On Mittwoch, 26. August 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> It seems to me that this comment is sexist, and has no place on any Debian
> mailing list.
It seemed and seems to me you were trolling here :-(
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
2009/9/10 Holger Levsen :
> On Mittwoch, 26. August 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> It seems to me that this comment is sexist, and has no place on any Debian
>> mailing list.
>
> It seemed and seems to me you were trolling here :-(
I'm just thinking aloud, but I wonder if it might make sense to al
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:23:25AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 26. August 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > It seems to me that this comment is sexist, and has no place on any Debian
> > mailing list.
> It seemed and seems to me you were trolling here :-(
Yes? Change the gender in t
* Steve Langasek [090910 11:57]:
> Yes? Change the gender in the original message and tell me who you think is
> trolling.
While there might be a thinkable context where such a message could be
sexist, please put the mail the context it was in:
It's about whether it makes sense to have a women-
* Miriam Ruiz [2009:09:10 11:37 +0200]:
> 2009/9/10 Holger Levsen :
> > On Mittwoch, 26. August 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >> It seems to me that this comment is sexist, and has no place on any Debian
> >> mailing list.
> >
> > It seemed and seems to me you were trolling here :-(
>
> I'm just
2009/9/10 Erinn Clark :
> IMO those lists are probably sufficient for women-only mailing lists. I
> don't think we need to fracture d-w, especially given its "recent"
> amount of inactivity.
That's probably the bad side of my proposal. Will this new mailing
list lower or raise the activity level?
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> Granted, the "only contribution [..] I can identify as having come
> from a man" is a bit strong and could be perhaps be misunderstood as
> "all man do things like that" (which would in my eyes be sexist),
> but if you want no longer stated anything th
I have not followed the recent thread on the event proposed by
Marga, and I don't know what happened so far. I also don't really
want to find out. This is why I am starting a new thread.
I only saw Miriam's suggestion about a women-only list. I wanted to
react to that, and in doing so, I do not wa
On Thursday 10 September 2009 17:34:14 Don Armstrong wrote:
> The reason why the comment appears to be sexist to at least a few of
> us[1] is because it attributes motives to an individual based purely
> on their perceived gender, and attempts to extrapolate from that to
> the motives of all indivi
2009/9/10 Lisi Reisz :
> On Thursday 10 September 2009 17:34:14 Don Armstrong wrote:
>> The reason why the comment appears to be sexist to at least a few of
>> us[1] is because it attributes motives to an individual based purely
>> on their perceived gender, and attempts to extrapolate from that to
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> That is not true and is offensive. I made no attempt to extrapolate
> to all men.
It may not have been intentional, but it certainly was implied. When
people are assigned to a class and judgements are made, those
judgements are extrapolated to members of th
2009/9/10 Lisi Reisz :
> And the poster himself in a private email, and also on the list, said
> that the motive I had in fact attributed to him - that he felt in some way
> threatened - was correct, tho' I had got very wrong the way in which he felt
> threatened.
No, I didn't, but I didn't want t
12 matches
Mail list logo
