Subject:
|
Re: ICLTC
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains.org
|
Date:
|
Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:17:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
672 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains.org, Todd Lehman writes:
>
> > > The organisation is a great idea, but I'd rather see Congress
> > > than Brotherhood. Why be gratuitously exclusive when it's not necessary?
> >
> > 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?
>
> Regardless of being or not being PC, I think it's a sexist, stupid name.
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 know it was traditional and would/could be offended. Why
have a name we constantly have to defend if we can give ourselves a name that
is both meaningful and not controversial.
Again I vote for IOLTC...
Just my $.02
Eric Kingsley
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: ICLTC
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
49 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
|
|
|
|
