Can't... help... myself...
| -Original Message-
| From: Jonathan Walther [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 5:31 PM
| To: debian-project@lists.debian.org
| Subject: Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
|
|
| On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:58:55PM
> To say that is to fly in the face of our entire legal infrastructure.
> Qui tacet consentit means "Silence gives consent" or some such. He was
> "silent", ie, having no reply to my final post, implying he has no
> response to counter with. His silence implies he recognizes I am
> correct.
He h
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:58:55PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:11:06PM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
To say that is to fly in the face of our entire legal infrastructure.
Qui tacet consentit means "Silence gives consent" or some such. He was
"silent", ie, having no r
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:11:06PM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> To say that is to fly in the face of our entire legal infrastructure.
> Qui tacet consentit means "Silence gives consent" or some such. He was
> "silent", ie, having no reply to my final post, implying he has no
> response to coun
Jonathan Walther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To say that is to fly in the face of our entire legal infrastructure.
> Qui tacet consentit means "Silence gives consent" or some such. He was
> "silent", ie, having no reply to my final post, implying he has no
> response to counter with. His silen
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:09:27AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi, Jonathan Walther wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:37:47AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
EOT. *plonk*
I guess that means you concede my point. Thanks for reading.
*ROTLF* No, it means that _you_ concede the point, excep
Hi, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> It's called "reductio ad absurdum". [...] it's a classic and
> fairly graphic proof method.
Thanks for clarifying. (I'm rather bad at recognizing rhetorics in English.)
--
Matthias Urlichs
Hi, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:37:47AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>>EOT. *plonk*
>
> I guess that means you concede my point. Thanks for reading.
>
*ROTLF* No, it means that _you_ concede the point, except that you don't
even realize it.
--
Matthias Urlichs
Hi, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> The only problem is people having thin skins. To function in ANY group
> setting, one needs a thick skin, and a vigorous will to defend oneself.
Sorry, but I disagree, vigorously in fact.
My experience says that there are enough groups out there where personal
atta
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:37:47AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
EOT. *plonk*
I guess that means you concede my point. Thanks for reading.
Jonathan
--
Address: 13685 Hilton Road, Surrey, BC V3R5J8 (Canada)
Contact: 604-951-4142 (between 7am and 10pm, PST)
Website: http://reactor-core.org
s
EOT. *plonk*
--
- mdz
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 10:26:54AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
I don't see the point of your ongoing uterine fixation in this discussion.
It doesn't seem to support your argument. "Women bear children, and men do
not, and therefore I am paying them a favour in treating them as
intellectually an
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 10:03:42AM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:38:31AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >>On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:06:32PM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> >>To the contrary, it is equalitarians that treat people inhumanely;
> >>expecting too much of
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:38:31AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:06:32PM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
To the contrary, it is equalitarians that treat people inhumanely;
expecting too much of some, and denigrating the abilities of others. Do
you expect a man to bear ch
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:14:48AM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:06:32PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:05:54PM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> >>Gentlemen treat women with greater gentleness and with less
> >>expectation than they do thei
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:43:59PM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> I'd take a bullet for my wife, my mother, my sisters, but never for
> a feminist.
Just in case there is a misunderstanding here, this is what dict-wn
has to say about feminism:
feminist
adj : of or relating to or advocating
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:37:54AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
Gentlemen treat women with greater gentleness and with less
expectation than they do their fellow men. A gentleman, for
instance, would not think to lift a fellow man over a rain puddle,
but would instantly offer such assistance to
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 07:10:54AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> >> I can demonstrate evidence that I'm not a gerbil quite handily.
> >
> > No you can't, because you're a gerbil and gerbils can't form rational
> > arguments. It is logically impossible for you to
[Jonathan Walther]
> Gentlemen treat women with greater gentleness and with less
> expectation than they do their fellow men. A gentleman, for
> instance, would not think to lift a fellow man over a rain puddle,
> but would instantly offer such assistance to a lady.
I know it has not escaped you
Jonathan Walther wrote:
> >... towards *everybody*, not just towards women.
> >
> >Which is exactly her point.
>
> Gentlemen treat women with greater gentleness and with less expectation
> than they do their fellow men. A gentleman, for instance, would not
> think to lift a fellow man over a rain
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:06:32PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:05:54PM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
Gentlemen treat women with greater gentleness and with less
expectation than they do their fellow men. A gentleman, for
instance, would not think to lift a fellow ma
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:05:54PM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> Gentlemen treat women with greater gentleness and with less expectation
> than they do their fellow men. A gentleman, for instance, would not
> think to lift a fellow man over a rain puddle, but would instantly offer
> such assis
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 07:04:58AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
People cannot usefully participate in a debate unless they grow a
skin, or while they are emotionally attached to an argument.
True, assuming ...
Providing
crutches for them will only make things worse.
... that it's an argum
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 07:19:02AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
1. Don't pander to us just because we're women.
Why not? There are standards of civility, and those standards include
acting like a gentleman.
... towards *everybody*, not just towards women.
Which is exactly her point.
Gen
Hi, Jonathan Walther wrote:
>>1. Don't pander to us just because we're women.
>
> Why not? There are standards of civility, and those standards include
> acting like a gentleman.
... towards *everybody*, not just towards women.
Which is exactly her point.
--
Matthias Urlichs
Hi, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> I can demonstrate evidence that I'm not a gerbil quite handily.
>
> No you can't, because you're a gerbil and gerbils can't form rational
> arguments. It is logically impossible for you to disprove this,
> because your burden-of-proof notion is backwards (in formal l
Hi, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 02:39:17PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>> With our underlying culture, I'm not sure if any attempts to change us will
>> truly ever succeed in making us the caring, sharing, non-confrontational
>> group that will make every person happy to work
Hi, Craig Sanders wrote:
> ditto for meek vs non-meek people. it is wrong to expect or demand that
> non-meek people behave timidly and fearfully just to cater to the needs of the
> meek.
Did anybody actually ask for that? I don't recall any mails to that
effect.
On the other hand? is it wrong
On 2004-03-09 22:48:49 + Jonathan Walther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 01:10:28PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Certainly, the kind of harrassment documented here:
http://www.p12n.org/misc/sexism/
is not something that I would consider acceptable
I am glad you posted
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 01:10:28PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Certainly, the kind of harrassment documented here:
http://www.p12n.org/misc/sexism/
is not something that I would consider acceptable
I am glad you posted those logs. Now I see I was right, this whole
thing is blown way out of
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 20:14:20 +
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Jonathan Walther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-09 12:03]:
> > If it is the flirtation that is the problem, and the problems do not
> > go beyond that to the extend of persistent harassment, then the
> > solution is sim
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:03:36PM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 10:44:24AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 01:46:13AM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:26:47AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> >>>Jonathan Walther <[EM
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:14:08AM -0500, Erinn Clark wrote:
Perhaps they were not developers but the channel is a Debian resource.
Most people do not meet the developers before they consider becoming
one, or, in fact, when they first begin using Debian. It's an
off-putting environment, and not j
* Jonathan Walther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-09 12:03]:
> If it is the flirtation that is the problem, and the problems do not
> go beyond that to the extend of persistent harassment, then the
> solution is simple; let Erinn bring more of her female friends to
> the channel to "spread the load".
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 10:44:24AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 01:46:13AM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:26:47AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
>Jonathan Walther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:19:29AM -0500, Erinn Clark
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 01:46:13AM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:26:47AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> >Jonathan Walther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:19:29AM -0500, Erinn Clark wrote:
> >>>2. Don't flirt with us just because we're women.
One time on Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 01:24:08AM -0800 this person named Jonathan
Walther wrote:
> I don't believe the treatment you receive in channel #debian is
> representative of how women are treated in the project itself, by actual
> developers. The Debian developement team, including myself, ha
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:26:47AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Jonathan Walther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:19:29AM -0500, Erinn Clark wrote:
2. Don't flirt with us just because we're women.
Impossible. More than 90% of the worlds men use that as their chief
criter
Jonathan Walther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:19:29AM -0500, Erinn Clark wrote:
>>2. Don't flirt with us just because we're women.
>
> Impossible. More than 90% of the worlds men use that as their chief
> criteria for choosing who they flirt with. Should Debian now exc
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:19:29AM -0500, Erinn Clark wrote:
The topic being discussed was the lack of women in Debian and I felt it
proper to provide some anecdotal evidence for the treatment some of us
have received.
I don't believe the treatment you receive in channel #debian is
representati
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:19:29AM -0500, Erinn Clark wrote:
> If I may, here are three simple rules to follow when dealing with women:
[...]
> 2. Don't flirt with us just because we're women.
Thankfully, I have doogie to flirt with on IRC...
--
G. Branden Robinson| The grea
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:26:32AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 20:15:25 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Perhaps we need to reconsider our official recognition of Freenode's
> > #debian as a Project resource.
>
> Fair enough. Do you think that hosti
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:16:47PM +, iain d broadfoot wrote:
> * Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:40:21PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > Further generalisation:
> > >
> > > Don't do anything to us, just because of what we are.
> > >
> > > That has the ben
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:40:21PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Further generalisation:
> >
> > Don't do anything to us, just because of what we are.
> >
> > That has the benefit of being non-sexist and fitting most (all?)
> > discrimination.
>
> It's
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:40:21PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-06 10:45:06 + George Sawyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Might it be true to generalize so far as to say:
> >Don't talk with us, don't do anything to us, *just* because we're
> >women. (?)
>
> Further generalisation:
On 2004-03-06 10:45:06 + George Sawyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Might it be true to generalize so far as to say:
Don't talk with us, don't do anything to us, *just* because we're
women. (?)
Further generalisation:
Don't do anything to us, just because of what we are.
That has the ben
On 2004-03-06 00:33:40 + Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I don't think she is guessing. Indeed, the men here have done
exactly what she thought they would [...]
Of course, this is not directly caused by the chromosomes present, so
it is stupid to write "the men here"
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004, Helen Faulkner wrote:
> Just because some people have difficulty understanding that there are
> barriers that make participation in things like the debian community
> more difficult (on average) for women than men, doesn't mean the
> barriers don't exist. Social and cultural b
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I see. So, since you did nothing wrong, does that mean that
> obviously Debian is not a hostile environment for women? That we have
> nothing to address?
>
Could be. Or it could mean there is a problem but it is improperly
described or means
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> OK. Last I heard, irc.debian.org #debian is a project
> resource. Here is an example of how women are treated in Debian;
Ok at last we're at least moving into the realm of empirical data and I
thank you for that but I must say you are engaging
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> All your pontificating about data and proof is a fine way to avoid the
> actual issue under discussion, which is that a social system (the
> Debian Project) is exhibiting the same symptom (fairly extreme
> under-representation of women) as other systems
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:34:39PM +, Helen Faulkner wrote:
> >and just as you don't cure quadraplegia by breaking the arms and legs of
> >healthy people, you don't cure meekness by making healthy people fearful &
> >timid.
>
> Nice analogy. It is indeed not the fault of able-bodied people th
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> yes, bullying happens too. but meekness happens whether there is any actual
> bullying or not.
Meekness isn't harmful, nor does it ever justify your bullying.
Thomas
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:41:32AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:27:30AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > meekness isn't about bullying.
> >
> > it's (partially) about perceiving bullying whether it's really there or not.
> > it is a disability which varies in severity from
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 13:07:39 +0100
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:05:27AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > Is this just a game to you?
>
> I wondered how many messages it would take for someone to notice.
I've always wondered why so many threads in Debian ende
From: Craig Sanders
meekness isn't about bullying.
it's (partially) about perceiving bullying whether it's really there or not.
it is a disability which varies in severity from being mildly shy to being
socially crippled..it is not the fault, or responsibility, of non-meek
people, any more t
* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-04 01:36]:
> OK. Last I heard, irc.debian.org #debian is a project
> resource. Here is an example of how women are treated in Debian; and
> helix tells me that this is how they are treated all the time
[...]
> However, #debian on irc.deb
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 11:55:57AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 11:22:06AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > Not that a baby-eating example isn't a bit loaded ... but ok, I'll run
> > with it:
> >
> > "Many orange-haired people have been observed to eat babies. ...
...
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:39:50PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > I can demonstrate evidence that I'm not a gerbil quite handily.
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:08:49AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> No you can't, because you're a gerbil and gerbils can't form rational
> arguments.
If it's true tha
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:18:57AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I certainly won't tolerate it. It's fundamentally incompatible with
> getting any useful work done. Down that road leads political
> correctness (not just the word-substitution form), where you cannot
> say something that is true an
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:05:27AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> Is this just a game to you?
I wondered how many messages it would take for someone to notice.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 11:22:06AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Andrew Suffield]
> > "We can't be sure whether this orange-haired person likes to eat
> > babies or not. He probably does, lock him up".
>
> Not that a baby-eating example isn't a bit loaded ... but ok, I'll run
> with it:
>
>
[Andrew Suffield]
> "We can't be sure whether this orange-haired person likes to eat
> babies or not. He probably does, lock him up".
Not that a baby-eating example isn't a bit loaded ... but ok, I'll run
with it:
"Many orange-haired people have been observed to eat babies. Here we
have an oran
Erinn,
> -- "Erinn Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 5 Mar 2004
02:19:29 -0500 said:
>
> If I may, here are three simple rules to follow when dealing with women:
> 1. Don't pander to us just because we're women.
> 2. Don't flirt with us just because we're women.
> 3. Don't insult us just because
> "We can't be sure whether this orange-haired person likes to eat
> babies or not. He probably does, lock him up".
>
> If I have to make a guess then I do, but I don't pretend it's anything
> more than a (possibly educated) guess. If you want to promote some
> action based on your guess - go ahe
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That may be true. However, you may have overlooked Erinn Clark's post
> to this thread, which, fortuitously, has just the sort of information
> you seem to be asking for.
By no means would I ever say that the evidence isn't forthcoming.
I've seen it
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think it is more than reasonable to entertain the possibility that a
> similar cause is, in the present case, responsible for a similar
> result. And even to take action based on that assumption. Or do you
> always wait for perfect information befo
[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]
> I agree that Debian has a problem in this area and that it's worth
> worrying about and trying to fix. I do not think that Helen has
> given us any information about it; she is guessing at what men
> usually do, and imputing that to us, and guessing about how women
> feel
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:05:27AM +, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Andrew Suffield]
> > Psychology and sociology are fuzzy "sciences" for the most part,
> > where very little is proven. That does not mean that the standards
> > for proof should be lowered, it means that their conclusions should
[Andrew Suffield]
> Psychology and sociology are fuzzy "sciences" for the most part,
> where very little is proven. That does not mean that the standards
> for proof should be lowered, it means that their conclusions should
> be treated with the usual skepticism and not as things which have
> been
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 07:06:50PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 03:35:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:21:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> > You have an alternate theory explaining the low incidence of
> >> > women in male do
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 06:26:44PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 19:58:03 +, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 01:16:43PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 03:35:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >> > On Fri
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 02:39:17PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> With our underlying culture, I'm not sure if any attempts to change us will
> truly ever succeed in making us the caring, sharing, non-confrontational
> group that will make every person happy to work with us. Hell, if we become
> n
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:39:50PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:48:13PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > The alternative is that there is nothing interesting here. It's not a
> > very interesting alternative. Occam's razor says we go with it until
> > we have a reason t
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:27:30AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> meekness isn't about bullying.
>
> it's (partially) about perceiving bullying whether it's really there or not.
> it is a disability which varies in severity from being mildly shy to being
> socially crippled..it is not the fault
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:54:23PM +1100, Ben Burton wrote:
> > There is a chronic systemic harrassment in Debian, but I have not seen
> > women get more of it.
>
> I know I've said this some number of times already, but I'll say it again
> in just four lines so it's that much harder to miss.
>
>
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:48:13PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> The alternative is that there is nothing interesting here. It's not a
> very interesting alternative. Occam's razor says we go with it until
> we have a reason to do otherwise.
Translation: "LALALALALA! I'M NOT LISTENING!"
> I hyp
Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The question to which Helen was initially responding was not "why should
> we change the environment?". It was "why are there so few women in
> debian?".
Fair enough.
> If there are grander reasons for changing the environment then that's
> wonderful, bu
> We should change
> the environment because it is bad, not because "it's bad to women".
The question to which Helen was initially responding was not "why should
we change the environment?". It was "why are there so few women in
debian?".
If there are grander reasons for changing the environmen
Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem Helen refers to in the most part is not *overt* sexism. The
> problem is *subliminal/covert* sexism, where everyone is treated the
> same way but women in general (through social training, upbringing,
> whatever) are less well adapted to such t
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 04:28:49PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:10:45PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > There is a massive difference between "working assumption" and
> > "proven".
> >
> > "To use plausible arguments in place of proofs, and henceforth to
> > refer to
> There is a chronic systemic harrassment in Debian, but I have not seen
> women get more of it.
I know I've said this some number of times already, but I'll say it again
in just four lines so it's that much harder to miss.
The problem Helen refers to in the most part is not *overt* sexism. The
Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) That debian contains bullying or aggressive elements. She is *not*
> inventing this, she did *not* come into the discussion with this as a
> stereotype that she's trying to fit debian into. It's quite clearly
> observable.
This part I agree about.
>
> I don't think she's flaky or mentally unstable. I think she
> approached a concrete group of people by assuming they would fit a
> stereotype she had in mind, and that's a bad thing to do.
Please. Her comments are centred around two premises:
1) That debian contains bullying or aggressive el
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 03:35:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:21:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >You have an alternate theory explaining the low incidence of
>> > women in male dominated activities like Debian, free software
>> > coding, coding in ge
On 05 Mar 2004 12:01:34 -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Anthony Towns writes:
>> On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 11:25:59AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG
>> wrote:
>> > Anthony Towns writes:
>> > > So, Helen is kind enough to summarise her views on why she
>> > > doesn't participa
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think she is guessing. Indeed, the men here have done
> exactly what she thought they would -- calling her a flake,
> mentally unstable, inexperieiced, and sexist.
See, this wasn't "the men". It was particular people. It was not a
g
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 12:03:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Quite. But you too are ignoring one detail: that behavioral
> > trait is expressed preferentially in one gender; perhaps due to
> > cultural indoctrination, perhaps due to
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 11:23:59AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > "We're a previously persecuted minority, dammit, treat us special, we
> > deserve the land you have worked hard for. even though we sit on our asses."
>
> New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the United States all have some
>
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 19:58:03 +, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 01:16:43PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 03:35:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:21:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > > You have
On 05 Mar 2004 13:21:24 -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 07:58:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> > The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
>>
>> True, but then what would you suggest as an alternative
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 07:58:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
>
> True, but then what would you suggest as an alternative means of
> gathering data? Should we stick the users in a set of test tubes,
> compl
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:10:45PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> There is a massive difference between "working assumption" and
> "proven".
>
> "To use plausible arguments in place of proofs, and henceforth to
> refer to these arguments as proofs" was, I believe, originally
> referring to physic
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 04:02:26PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:54:05PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Absence of evidence is not justification for inventing evidence. If
> > you can't prove something, that doesn't mean you should lower the
> > standards for proof, it
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:54:05PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Absence of evidence is not justification for inventing evidence. If
> you can't prove something, that doesn't mean you should lower the
> standards for proof, it means that you can't prove it.
Just because you can't prove something
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 03:08:14PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 07:58:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
>
> True, but then what would you suggest as an alternative means of
> gathering data? Should we stick the users in a set of
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Quite. But you too are ignoring one detail: that behavioral
> trait is expressed preferentially in one gender; perhaps due to
> cultural indoctrination, perhaps due to inherent biology.
I have no idea if this is true. Moreover, I don't think
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 11:25:59AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Anthony Towns writes:
> > > So, Helen is kind enough to summarise her views on why she doesn't
> > > participate in the project as fully as she might, and she's called a
> > > flake, mentally unstab
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 07:58:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
True, but then what would you suggest as an alternative means of
gathering data? Should we stick the users in a set of test tubes,
complete with positive and negative controls? I'd rather tak
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:46:36PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:43:09PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:37:19PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > On 2004-03-05 17:05:05 + Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>Last I heard, fre
1 - 100 of 175 matches
Mail list logo
