Subject:
|
Re: boulders on shoulders
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:19:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
924 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Katie Dokken writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> >
> > > As I interpreted it, and mind you it could be a case of snippage, she was
> > > responding to "A failing on minorities and women to understand the
> > > Libertarian message?". She seemed to be pointing out that she is a woman and
> > > does get the message. It just so happens that she has other things taking
> > > priority over an active role in the LP, some of them being sexual bias which
> > > is still common in todays American society.
>
> > You hit the nail on the head. I was trying to respond to the "a failing on
> > minorities and women to understand the Libertarian message."
>
> Katie, at the risk of enflaming your obvious passion on this issue, have
> you been reading Bruce's clarifications (and/or mine) of Bruce's original
> point?
You can clarify all you want, I've read them all. I think Katie raised a
valid point though.
> He's several times rephrased the original post, but it seems that
> you're irritated at a misreading of his message. Bruce did not say that
> women and minorities don't get the LP message. He's saying (and has said
> numerous times) that women and minorities *do* get the LP message, but they
> don't think it's convincing or viable.
> The tone of Bruce's post (to which
> you seem to take such exception) was ironic; he asked if women and
> minorities aren't a major part of the LP because they "don't get" the
> message, but the actual meaning (to even a casual, but thoughtful reading)
> was that women and minorities understand completely, and *that* is the
> reason, Bruce suggests, that women and minorities are represented in such
> limited numbers.
>
> Dave!
It may not be that it *isn't* convincing, or viable. It may just be that
women and minorities are too busy fighting other fires to participate. How
many times does that need to be clarified?
I think Katie just vented some pent-up frustration and unfortunately Bruce's
post was the catalyst.
-Duane
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: boulders on shoulders
|
| (...) By her own assertion, though, she "was trying to respond to the "a failing on minorities and women to understand the Libertarian message."" She's responding to a point that wasn't being asserted; in effect, she's having an argument with an (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: boulders on shoulders
|
| (...) Katie, at the risk of enflaming your obvious passion on this issue, have you been reading Bruce's clarifications (and/or mine) of Bruce's original point? He's several times rephrased the original post, but it seems that you're irritated at a (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
50 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
