1  2  3  |   Order by default

Jun 27, 2002, 7:00am

wonderful sidestep but sorry the analogy is not parallel ... the law is
quite clear as much as you dont like how it might be applied. I cant teach
you law and no doubt you dont want to know how it applies to this case so
I'm afraid no matter what I say it wont change your opinion. You asked for
fact I gave you exactly what both parties agreed on, you said guilt versus
innocence so I gave you the applicable laws ... I'm sorry YP but if you
truely wish to believe this man has committed no breech of contract then
nothing will convince you otherwise. Please do pick yourself up a consumer
guidebook in the very least next time you are out shopping ... ignorance of
the law is no excuse for siding with someone who breaks the law. It really
is that simple.


[View Quote]

Jun 27, 2002, 7:08am

[View Quote] While that may make sense in the way you interpret it, trade practice
legislation in virtually every first world country (including the US, Europe
Australia, etc) specifies quite clearly that warrantees, guarentees, cooling
off periods etc do not commemce until complete fulfilment of the contract.
One would actually say this legislation is unfair because it does not take
into account any of the work or materials contributed to by the provider, so
they make a loss ... unfortunately this is how it goes and first ruling is
always in favour of the consumer ... its the principles around which
consumer protection is framed. The vendor can after that rulling appeal for
costs involved in partial fulfilment but not until AFTER all monies are
refunded ... you cant even lodge an appeal until after ... this is where
fraud comes in for witholding monies. Its the law ... you dont have to like
it but it is there for protection of the consumer ... without it all hell
would break loose!

>
> Having said that, why do we need to see all this hashed out in the
> newsgroups? Why do you have to sully Insanity's name? The dispute is
> between Insanity and Ambivelent, and none or your business.

I made my reasons clear from the beginning. My concern was for the integrity
of the CYawards being judged by someone who has acted fraudulently. I
believe the inclusion of such a person is inappropriate and leads to
question the integrity of the awards. Normal practice under such
circumstances is for the person in question to step down. That's all.

Glitter

Jun 28, 2002, 2:14am

Sorry the law says she can ... right or wrong the law is the law ... put
there by the same concept of democracy which claims to have put insanity in
the committee ... surely you dont just support democracy when it suits you?
That would be hypocritical.

Glitter

[View Quote]

Jun 28, 2002, 2:14am

see my previous post ... he can only use the court to appeal for partial
costs after the money for failure to fullfill has been paid ... see your
local consumer guidebook or call your local consumer advocate ... I believe
most local govt offices in the USA should be able to provide you with one.

Glitter

[View Quote]

Jun 28, 2002, 2:20am

> However, two of the important facts are:
> 1. Never refused a refund.

then send her one NOW

> 2. Never refused delivery of avatars.

or do this as requested in your contract with her.

simple ... you have one of these choices or you are Fraudulent. You've
chosen to do niether ... the fall out you see here is your own fault ... add
that to all the other awful things that occured in those logs that have been
posted and its no wonder people have been questioning your character ... you
brought all this on yourself.

My advice ... refund her and post an apology, then offer to step down from
the committee ... only way to start earning back your credibility from your
detractors.

Glitter

(on holiday and posting via dial up(yuk) so cant reply as quick as before)

> As for more facts... the hysterical and libelous comments from the
disgruntle
> person are so far from the truth. Further facts are that the person has
seen
> the avatars she had ordered and approved of their texturing and added
features
> with exception of one avatar . She claims nothing was ever done. Another
fact
> is that the person sends such vulgar e-mails, no one would care to read
the
> trash. In other newsgroups she has claimed so many other excuses and if I
> recall, stated she would never even accept them if sent to her. So you
see...
> we are on top of this as best we can be here...
>
> We would hope she would let a judge hear this... that would allow us a
counter
> suit for all the slander and libel as well as the intentional interference
with
> business relations of our customers among other things.
>
> We also hope that the BBB would become involved so that we could reply to
them
> and that they could then explain the facts of life to the person. As it is
now,
> the person has violated licensing rights by sharing the avatars with other
> worlds. Therefore we are owed licensing fees for those avatars she
distributed
> unlawfully.
>
> So there ia always a bigger picture... the full picture is so simple...
she
> order many items... she received the majority of her order, in the process
she
> "freaked" out over a five minute ejection and then took continual bad
advice
> from people who are not worthy of clear unbiased thoughts. She has not
been
> rational ever since. Therefore we cannot do anything at this point until a
> rational third party becomes "legally" involved. That is something I can
only
> hope happens soon.
>
> Peace, health & healing to all...
>
> InSaNiTy & Filmkr
>
>
>
>
>
[View Quote]

Jun 28, 2002, 2:27am

no YP ... consumer protection in the USA is federal AND state supported ...
and exteremely tested in case law, why?... you guys really like to try and
sell stuff across borders and not deliver it ... sorry thats been federally
recognised for decades.

Isn't anyone asking how an australian knows all this yet? I'm stunned ;-)

Glitter

[View Quote]

Jun 28, 2002, 2:34am

Goods and services supply are treated the same under law with exception to
contractual periodic services, which can only be paid after delivery
coincidentally ... so if they say they want it up front report them! ...
think cleaning and office maintenance ... its the reason why some companies
try to push certain goods as part of a service contract ... so they can get
paid upfront. Dont try to interpret the law till you at least read the law
... it can put harmful false beliefs in the public view which may lead them
to become less protected.

Glitter

(on holiday and posting via dial up(yuk) so cant reply as quick as before)

[View Quote]

Jun 28, 2002, 2:40am

correction ambi...
> libel involves lying. i haven't lied.

libel and slander (different) involve the deliberate intent to discredit or
destroy without reasonable cause ... the causitive reasons are called
'exclusions' and include things like public interest groups or forums (like
this), warnings to consumers (this is how the govt gets away with it),
standard local media rights (exclusions usually apply only for registered
media), etc. If you were to post hate for the sake of hate even if it were
the truth it would still form slander ... if you as an individual do it for
the sake of questioning process for the protection of others (this forum is
very appropriate for such a discussion) then it is not ... you are simply
seeking answers to where is your money, others are asking him to verify
information, I am seeking the answers to the credibility of the awards
process which calls into question the credibility of an invidual ... all
legitimate and not slanderous in the slightest.

Glitter

(on holiday and posting via dial up(yuk) so cant reply as quick as before)

> the person has seen
> features
> now that is an outrageous lie. i never saw any added features. you told
me
> you were trying to tack curls on their heads, and couldn't get it right.
> you made references to 'improvements' of the fairies, but other than the
> curls, never even told me what those other features were. then you told
me
> you had 'lost' the fairy files, and would have to start over again. you
> never again told me you were doing any work on the fairies of any kind.
>
> uh yeah. i claim nothing was ever done on it cause you those were the
words
> out of your very mouth -- that you had not done any work on the scorpion
> king avatar, but you 'thought you were getting your thoughts together'.
>
> the> trash.
> oh yeah. gosh. what was it again? let me look it up. ah. here. you
> must mean when i said you could take all the newsgroup posts you told me
you
> have been collecting and shove them up your... oh. that's it. i used
the
> heinie word. gosh. i'm sowwy.
>
> if I > recall, stated she would never even accept them if sent to her.
> yeah i'll accept them. so long as they are completed as ordered,
discussed,
> and agreed to. here -- i'll even go you one better -- i'll even take $160
> worth of non-custom avatars of my choice. just say the word. i'll pick
em.
> you send em. i'll send you a statement that i am satisfied.
>
> allow us a counter> suit for all the slander and libel as well as the
> intentional interference with> business relations of our customers among
> other things.
> oh dear god. slander and libel are based on LIES that cause damage.
TRUTH
> that causes damage is not prosecutable in any way shape or form. so
because
> it is the truth, and i can prove it, i can freely say, verbally or in
> writing, that you defrauded me out of $160. doesn't matter if it gets
your
> panties in a wad. doesn't matter if you lose every customer you have.
> because it is the truth, and i can prove it,
>
> other> worlds. Therefore we are owed licensing fees for those avatars she
> distributed> unlawfully.
> blatant lie. i sent one avatar to one person for 10 minutes to test it.
> that is not 'sharing with other worlds'. that's a 10 minute test. you
said
> it was fine. i have the chat log. he deleted the avatar after the test.
i
> sent you confirmation. i have that recorded too.
> the other avatar i sent to someone is the one i bought from you
specifically
> for the purpose of giving it for a gift. you said that was fine. in
fact,
> you said that was kind. i have that recorded too.
> now an example of a license violation is that you sent one of my custom
avs
> to someone as a gift to use in their world. not to test. not with my
> permission. THAT's a license violation. now you understand the
difference?
> luckily, the person recognized what was happening, and deleted the av from
> her world.
>
>
>
>

Jun 28, 2002, 2:40am

wrong ... read the law

[View Quote]

Jun 28, 2002, 2:40am

good post .. at last people are reading the law :-)


[View Quote]

Jun 28, 2002, 2:46am

I explained that already too ... you are just not reading ... please ring
your local consumer advocate and ask them .... I'm running late

Glitter

(on holiday and posting via dial up(yuk) so cant reply as quick as before)

[View Quote]

Jun 28, 2002, 2:46am

Stop pitying yourself so much ... these are legitimate questions by people
within the relevant community questioning your business practices in the
light of information (and proof by your own agreeance) that an activity
outside of 'legal' contract occured. They are not hate posts. You labelling
people as posting hate under these circumstances IS slanderous of them ...
another unlawful activity on your behalf? Just my two cents worth.

Glitter

(on holiday and posting via dial up(yuk) so cant reply as quick as before)


[View Quote]

Jun 28, 2002, 3:16am

Could I suggest that this situation might be resolved by the following ...

The two parties sit down in the same world and, politely, discuss their
differences one last time in a meeting presided by bitmaster (he seems to
have the support of both sides to a degree) and come to a resolution which
would involve some (partial) refund or deliverance of goods if found
appropriate.

Perhaps the community does need a person of balance and integrity to help
with small community disputes such as this in the interests of goodwill.
Perhaps the person could set up a kind of charter by which hosting
providers, avatar makers, model builders, etc would agree to and in return
get some little badge to put on their site which says they're a member of
that community charter (sort of like a baby industry standards group). A
newbie could see the badge and feel safe buying from that provider. You know
the sort of thing

Hopefully this will need to be the last thing I post ... I'll leave it to
the three parties above to discuss ... if you want my help I'll be happy to
give it.

Glitter

(on holiday and posting via dial up(yuk) so cant reply as quick as before)

Jun 28, 2002, 3:22am

Actually I used to run a very large server array and hosting in Dallas, TX
.... when you do that remotely and operate a business from outside of a
country you find yourself with sh*t loads of papaer work and legal
documentation. Its far easier for your consumer advocate to post you a copy
than it is for me to photocopy my stuff and send it all the way to the US
(no I dont have a working scanner atm).

I did not learn off a site. I learned from many years of business practice
with other countries . I did it the hard way. I have even at times had a
lawyer on staff (my last business prior to retirement)

Glitter

(on holiday and posting via dial up(yuk) so cant reply as quick as before)

[View Quote]

Jun 28, 2002, 3:27am

His post was very appropriate and in relevent context .... you cannot
interpret it outside of that context. While the desire may be there to do so
to argue a certain side, the interpretation must stay within the context of
examining the business practice of an individual as it moves to credibility.
That is due process ... not hate crime. For example I could say "Mr Smith is
a dick" ... without keeping that in the context of a discussion it could
mean anything and be open to all sorts of interpretations.

Mr Smiths first name could be Richard
Someone might 'hate' Mr Smith
The people using the statement could be doing so in mately jest

I think you get the point ... just because Mr Smith does not like what he is
reading does not mean its intent is a hate crime. The key phrase here is
"context toward intent" ;-)

Glitter

(on holiday and posting via dial up(yuk) so cant reply as quick as before)

[View Quote]

Jun 28, 2002, 3:27am

Maybe SHE watches too much LA Law or whats that other one on TV with the
arrogant DA now?

Nup niether ... just been subject to having to sign off on sooooooo much
consumer stuff having run a foriegn owned business. The laws travel even
beyond the shorelines of the good ol' US of A ;-)

Glitter

(on holiday and posting via dial up(yuk) so cant reply as quick as before)

[View Quote]

Jun 28, 2002, 6:44am

[View Quote] I addressed a single concern and have maintained that throughout the thread
....

> So when you mention things like the community needing something I cannot
respect
> your voice seeing how you have trashed what the community has decided as
well as
> it's leaders.

I have not trashed anyone ... just asked questions relating to credibility.

> The only point I have been able to sum up from all of this is that you had
a
> personal vendetta to prove since you have ignored so many people who
posted all
> along this past week telling you to quiet your ranting.

if thats all you can gather then I suggest you reread the thread ... you
must have missed just about every key point from every participant.

> Bear in mind that your ranting is solely based on gossip and an agenda
fueled in
> Hate to deliberately harm one person, their business and the community as
well
> in the process.

It is not based on gossip ... it is based on both your and ambivalents
addmissions which are the very same ... you took payment for services not
delivered (you do not dispute this occured). Your arguement is that you have
some god declared right to do this. The law says you do not. Nobody is
arguing any of these facts ... you even called them facts yourself. YOU
did!! Do need me to quote your own post? I do not consider informing
consumers of their right under law to be a destruction of the community.
Public interest groups and the government do this every day. If you and your
supporters wish to suppress the rights of the individual to further any of
your causes then thats just peachy ... but expect that someone will
eventually call you to task for it. If you dont like criticism then stop
doing bad things.

>
> Had you wanted to come off looking level minded and intelligent, perhaps
you
> would have suggested that the disgruntle party not create herself a legal
> quagmire but rather pick up the phone and politely resolve the issue with
the
> company's customer service representative. Instead, you ignored that
person's
> hysteria and merely added fuel to it offering nothing good to anyone
whatsoever.

I don't particularly care how I am perceived, thats what you all seem to
have missed. I am doing that which I know to be right ... to call into
question in the public interest anything which may efect fair play in the
community ... I have constantly sought to assist members of the community
(not this one specifically) which matters of community interest. I have at
times taken protests right to the steps of parliament and have appeared on
television several times with regards to matters of community interest. I'm
no greenie or anything like that ... I just believe that evil prospers while
good men do nothing and that I can and have made a great deal of difference.

For example, whether this community likes my posts or not is irrelevnt. But
now they are aware of the laws regarding consumer protection and how to deal
with matters like your fraudulent activity ... I can say that because by
your admission of the facts alone and by law it amounts to clear fraud .. no
gossip or heresay involved. These are great contributions to the community
because they help people recognise what is fair and just ... even if YOU or
your supporters think that is unsupportive of your personal agendas.

> These have been my opinions... and compared to yours I feel they are by
far,
> more sound.

You are fully entitled to that opinion and I will support your right to it
even though I do not agree with it ... the difference between us is
philosophical. You think no one is entitled to an opinion unless it supports
your views. I believe everyone is entitled to an opinion and the right to
express it .. so flame on ... it wont bother me in the slightest ... just
when you do, recognise I have the right of reply :-)

I suggested a way for this to be admirably resolved and probably even gave
you an easy way out.Your desire to completely fail to resolve this matter is
now public record. I certainly hope you will reconsider.

A regular visitor to my own world was considering hosting a new world with
you (god only knows how he could consider it after all my comments) and
sought my opinion having read these posts ... I told him what I thought. It
is clear he wont host with you now ... how many others are there? How much
does your stubbornness cost you? Certainly has already cost you far far more
than the amount you defrauded from Ambivalent. Again ... I ask you, please
reconsider.

Glitter

(on holiday and posting via dial up(yuk) so cant reply as quick as before)

Jun 28, 2002, 10:41am

I'm a she :-) ... at least I was the last time I looked ... Anderson is my
surname ... my husband's name begins with S ... he's the one who bought the
local dsl account :-) ... a rarity in Australia until recent times

Glitter

[View Quote]

Jun 28, 2002, 11:45am

thats exactly correct on the initials.

.... then again as a friend remarked ... "how many self respecting _people_
would call themselves Glitter Kitty" ... hey what can I say? ;-)

That said ... over here a goober is something you dig out of your nose at
traffic lights :-) ... what does it mean over there?? :-)

regards

Glitter

[View Quote]

Jun 26, 2002, 2:49pm

Something just occured to me so I went to check the nomination page. How do
you prevent people voting on behalf of others? I mean the criteria you use
is Name, citnum and email address ... if you go through the NG posts for
example you get two of those and the citnum you get just by adding the
contact to your list ... whammo you can vote on their behalf. If you use a
cgi proxy (most people should use an http anonymiser these days ... I said
should) so you wont even get the same ISP each time ...

How is this system secure exactly? I know you'll say you depend on honesty
but hey it only takes one dishonest person like insanity for example to do
such an easy thing ... just curious ...

Before you go calling me a hacker or anything, I'm not ... its just a bloody
great big hole in your system that anyone with an ounce of brains can see
.... of course anyone without an ounce of brains can also see it now lol!!

Glitter


[View Quote]

Jun 27, 2002, 1:32am

I know security for this is not all that important ... its not like you are
protecting a bank or anything like Goober correctly stated. My comment was
about preventing people impersonating others. Before you act so smugly (yet
again), I think you need to look at something like www.anonymiser.com like I
pointed out before ... these are public cgi proxies ... eg they return false
http details (referrer, IP, browser type, etc) and sometimes even nothing in
order to mask the original user to maintain their privacy ... the new
anonymiser uses the US defence depts onion skin protocols which even (as
well as) change the ip returned for every single item downloaded for a
webpage. They even accept/return/destroy cookies depending on your desired
response to the website. This is not a hacking tool ... public or cgi
proxies are userd by at least 15% of surfers these days. To put this in
context ... how many false nominations did you recieve yesterday (try to
ignore the obvious person reposting the same thing by accident) ... can you
accurately know the answer? I did websecurity for several years ... you only
have a limited selection of verification tools .... anonymisers simulate ALL
of them. Online voting can only be secured (assuming its important enough)
by https ... not http.

I would recommend everyone use a public proxy of some kind while web
browsing or something like the cgi one above ... they provide you with a
secure surfing environment, prevent the running of http based host scripts
and a number of other anti-hacker and spyware devices used by webmasters.
Surfing without a proxy these days is akin to unsafe sex ... that said it
took the AIDS scare a good 15 years to convince the public safe sex should
be the rule not the exception.

[View Quote]

Jun 28, 2002, 2:58am

> If you feel that the event is not up to par to your standards, the
> polite way of making a suggestion would be to contact one of the core
> members of the Cy Awards with your requests or thoughts so that we might
> calmly discuss the matter and have a meeting to determine the value of
your
> request.

I did .. it was ignored ... so in the light of this I sought public comment
.... I believe thats called due process.

> All personal matters must be handled outside of the CyAwards, no
matter
> what the subject. If the "Community" as a whole has a problem with a
> member, then the Community has the chance to vote or not vote for that
> member. If your hearts change afterward, then do what you think is right
> during the next voting process to make you feel better about it.

I believe we've said we will do that already.

I feel the situation started because Alpha treated my initial request (which
was completely out of concern) with contempt. I do not take kindly to such
treatment and felt the only recourse I had (seeing as she was in charge) was
to continue publically. I would have been more than happy to follow your
advice (in fact I'd give that advice myself).

> To Glitter Kitty,
>
> I admire your consistency. :) You certainly have shown you can
maintain
> your posture in the NG's. I'm taking note of this for when I need a
> partner on my side of a debate. We'll try and make it more structured
> though and something a bit more important than one person's education and
> one person's business ethics, ok? ;)

Sure no problem ... I was just about to say the same of you ... heh ... I
feel much better now (argh I dont believe I'm saying this) about the
committee seeing your constructive response! If the rest of the committee
follows your philosophy I have no problem with it ... unfortunately they
havent seemed to, to date ... perhaps you could have a chat to them?
<hopeful look>

regards,

Glitter

(on holiday and posting via dial up(yuk) so cant reply as quick as before)

Jun 30, 2002, 2:03pm

> Guess what, if you tried to do *any* of those things in *any* other
> country, it would either be physically impossible, or you would be:

You can do that and more in Australia ... what's more, here, you can walk
down the road at night as a woman and be 1000 times less likely to get
raped, mugged or shot than you would there :-). The only time I was ever
mugged (attempted) was by a bunch of drunk American sailors ... and even I
was able to defend myself against them :-)

You could also do all those things in many other countries ... possibly even
thanks to a little help from the US in times gone past, possibly due to
political correctness nowadays and possibly because of the desire of the
human spirit to be free ...

Sorry if I stole some limelight from your 4th of July steam ... you've got a
great country indeed ... happy 4th :-)

Glitter

Jul 1, 2002, 9:51am

hehe its ok I wasnt trying to steal anything ... was actually looking at a
Time magazine article the other month on crime stats ... and while 1000
times was an exaggeration, I think it was something like 830x (just didnt
want to start a stats argument by saying something precise) or very similar.
I don't know their sample group or stat definitions ... was just responding
to GK's comment that you couldnt do the same thing anywhere else in the
world ... my comment was you can and safer and freer at the same time.
American is a wonderful place for sure ... I've been there myself and run
business from there ... I was just being nationalistic like you guys are ...
its a good trait for sure :)

Oh and they weren't running away .. a girlfriend and I were walking along
the beach and they demanded sex and we told them to go away. They grabbed
her and threw her in the water and demanded we have sex over and over. I'm
second dan ogashi karate and they were drunk as a skunk ... when they
grabbed me that discussion didnt last long :-). They were collected by Shore
Patrol and we allowed the ship to handle the matter rather than press
charges. I'm sure on the ship they will get teased to death about three big
strong american warriors being beaten up by a little australian gal LOL.
Would you like any more details or a copy of the initial charge sheet
perhaps? :-)

anyhow .. have a great 4th of July :)

Glitter

[View Quote]

Jul 1, 2002, 10:40am

hey these guys had been stuck on a ship for several months and Perth is the
first western city they came in contact with for shoreleave .. I can
understand why they were a little "boisterous" ... didnt make it right mind
you ... I often wonder what would have happened if they had done it to
someone that couldnt defend herself. I'm positive that their actions do not
reflect the behaviours of the average American (I know they dont) ... even
though they are supposed to be ambassadors of their country. I'm sure
carolann wasnt making light of it .. just being humorous like me ... at
least I hope so :-)

Australia has America to thank to some of its freedoms, and I think American
could also learn alot from us regarding true freedom ... I believe our
countries' leaders only recently declared each other "best of friends" ...
personally I can't stand either of our leaders LOL!!

Glitter

[View Quote]

Jul 2, 2002, 2:00am

> Despite the fact that it had to be
> traumatic at the time, I bet she's proud of that and even maybe loves to
> tell the story. I would.

I have to admit yes this is true ... would have been a different scenario
had it turned out badly.

> But then.I guess you see what
> you want to see.

I dont make it a habit of going around studying crime statistics ... I read
it in a Time magazine article... I have no idea how they worked it out but I
do give them some reason of credibility. Its very easy to find stats to
support your case (thing is I wasnt looking for it like you) ... or even
argue an interpretation of the urls you posted (which is why I wish to avoid
stats arguements ... they just dont serve any purpose). We haven't had
massive scale race riots in this country. We havent had massive scale
terrorism (yet). We've had a couple of public shootings in the past but
absolutely nothing compared to yours. The majority of people in this country
have never even seen a gun in RL. Most cops (until more recently) never even
carried guns let alone wore them! We certainly have a smaller population
(about 10% of yours?) I'm sure there are very good and bad parts of both
countries and I really dont want to have a nationalism debate (I'll lose cos
I'm so outnumbered here :). I'm just very proud my country is soooooo safe
compared to anywhere else in the world (I've been pretty much everywhere in
the world). The news in our country is so uneventful we mostly get
international news instead and sports results. You could watch the news once
a week here and still not miss anything LOL

My post was in humour and congratulations for your 4th celebrations.

Glitter

Jul 4, 2002, 12:51pm

Security in XP is different.

I'm gathering you have a working win98 network and are NOT (?) changing that
over to XP ... just joining the XP laptop to the network? I'd need to know a
little info on your network ...

o are all the machines on seperate fixed IPs as a LAN or as a subnet of
whatever from the ISP?
o are you using a local gateway machine?
o are you using DHCP?
o can the XP machine ping the 98 machines on the LAN?
o reverse of above?
o have you verified the network card on the XP is _functional_ on another
network?

really need more info on the network before I can start suggesting where to
look. If you wish to email the network settings of the XP machine and the
primary (if there is one) 98 machine I can be pretty specific on what to
try.

Glitter

[View Quote]

Jul 7, 2002, 9:48am

Well in public I believe you'd get arrested for entering the restroom of the
opposite sex :)

[View Quote]

Jul 7, 2002, 9:54am

There are sooooo many books and websites out there dealing with the various
periodic rises and falls of the feminist movement(s). There will always be
representations at either extremes ... and without a doubt these extremes
serve as an example of the practical balance that lies somewhere in between
.... and it also serves to demonstrate that these people have a right to
exist at the extremes ... if they weren't then we'd be denying someone who
differs in opinion (no matter how abhorrent to us) the right to speak. In my
mind as much as I hate racism, sexism, religious and political
discriminations of all kinds I believe recognition of their existance and
their small presence is essential to prevent us moving to another extreme.
As long as the majority fall under the bell curve then live and let live.

Glitter


[View Quote]

Jul 7, 2002, 10:06am

actually its not strictly sexist ... its discriminatory until proven that
the discrimination is not positive. Sexist is a negative discrimination
based on sex.

The separation of male from female may serve a function ... for example a
womens self help group for recovery from rape, domestic violence or assault,
for example, may prohibit the entry of men because their presence may
inhibit the counselling of the victims ... I don't think anyone would deny
women the right to "sisterhood" under such circumstances. I have been a part
of a women's cancer support group and I've also seen men's cancer support
groups ... would anyone say that these groups have no right to seperate
existance???

Likewise what if some women wanted to discuss issues of a female nature and
accept other females from the public then how would they do this if they
made it invitation only? Where exactly is the front door so to speak? The
world list? A webpage? A newspaper ad? where exactly?

There are still hundreds of men only clubs in the world ... and while they
seem to be declining, their right to exist should still be recognised if we
wish to uphold the belief that people have the right to chose with whom they
wish to associate

Glitter


[View Quote]

1  2  3  |   Order by default