I reading your last few messages I must say in my experience with newgroups
and list servs there are different patterns of discourse. The rhetorical
style of taking apart one's argument as below is better reserved to the
news group style of discourse.
"Dr. Mary Bryson's message implied that the BC action occurred in an
"anti-affirmative action" climate, that BC seized upon this climate to
carry out pest control."
In constrast, a list serv style of discourse would be based on the
assumption of agreeing to disagree such as follows,
"My own experience of a university-sponsored lynching would lead me to
focus on the "target" - a feminist doing her messy feminist thing in very
anti-feminist anti-affirmative action backlash times".
While your messages are entertaining in a cross fire type of way, in my
"humble" opinion they are inappropriate for a community such as XCMA that
is based on embracing an atmosphere of community where diverse ideas can be
expressed. I do not think your past messages embrace that ideal, but
rather serve to cut off dialougue which is needed when discussing sensitive
issues such as these.
At times, I search out certain newsgroups for the "high" of those types of
provacative types of arguments (College Republicans for example, I love
messing with their heads) but that type of discourse does not seem
beneficial when attempting to create a community such as XCMA. Below is
the mail archive which may be useful.
XCMA Mail Archive
http://communication.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/index.html
Nate
---- Original Message -----
From: Paul Dillon <dillonph who-is-at northcoast.com>
To: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 1999 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: academic freedom
> Dr. Mary Bryson's message implied that the BC action occurred in an
> "anti-affirmative action" climate, that BC seized upon this climate to
carry
> out pest control. I'm confused. Mary Daly was engaged in an
> anti-affirmative action teaching practice by definition and law. The
only
> difference being that the persons being discriminated against in this
case
> happened to be male and not the other way around. But the definition
> doesn't specify equal access for females or any other particular group;
to
> the contrary, it specifies that no particular group shall be the basis
for
> exclusion.
>
> The law specifically doesn't protect the rights of any -ism but rather
> groups of individuals defined on the basis of a variety of cultural and
> genetic properties.
>
> Isn't the logic of claiming that BC's action partakes of (an by inference
> thereby is a part of) an anti-affirmative action climate a prime example
of
> what George Orwell termed "double-think"?
>
> Paul H. Dillon
>
>