NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/pnw/general/2795

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-18 | 3.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!nwnexus!ole!rwing!pat
From: [e-mail] (Pat Myrto)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Wanted: Post election comments on Prop. 9
Keywords: el-mundo-zurdo(Gloria Anzaldua),immediatism,anarchism,queers, feral-humans,freethinkers,[lL]ibertarians,gays-and-other-sex-radicals, strategy,tactics,intelligence,psy-ops,deception,disruption,memetics, screwing-things-up,aikido,entropy,doxies,o
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:07:25 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Totally Unorganized
Lines: 66

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Light) writes:
<In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat Myrto) writes:
<
<[arguments deleted about what constitutes a special right]
<
<>>The problem I see is that as more of us are threatened by a deteriorating
<>>society, some of us will believe that we are safer if society's resources
<>>aren't wasted protecting lesser citizens.  In fact, none of us is any
<>                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<>>safer that the least protected citizen.
<>
<>Freudian slip here?  'lesser' than you envision yourself, perhaps?
<
<I constructed that sentence with great care.  The clause in question starts

Uh-huh.  Great choice of words.  Hard to accept you might have some
warts in your belief structure, isn't it?

<with the phrase "some of us will believe".  The remainder of the clause is
<written from the perspective of the those who believe that way.  I am
<certainly not one of the people who believe that way, so you have no

Oh, of COURSE not!

<reason to infer that I see "lesser citizens".  My view follows and is
<carefully constructed (except for the typo) to say that I only see
<"less protected citizens", which certainly includes people you believe
<are getting "special rights".

Kinda defensive, aren't we?

<>I don't know for sure, but I would suspect that members of the groups
<>being discussed would be less than thrilled that you regard them as
<>'lesser citizens'.   It kind of gives credence to the idea that much of
<>the advocacy for special protective status arises from feelings of guilt
<>arising from ones own prejudices that one is trying to conceal by putting
<>it on everyone else.  Getting one to go along with what is really an
<>unfair practice by attaching guilt to those who oppose is hardly a new
<>tactic.  It would be very unfortunate if it worked as well as some wish
<>it would: one could silence all opposition simply by tossing a few
<>derrogatories around...
<
<What claptrap.  If you find my writing too hard to read, I can drop to
<a lower grade level with some effort.

Hmm.  Seems I have struck a nerve.

If all else fails, completely ignore points disagreed with by deleting
and not responding to them, and instead crank up the personal attacks...

What's good for the goose, etc ...

I don't see how you can consider yourself having a whole lot of room to
be so judgemental.  Its this very attitude you are displaying that
ENLARGES the problem rather than aid in the solution.

I presume you would like me to attend a 'political re-education'
camp so as to ensure future thoughts are 'correct' but please don't hold
your breath.  On second thought,  ...  :-)


--
[e-mail]                                  (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA
                      If all else fails, try:
         ...!uunet!{pilchuck, polari}!rwing!pat
WISDOM:    "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket"