 | | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) My opinion on this issue is similar to mine on other issues regarding the personal goings-on of one's life (e.g., what kind of substances one uses, whether a person feels it's time to leave this earth, what one does with one's own reproductive (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) It certainly provides extra benefit to one sex (or both, if men get paid more because of it). Is that bad? I guess I think it's not ideal. (...) I don't think so. I can't pinpoint the differences, but it seems to me that men and women think (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
This is a non-issue if we pay workers for the work they do - not the time they spend at work. If we don't do this (it is not always possible), but give women 10% of the time off work, then it makes employers (esp. small ones) less likely to employ (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Well, depends how you define sexist, I guess :) Does it make sense? Sure. Is the impulse for you to suggest such a thing solely based on the fact that you personally (and women in general) would "benefit" from it (actually, as you implied, it (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Is this sexism?
|
|
I'll try not to make this a long ramble, but a short and to-the-point suggestion, and a few questions. I think that companies should give women a day (possibly two) sick days off per month to deal with the physical symptoms of their menstrual cycle. (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | What the heck?
|
|
Lugnet said I was not allowed to post to lugnet.general in an earlier post. Someone please explain to me how I would not be allowed to post to lugnet.general? Here is the infamous red words you get when you screw up... Results: Your message was not (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) Hehe. Good. I like you better this way! (From your .debate posts I barely recognize the funny guy I met at Brickfest last year! It took me awhile to convince myself I was not mistaken and it was the same person. You're usually so serious (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
Thanks for the response Shiri, I was begining to worry that my poor behavior had actually run everyone off from the topic. That, I think, would be an embarrassing first. I'll be disagreeing more politely now. :-) (...) In as much as you are (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) Heehee - for a second there I thought you were saying that just coz *I* was popular doesn't mean I'm right. ROFL! OK, let me give a few examples, since it *is* a grey area, as Dave correctly pointed out (and you seemed to agree). I'm claiming (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNET as an "Adult" site
|
|
(...) Seems a bit suss, although of course people can change over time. I had a go at the jal-baiting, failing to follow my own advice at (URL) : (...) IMHO the best response is to deal with them on their own terms. Leaving them alone is probably (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Some Lego buying stats
|
|
(...) My sister lives in a two bedroom two bath apartment in Santa Monica, probably considered a desirable neighborhood (whenever you see a Southern California street lined with those tall skinny palm trees in a movie, chances are good it is her (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Suddenly Chris makes it personal (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) to (...) time. (...) If he had been so severe that I thought the other children needed their rights protected, I would have done so. In the instance that I'm thinking of, that wasn't the case. He wasn't bein egregiously abusive, he just wasn't (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Suddenly Chris makes it personal (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) And in the meantime everyone ELSE has to put up with your child being a brat? You disgust me. You're one of the people that lets their children run rampant over everyone else, letting them "learn", and then "discuss" it with them afterwards. (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
(...) But not unreasonable. Sure, some others may miss out on stuff of interest, but I don't think that makes it any less reasonable. (...) Thats a sweeping statement, and not always true. Sometimes continuing a conversation privately *can* bring (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
(...) Sure. Let me clarify the above. If we consider a spectrum of discourse from perfectly normal well intentioned fact and issue centric debate at one end, on through somewhat worse all the way to vitriolic insult orient fact free flamage at the (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Suddenly Chris makes it personal (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) (And (...) I can see what you're saying, but that wasn't my intent. I would be satisfied to discuss the results of her (or your) attempt to codify (even with the understanding that the edges are hazy) what "too much," "too little," and (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Suddenly Chris makes it personal (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) You're creating a false dichotomy; by forcing Shiri to assert a hard line of distinction--knowing that such a hard line is by its nature impossible--you are attempting to say that no distinction can exist between "too much," "too little," and (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) I do agree that as much as possible the "punishment" (consequences) should be related to the "crime". The consequences for mouthing off could result in no TV for the day if the consequence is actually "since you refuse to be civil today, you (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) Why is there a limit? What is it? What is it based on? You go on to say some pretty commonly accepted stuff, but I'm not infering what this limit is. (And simply by being popular, doesn't make it right.) (...) It sounds like you think I'm (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is it.....?
|
|
(...) Hmm.... I guess it depends on the contest. I mean, take the following three examples: 1) The Lottery. This is self evident-Winning is the only thing that matters. If you don't win, you don't get nay feeling of satisfaction or (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
(...) Well, would saying that mean that we would advocate keeping it public? I wouldn't. I'd just advocate dropping it, not spreading it into the public domain. (...) Again, are you suggesting that keeping it public would be better than keeping it (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
(...) Aint diversity wonderful? 8?) (...) Are you disappointed because you didn't get the answer you expected? Or just surprised? (...) Um, careful with the out-of-context quotes, Larry. I said "always a reasonable course of action". I then went on (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
I think we have discussed this before(?). I remember thinking that we are constrained by the attributes assigned to the "partisan" in the final para on this page: (URL) do not think the text I quote answers you question, because I doubt there (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nothing personal, but...
|
|
(...) Moulton (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nothing personal, but...
|
|
(...) It is the source of the collberation data I am taliking about. I have said this so may times, I fail to see how you could have missed this. Anyhow, I am actually fed up with all this now as it is clear to me that Larry is unwilling to justify (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
Some good discussion but nobody answered this question the way I expected, perhaps because I was a bit too subtle in trying hard to disengage from a particular situation (and Tim, you get marked down because you didn't stay general... :-) ) (...) I (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
(...) I think I know the post to which you are referring, and it was so well crafted that I doubt the moron in question will even understand he has been dissed (rather severely for that matter). Anyways, I don't think its right to ostracise a moron. (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
(...) A large part of it seems to be the public performance -- if the only people who can see it are you and the person you're insulting, what's the point? But if you're caught in a cockfight it can be hard to back down without looking weaker, even (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
(...) Hmmmm. I guess that doesn't really answer the question, does it? But following on from what I said I guess when the negative feeling generated by a discussion out-weighs any positive interest, it's time to start thinking about going elsewhere. (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
(...) Interesting topic. I'd say there are a couple reasons to both keep it online and to take it offline. The reason to keep it online is it's a newsgroup. As long as the topic pertains to the newsgroup, it MAY be of public interest to someone now (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GFB6DI.KC7@lugnet.com... (...) of (...) that (...) is (...) how (...) I think it ALWAYS a reasonable course of action. That doesn't necessarily make it correct. But I think anything (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
"Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message news:GFBCqy.Dw1@lugnet.com... (...) that (...) is (...) how (...) the (...) this (...) their (...) your (...) I think you should also start thinking even more carefully when others start emailing (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
(...) Ok. (...) :) (...) Well, ask yourself: Does my post, or my argument with this person, needlessly take away from the enjoyment of other users? Is this debate unnecessarily flooding the group? How many people am I currently engaged in argument (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) It was 101 for me!... Two years ago for me. Which is prolly why I remember better. ;-) -Shiri (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
|
(...) I would like to dig into this notion a bit more. I think there are situations where it is flatly incorrect to advocate this. I want to stay out of the particular situation that provoked the request and not use it as an example, but I would (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Privatised endangered species
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote: <snipped a good reference that i'll read on my next trip to the public library> Part of today's" Diane Rehm show" on NPR focused on the conservation of Monarch Butterflies that I brought up in the same thread. I wasn't (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) Ignore all the rubbish I wrote above I've now totally changed my mind. Steve (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is it.....?
|
|
It's the cheese. (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) Ah, well. The point remains the same. Let me amend by statement thus: "It was too vague a punishment to have any lasting effect, even in terms of the removal of an desirable stimulus, to wit, dinner." And, anyway, it wasn't Psych 101--it was (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Child rearing (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
|
(...) Surely the term Violence only covers actions that are meant to cause injury, permanent or otherwise. I'd be the last person to assult or injure a child, I just think with the undeveloped mind of a child sometimes a smack is probably the only (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
