rules as precedents if they should wish the right to equal terms" based on any actual court rulings or is this just your opinion? To the best of my knowlege, court rules carry no wieght outside of the court whereas rulings do. And, as I have pointed out, contracts bind only the parties to the contract for the term of the contract. Granted, it is possible to write into a contract conditions that survive the term of the contract (such as non-disclosure), but you have *not* said that any such condition was written into your contract. Further, even if this was so, this does not bind any entity (person, corporation, etc) not a party to the contract. (Are you getting this Mark? Or should I try to use smaller words so that you can understand what I'm saying?) To put it another way: You haven't been successful at defending squat here. To think you have only goes to show the extreme limits of your mental powers. WAKE UP IDIOT! Oh, BTW, tell me what twisted logic (if you can call it that) you used to come to the conclusion that a question directly related to your article is "irrevelant"? >Take the case of a woman working at a traditionally male job. That >wooman has gained the right to equal work and equal pay. You may >not concede that this woman has this particular right, since no >court has formally granted it. If such a woman applies to your >company for work, and you have fewer than 15 employees, you can >refuse to hire a woman to do what you consider a job suitable only >for people with vulnerable testicles. As far as you are concerned, >no woman has the right to a job reserved only for a person with a >penis, so this woman does not have the right to the job. But since >this woman has already proved qualified at this job, should a company >with more than 15 employees refuse employment, they will be >liable for discrimination. You do not have to grant any woman the >right to do what you consider male work. Other, more civilized >and less bigoted people have, and that woman's rights are legally >gained and defensible in court. Obviously escaped slaves and >emancipated women have to watch out for people like you--bigots >who believe that rights are granted only by governments. Your summary >line said, "It's funny but I don't see it..." I suggest >you read our Declaration of Independence. Our rights are from >our Creator, not from our government. Our Constitution protects >our rights, but the right to life, and the right to equal treatment, >are inalienable gifts of our Creator who created us equal. "We >hold these truths to be self evident." You, apparently, do not. > >--Mark I'm going to halt the flame for just a moment (I *know* this is alt.flame, but I want to say something). Mark, I really do wish that you had indeed successfully defended your right as you claim to have. I would indeed to a precedent worth cheering. With that over with, here comes the balance of the flame. I really am impressed Mark. Really and truely. How you could learn so much about me from the posting of a single question (not even a complete original article) amazes me. Honest. It does. Enough sarcasm. Mark, you really have shown us all what a brain-dead twit you are. Rather than answer a simple question, you had to resort to personal attacks. Could it be that I am correct? Could it be that I showed you to be full of shit in front of the entire net. Is this why you had to come after me personally rather that answer a simple, sincere question? Are you getting this? No, probably not. I doubt that an angry, self-centered asshole such as yourself will listen to anyone except yourself. One last thing. Speaking of bigots Mark, could it perhaps be that you *yourself* are a really good example of a bigot? Could it be that your mind (what little of it there is) is so twisted that *anything* a man says is instantly wrong simply because the words came from a man? Think about it asshole. A. Rundquist _________________________________ Disclaimer: The opinions contained herein are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Apple Computer, Inc., its shareholders, management, or employees.