Subject:
|
Re: ICLTC
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains.org
|
Date:
|
Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:15:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3882 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains.org, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.trains.org, Eric Kingsley writes:
> > In lugnet.trains.org, Todd Lehman writes:
> > > 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 any 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
>
> 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.
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.
> But since it was taking place (in part) in
> lugnet.org.us.nelug and I'm a NELUG member, it became my business to that
> extent.
Well that was partially my fault :-(. I did that to bring the tread to the
attention of NELUGer's, I didn't expect my post to become the primary
sub-thread of the discussion so I didn't set follow-ups correctly. I won't
make that mistake again :-).
> I would be ashamed to belong to an organization with a name
> containing the word "brotherhood" if that organization was not a male-only
> organization, and I would be even more ashamed to see LUGNET's discussion
> groups used as a venue for discussing the organizing of a group under that
> name. I'm sensitive about sexist stuff (intentional or unintentional) and
> I don't like rationalizations. That's my own personal feelings. Somebody's
> gotta stand up and point out what a ridiculous and unnecessarily sexist name
> it would be if women were allowed in. (Note: I don't think it would be
> sexist at all if women weren't allowed in, but I'm not suggesting that be
> the case! :-)
Yah it basically comes down to why be controversial when it isn't necessary.
Eric Kingsley
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: ICLTC
|
| ...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 (...) (26 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (26 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
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
|
|
|
|
