To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.trains.orgOpen lugnet.trains.org in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Trains / Train Organizations / 1178
1177  |  1179
Subject: 
Re: ICLTC
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.trains.org
Date: 
Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:15:53 GMT
Viewed: 
698 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR