 | | Re: ICLTC —Kevin Wilson
|
| | | Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) What he said. The organisation is a great idea, but I'd rather see Congress than Brotherhood. Why be gratuitously exclusive when it's not necessary? Does this include clubs which don't call themselves LTC's but (...) (23 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: ICLTC —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) He didn't say anything. (...) The BLE has female members. Further, clubs don't even HAVE a gender, it's a brotherhood of CLUBS not of club members. Why be gratuitiously PC when it's not necessary? ++Lar (23 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: ICLTC —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) If you read between the lines, I most certainly did. (...) Regardless of being or not being PC, I think it's a sexist, stupid name. --Todd (23 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: ICLTC —Eric Kingsley
|
| | | | | | (...) I think this is one of those cases where the few outway the many... If some people think the name is sexist and stupid (I do as well) then I don't think we should use it. Being traditional doesn't make it right, besides to many people wouldn't (...) (23 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: ICLTC —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Well said, Eric! And I couldn't agree more. I was written privately by someone who was concerned that I was butting into a conversation which I had no business butting into. But since it was taking place (in part) in lugnet.org.us.nelug and (...) (23 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: ICLTC —Eric Kingsley
|
| | | | | | (...) Well I think you have a right to "butt into" any conversation you want. LUGNET is your baby after all. I think anyone suggesting someone should butt out of a conversation on LUGNET is rude and uncalled for. (...) Well that was partially my (...) (23 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: ICLTC —John Kelly
|
| | | | | | ...snip... (...) ...more sinpage... Absolutely. Last time I checked this was your site. I guess I'm a little confused by this. Why is what we're getting paid from GATs a secret in the first place? I have to admit that I have no idea what we get from (...) (23 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: ICLTC —Kevin Wilson
|
| | | | Larry Pieniazek wrote in message ... (...) this (...) See Todd's reply. (...) I could have worded this better. I know no-one wants to exclude women from the organisation. What I meant was, why use exclusive language when it's not necessary. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
|
| | | | |
