Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd!decwrl!decvax!cca!ima!ism780b!jim
From: jim@ism780b.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: disgusting!
Message-ID: <46@ism780b.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-Aug-84 00:25:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: ism780b.46
Posted: Wed Aug  8 00:25:53 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Aug-84 01:35:46 EDT
Lines: 45
Nf-ID: #R:decwrl:-259400:ism780b:28100008:000:2662
Nf-From: ism780b!jim    Jul 30 10:19:00 1984

> Perhaps one reason I react differently is because I've talked to Ms.
> Millines privately and I see more of her personality that most of the
> others.

Have you done the same for everyone else, including Alan?

> Rather than looking at her hostility and her 'attitude' as defined
> by TWO messages (a GREAT way to define a person. Let's take two random
> messages by anyone (myself included) and do a psychological study of them.
> How accurate would it be?) I took the time to writeto her and we talked a
> little bit. She happens to be a VERY interesting person when you attempt to
> relate to her as a human and not as a 'bigoted feminist lesbian' or
> whatever label they're placing on her this week.

I have never had any doubt that she is an interesting human being.
Do you think Alan ever had any doubt?  I have never labeled her as bfl or
anything else, nor has Alan.  He has repeatedly repeatedly repeatedly stated
that he was not talking about her personal traits but rather was responding to
her statement.  These are all strawmen, which you are using to reinforce your
blindness.  I refuse not to look at her hostility, *despite* the fact that she
is an interesting human being.  I am critical of the policies and attitudes of
various politicians, police, certain parties, people with religious and racial
prejudices, etc. *despite* the fact that they are all human beings like you
and me and most of them love and are loved by their families and friends.  You
are the bigot if you think that all people worthy of criticism are *not* very
interesting when related to as human beings.  That includes Alan and anyone
else you choose to criticize, and it also includes Trish.  Now tell me you
don't have a double standard.

> Remember that her two articles were FLAMES, folks. That implies a level of
> emotional agitation that doesn't neccessarily relate back to the person
> when they aren't flaming. You're just as likely to get a valid definition
> of a person's personality from net.flame. I'm not attempting to whitewash
> Trish's comments, she does believe and support them. What I'm saying is
> that people have overreacted to the emotional content in them rather than
> discussing and relating the words.

words: "most men", "asshole", "chauvinist".  People may have overreacted, but
it was to the words.  One year from now I will anonymously post a similar
message about women.  Can you honestly say you will react the same way you did
to Trish?  If you don't, and I point it out, will you reevaluate yourself?
Will you grow?  I hope so, and I think so.  But then, I was expecting it this
time.

-- Jim Balter, INTERACTIVE Systems (ima!jim)