*sigh*
Cherri, I'll get to you in the morning. Wouldn't want you to
mistake a temper for
misogyny, 'cause Lord knows, no woman *ever* does anything that
could *possibly*
make a man angry.
What does that have to do with anything?
The subject and
Maria's alleged breach of security is nothing to do with gender. You
are free to claim she is
guilty of anything, which does not mean it is true, but why do you use
gender slurs in the
process? Or is it such a normal part of your daily life that you are
not aware that it may be
offensive to some?
Any man who ever becomes intemperate or angry with any woman
for any reason whatsoever is a misogynist, right?
Once
again, what does it have to
do with gender? My point being, if she were male, these statements
would be irrelevant. They
should be irrelevant.
What a convenient excuse. I am not making excuses, I am
giving an explanation.
Ok, my problems with what happened on this thread.
Gulfwar Vet,
again I apologize, I am
guilty of grouping you with Georgia Bidnessman, making you guilty by
association with his
(unconscious?) attitude towards females.
As for the military
branches, there is a rivalry that
exists. We may go back and forth about which is better, but we stand
together against outsiders
who would bash any of them. But it is true that the Air Force is the
most technical and contains
the most intelligent troops.
Next, as for the disagreement between
Maria and Tar,
personally I believe there is more to what an enemy would nuke then
civilian and or military
targets. Especially in this day and age where it would be more
expedient to use psychological
warfare financial efforts to take control of the country then
destroying things. I don't think the
argument between them is relevant in today's world.
Now for Maria
offering secrets, Bull
Shit. She did not. Repeating that she did in different ways will not
change that fact. And for
Georga to keep demanding she offer proof of her job and theories, he
is guilty of asking her to
reveal information that may be secure. That makes him more guilty of
complicity then she is.
During the Y2K debate there was a person who I believed was close to
crossing the line and I
jumped in and put a stop to it as soon as I read it. I explained in no
uncertain terms that this
person would be reported and held responsible for breach of security
if it went any further.
And I would have had no problem with doing so.
As for my view that
he has a problem with
her gender on top of the subject being discussed, he is probably not
even aware of how he
comes off to someone like me who is "sensitive", especially in a
military situation where the
fact of gender appears to color opinion. I offer his own words as an
explanation for my
discomfort with what I view as his attitude and let them speak for
themselves.
The
authoritarian and gender related statements below.
Gender related remarks:
I’m going to give you some valuable advice, lady.
All right, little lady. I'll play your game.
I know you had superiors, honeybunch.
Whether it's some drunk
21-year-old enlisted kid who wants to impress a girl in a bar or
some woman who
wants to get an advantage in an Internet argument
Well, sweetcakes, that's a VIOLATION.
then you are flirting with a felony, little lady.
and the target's vulnerabilities (as you said), honeybunch,
I am certain that there are plenty of discussions of this topic all
over the
Internet, little lady
opportunity to prove me wrong, Missy.
I've answered quite a few of your questions, honey.
mark you as either a poseur, a liar or a dilettante.
Contrary to your drama-queen claim, Maria
BTW, Maria, I'm a man, and I don't get called "little lady."
Authoritarian related remarks - attitude of superiority:
People higher
than you – such as myself -
The word you are looking for, General, is "hypocenter."
Maria, I have heard just about enough out of you on this topic.
You worked for someone like me, assuming
you aren't making all this up.
Give it up, Maria. That's an order.
-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), May 08, 2001.