edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (06/04/85)
> I had been saying that it doesn't make sense for a member of some group > to be proud of the accomplishments of other members of his/her/its > group. This was meant to apply, in full generality, to whites, blacks, > men, women, short people, liberals, and wombats. Here is how Ed Hall > chose to interpret what I was saying: > > > ...there are a couple of people who are making the outrageous and > >dangerous claims that: > > ... > > 2. It is wrong for women to be proud when they manage to overcome > > discrimination. > > ... > > The most obvious feature of this is the way Ed chose to take *one* > special implication of what I was saying and express it in isolation > from the others. Thus, anybody reading it without knowing what I > *really* said can leap to the wrong conclusion. > > Very well. I say you have deliberately taken some of my words out of > context and distorted them for the purpose of character assassination. > Now, get upset. > -- > David Canzi Gladly. Not only did I never mention you by name in the original article, I didn't even have you in mind. In case you didn't notice, there had been other people arguing the pride issue. But they've been quiet for almost a month now. (Don't ask me who--our news has a one-week expiration time.) Now it's my turn. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall