Print

Print


Jeez, I was hoping to keep this message that I 
sent privately to Robert Mann off the list, but it fits in here, so here goes:

>Robert, are you really that blind?
>
>Just by distinguishing female from male 
>opponents of GM by the terms you use -- here, 
>"harpies" -- is sexist in the extreme.
>
>What do you call extremely ignorant male persons 
>incapable of discussing the science? Do you call 
>them "harpies" as well? If not, then this 
>extremely sexist term is the equivalent of 
>saying that "there is an extremely ignorant 
>group of Black people incapable of discussing 
>the science. I call them 'Power Niggers'."
>
>Do you get the point? Or do I need to draw it out for you?

Mitchel


At 12:49 PM 8/26/2008, you wrote:
>Eric - My statement IS my best summary of what I 
>see in those posts I've seen.  "He generally and 
>generically (literally) intends that attack to 
>apply to any and all women who claim political 
>and social rights, or are in sympathy with that struggle."
>
>You reply:
>"I'm not going to waste my time going back and 
>reading every post from said R. Mann, but I 
>really don't think this is accurate."
>
>Nor am I interested in old posts.  But even from 
>what we both have seen and recall, the problem, I think, is twofold.
>
>1. If he means some particular political 
>"organization" of women, which one is it, why 
>doesn't he identify it?  If you can't think of 
>it without dredging through old posts, it 
>certainly hasn't been made clear!  Why?
>
>2. The use of terms like W's Libbers and 
>"feminazis" IS generic and also pejorative. 
>These are terms widely and historically used to 
>describe the "women's rights movement" by the 
>backlash against it.  They are still used to 
>attack all women who seek legal equality.  Such 
>discourse is linguistic bullying, harassment and 
>implicit threat.  It is intended to keep women 
>in the subordinated status that ironically, they 
>are simultaneously told is one they should 
>enjoy! It doesn't take Brownmiller or Estrich to 
>recognize the rape threat implicit in this neo-conservative discourse.
>
>This isn't subjective; it's right there in the 
>language. Mann doesn't follow conventional 
>linguistic rules for restrictive naming - that 
>is, name a specific formal membership 
>organization, list a finite set of individual 
>women, or list an unambiguous set of objective classificatory criteria.
>
>Rather, he uses well-known, highly generic 
>terms: feminist, women's libber, 
>feminazi.  These are terms that (1) include many 
>women, or all women, and also men who support 
>women.  (2) are established as pejoratives.
>
>Here, have a sampling from online dictionaries:
>
><http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feminist>feminist: 
>the doctrine advocating social, political, and 
>all other rights of women equal to those of men.
>
><http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/women%27s_libber>women's 
>libber: (pejorative) A member or supporters of 
>the women's liberation movement; a feminist.
>
><http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feminazi>feminazi: 
>an extreme feminist who believes the option of 
>abortion is essential to the political, social, 
>and economic advancement of women. Etymology: 
>feminist + Nazi. Usage: derogatory.
>
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminazi>Wikipedia 
>expands:  feminazi is "a 
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejorative>pejorative 
>term used to characterize 
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist>feminists. 
>  It is used in 
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America>North 
>  America by 
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservative>social 
>conservatives to refer to feminists whom they 
>perceive as intolerant of conservative 
>views.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminazi#cite_note-TheWayp193-0>[1] 
>The term does not relate to the National 
>Socialist Women's Organization or any other 
>organization of women supporting 
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany>Nazi 
>Germany or 
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazi>Neo-Nazi 
>organizations." The term has been popularized by 
>conservative talk-show host Rush 
>Limbaugh...  "In practice Limbaugh has used the 
>term "feminazi" for much wider contexts" and 
>"has never offered the names of any specific group or individuals."
>
>Thus, the widespread use of the term is "a way 
>to dismiss all feminism and any group run by (or 
>for) women as being extreme." It is "one way in 
>which 
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservative>social 
>conservatives attempt to minimize and 
>marginalize the work of 
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_feminists>liberal 
>feminists. This work includes 
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_pay>equal 
>pay initiatives, 
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_discrimination>sex 
>discrimination and 
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment>sexual 
>harassment laws, 
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_freedom>reproductive 
>freedoms, promotion of 
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_%28politics%29>diversity, 
>and legislation that helps protect women from violence."
>
>Now, aside from why on earth you'd want SftP to 
>be hosting Rush Limbaugh's leavings, you cannot 
>disagree (unless you disagree with dictionaries 
>and the principles of linguistics) that the use 
>of these terms is indeed sweeping, prejudiced 
>and disparaging. As disparagements, they are 
>personal, antagonistic, and unfactual.
>
>Mann's posts frequently - as recently as today - 
>extend these terms and the denunciations linked 
>with them to specific named individuals on this 
>list such as myself or Michael Balter who ask 
>him to refrain. This is unacceptable and 
>completely ad hominem.  As Michael G pointed out 
>in his letter to Robt Mann that clearly was unread, uncomprehended, or ignored.
>
>The verbal violence concerns me as much as the 
>illogic and unfactuality.  In the U.S., 
>anti-feminist rhetoric is strongly correlated 
>with injurious and lethal attacks on women, 
>their healthcare and birth-control clinics, 
>their lawyers, supporters, and others.  I don't 
>think the language of hate, linked to physical 
>acts of violence and political movements of 
>neo-conservative suppression, belong on this 
>list or any list, launched against women or any 
>other religious, racial, sexual, or other historically subordinated group.
>
>If the use of these terms is intended 
>differently, they should be redefined - but far 
>better would be to use more appropriate and 
>precise terms.  Maybe you have some in 
>mind.  However, Robt Mann hasn't done this, 
>despite repeated invitations to disavow the 
>pejoratives and prejudice, and clarify the reference.
>
>If Mann, as seems possible, is operating in an 
>alternative universe of his own "private 
>language" - ie making up his own meanings for 
>common English words but not sharing them with 
>us - he's simply not communicating.  Either way, 
>I don't think posts containing such language 
>belong on this list, as they are best 
>idiosyncratic non-communication and at worst, hostile prejudice.
>
>Claudia
>
>On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Eric Entemann 
><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
>----------
>Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 07:29:15 -0700
>
>From: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: pseudo-experts on GM--re anti-scientific misogyny
>To: 
><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>
>Eric, wow. Of course attacks on an organization 
>don't seem to be necessarily as personally 
>emotional or threatening as those against an 
>individual (though members of certain religions, 
>among others, might disagree...)
>
>But my GENDER - like my race/ethnicity, and the 
>socioeconomic class I grew up in - is hardly an 
>"organization"!  It is an inborn and empirical 
>fact of one's existence. It is the first 
>classification made upon a person's birth: It's a boy! a girl!
>
>When Robt Mann attacks "WimminsLib" he is not 
>specifying an organization - he has never 
>identified it as any professional, political, or 
>other formal group.  Rather, he generally and 
>generically (literally) intends that attack to 
>apply to any and all women who claim political 
>and social rights, or are in sympathy with that struggle.
>
>Therefore, his attacks on women are very 
>personal attacks. Etc. And I agree with you that 
>if we define ad homs as intentional hostile 
>attacks on individuals for natural features of 
>their character that are irrelevant to the 
>argument - then Mann's attacks on women in 
>general are quite individually applicable. Hence 
>my offense, and that of a few others on this 
>list who understand "women" to be a gender/sex/sexuality.
>
>I charitably assume from your change of subject 
>that you didn't mean to insert a straw man or 
>red herring, but actually take Mann's invective 
>against women to somehow refer to some shadowy 
>political organization. Perhaps you know the 
>specifics? Since he has never defined them or 
>linked to their website or official 
>publications, maybe you can help him out!  I 
>guess it might have offices next door to the 
>U.S. Civil Rights party? And no doubt, that 
>pan-arabic/islamic conspiracy against the 
>West.  Its publications perhaps come from the 
>same press as those of that other mythical 
>bugbear of the paranoid imperialist white male, the Gay Agenda.  Hee.
>
>Claudia
>
>On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 4:42 AM, Eric Entemann 
><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>IMHO, ad homs are far more hurtful to the person 
>attacked than would be an attack on an organization
>to which the person belongs.  Would you not agree with that?
>
>Furthermore, all progressive organizations I 
>know of have made mistakes that deserve to be pointed out and criticised,
>calmly and without exaggeration.   The response 
>should not generally be to attack the people who make them, unless they are
>infiltrators or provocateurs.
>
>I would not say that "unproductive and childish 
>displays of hostile prejudice against entire [progressive] groups" is OK, ever.
>
>Nor would I "consider groundless and unjustified 
>attacks on women's concerns to be somehow productive and/or mature".
>
>Neither of these would follow from being opposed to ad homs.
>
>
>
>----------
>
>
>Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:49:44 -0700
>From: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>
>Subject: Re: pseudo-experts on GM--re anti-scientific misogyny
>To: 
><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>Eric,
>
>Why are you opposed to ad hominems - unfactual, 
>nasty, self-serving attacks on individuals - yet 
>in favor of allowing equally unfactual, nasty, self-serving attacks on groups?
>
>Please tell me how unproductive and childish 
>displays of hostile prejudice against entire 
>groups is okay, if the equivalent assault on an individual is so clearly not.
>
>Does the individual rate more consideration than 
>an entire group of individuals?  Shouldn't it be 
>rather the reverse, mathematically?
>
>If ad hom's are not good because they are 
>"unproductive and childish", do you consider 
>groundless and unjustified attacks on women's 
>concerns to be somehow productive and/or mature?  In what way/s?
>
>In all seriousness, I am interested in the 
>answers.  There seem to be some implicit 
>understandings in play in our discussions of 
>what's constructive on this list, and this leads 
>to striking differences in the ad hoc arguments 
>on the issues that repeatedly arise.
>
>So far, it seems to me that Robt Mann's 
>vindictive, tendentious and unfactual rants 
>against women are widely tolerated on this list 
>because most readers are men, who feel it's not 
>their ox being gored (wrongly, I think, since 
>prejudice  affects far more than just the people 
>it aims at suppressing).   Several members (men) 
>have emailed me off-list to express different, 
>and more reasoned sentiments.  That in itself 
>underscores my sense that there's a reluctance 
>to take the bull (or the ox) by the horns and 
>follow this discussion of productive vs. 
>unproductive SftP discourse -- an increasingly 
>regular feature of the list -- to any productive outcome.
>
>Perhaps too many fear that they themselves might 
>then have to eschew the attacks that bring them 
>such amusement - when it's not them being 
>attacked, either in posts or by masses of 
>unwanted posts.  But we've demonstrated many 
>times that the list is collectively capable of 
>highly interesting and robust discussion without 
>including falsehood, smears, or personal 
>attacks.  I think the key to unblocking the 
>logjam lies in better understanding of what 
>"productive communication" consists of.  The 
>mantra some keep raising of "free speech" vs. 
>"censorship" is based on a fantasy at heart - 
>the wet dream of limitless individual freedom to 
>say, spit, defecate whenever or wherever one 
>likes, to or on whomever one chooses.  It's 
>fundamentally incompatible with social activity, 
>including discourse, which by their very nature 
>require mutual acceptance of common norms in 
>order to be intelligible.  Research on the 
>intersection of the internet and deliberative 
>dialogue ("democracy" as some call it) 
>increasingly shows that the western masculinist 
>class-biased utopian vision of the internet - 
>and the planet - as a free-for-all, a wild-west 
>frontier, where everyone can somehow do anything 
>he wants, leads not to freedom for all, but only 
>to the freedom of some who speak loudest, 
>longest, and most angrily, to run roughshod over 
>the values and concerns of all others.
>
>I too find these discussions amusing, insofar as 
>they demonstrate how little a number of SftP 
>members are willing to practice whatever "ism" 
>they preach, and instead periodically (as on 
>most internet fora) use the list chiefly to 
>assault and offend others.  It's not 
>inconsistent with Science as it's been 
>practiced, but is hardly for the People. It's 
>simply vainglory, the Cartesian - and western - 
>fantasy of individual human autonomy run amok. One case among many.
>
>Claudia
>
>On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Eric Entemann 
><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>I agree.  I am also opposed to 
>censorship.  People should be free to offer 
>their criticisms of Robt. Mann, and he should be 
>free to criticise the feminist 
>movement.  Likewise Mitch should be free to 
>support HIV/AIDS denialism and alternative 
>medicine, and Michael B. and others (including 
>myself) should be free to criticise.  Any of 
>these things can get out of hand -- that's why 
>Michael G. should be paying attention and not be 
>filtering, and should step in when he feels the 
>need or when others remind him of what is happening on the list.
>
>One thing for sure: the ad hominem attacks 
>should cease.  They are entirely unproductive 
>and childish.  Let's stick to the 
>issues.  (Although I must admit that sometimes 
>the ad hom nonsense is amusing...and revealing)
>
> > Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:48:28 -0400
> > From: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>
> > Subject: Re: pseudo-experts on GM--re anti-scientific misogyny
> > To: 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
> >
> > You know, this is as I feared.
> >
> > Some folks here jump from proposals to ban misogynist and sexist
> > statements that occur periodically from one person posting to this
> > list, and now are lumping those misogynist statements together with
> > IDEOLOGICAL perspectives that they don't agree with, labeling others'
> > ideas and evidence "quackery" and "conspiracy theories" and "antiscience".
> >
> > That is the slippery slope that want starts sliding down when one
> > starts engaging in censorship.
> >
> > I had been leaning towards some sort of moderation of Robert Mann's
> > posts, but I now feel that given this authoritarian streak in some
> > individuals just bursting at the seams to come out, I would ask the
> > members of this list to find some other way of addressing the urge to
> > purge, which is in my opinion an even greater problem than the
> > disgusting comments made by Robert Mann.
> >
> > Mitchel
> >
> >
> >
> > At 09:08 AM 8/25/2008, you wrote:
> > >If one just considers the frequency of posts, this list appears to
> > >be one that promotes quackery and conspiracy theories more than any
> > >other flavor of "antiscience".
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >----------
> > >
> > >Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:47:31 -0700
> > >From: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
> > >Subject: Re: pseudo-experts on GM--re anti-scientific misogyny
> > >To: 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
> > >
> > >Claudia,
> > >
> > >Your thoughtful and impassioned posts on this issue merit equally
> > >thoughtful replies. Let me at least strive towards that here, though
> > >I may not succeed. First of all, I think RM's stands on feminism are
> > >wrong and rather disgusting. To me they tend to invalidate any
> > >worthwhile remarks he might make on other topics. That's why I
> > >filter everything he posts. But my version of socialism, such as it
> > >is, does include freedom of expression, and to me that has to
> > >include the freedom to say quite obnoxious things. I have generally
> > >done my moderating by asking people to refrain from going over the
> > >same ground in arguments again and again, and to refrain from ad
> > >hominem or ad feminem attacks. This does not mean I approve of
> > >everything else said; far from it. But if I were to start punishing
> > >or removing people I disagree with strongly, not many might be left.
> > >One does not, for instance, have to be a socialist to be on this
> > >list, and still less any particular variety of socialist.
> > >
> > >When it was an active organization, SftP never had a completely
> > >coherent ideology as far as I'm aware, and, given efforts I know of
> > >to try to define such ideologies, I think they mostly do not end
> > >well. They either lead to debating how many angels can dance on the
> > >head of a pin, turn into sheer vitriol, drain what life there is
> > >from a group, leave only a tiny core happy, end up with strict
> > >dogma, or all of these at once.
> > >
> > >As to the supposed tacit approval of everything on the website
> > >(which I never look at, I admit) I would suppose every single
> > >article that anyone of us chooses to copy to the rest of us ends
> > >up there. Many of them contain claims and science most of us
> > >--quite often including the poster her or himself--- would probably
> > >dispute. To include only what seems correct in advance or what has
> > >been fully vetted or critiqued would defeat what many obviously see
> > >as the list's function.
> > >
> > >Still, if enough people are outraged by Rob't Mann's attitudes and
> > >feel his posts should be censored, I am willing to warn him as Herb
> > >suggests, and then either to remove him if he refuses to heed the
> > >warnings or put him under moderation, which would greatly limit his
> > >ability to take part in any discussions, since I cannot always check
> > >such things promptly. I think doing either would open up a can of
> > >worms, and is probably a mistake, but if enough want this, then so be it.
> > >
> > >
> > >Best,
> > >Michael
> > >
> > >On Aug 24, 2008, at 3:11 PM, Claudia Hemphill Pine wrote:
> > >
> > >As Michael Balter asked about a similarly unfactual kind of post
> > >some time back: Do we want the list archives to show that SftP
> > >willingly invites such activities by rarely, if ever, speaking out
> > >against them?
> > >
> > >There are two problems with doing this. First, public silence on the
> > >issue is ambiguous. It's an absence of data: if no one points out
> > >irrational, irrelevant, hostile, and/or politically self-serving
> > >prejudice, it can later or privately (as happens) be claimed that it
> > >was recognized as such. But it can equally be claimed as tacit
> > >agreement. The fact is usually that saying nothing leads to
> > >continuation, if not escalation, of aggression and delusive
> > >crap. Silence ultimately supports the status quo. The status quo
> > >on SftP with regard to
> > >
> > >Second is the problem of people saying to someone who objects to
> > >personal vitriol or unfactuality, "well, if you don't like it, quit
> > >the list, hit delete, or start filtering all of notoriously raving
> > >person X's posts to the trash." This in effect privatizes the
> > >burden of unpleasant posts onto the individual. Rather than the
> > >list collectively agreeing what topics, goals, processes, etc., are
> > >supportive of SftP's principles, we default to agreement that
> > >anything goes. This doesn't just contradict the purpose of SftP, it
> > >contradicts the purpose of a "list serve," because it makes the list
> > >a universal posting site for anything anyone wants to throw up,
> > >which the individual members must then use their time and computer
> > >to filter it down to the actual SftP reading list they hoped for.
> > >
> > >It's long struck me as ironic that a list with socialist aims is
> > >nonetheless willing to privatize the toll of hostile postings from
> > >people who disagree with those aims onto those of its members who
> > >are willing to measure the difference. The public message this sends
> > >is - at the least - that socialist scientists are quite careless of
> > >theory. Or perhaps, more fundamentally, don't agree what a "list"
> > >is, or what SftP is.
> > >
> > >The long continuation of the posting of misogyny (or other
> > >uninformed and vitriolic bigotry) without much challenge, however,
> > >makes it seem equally likely that a substantial number of the list
> > >members simply don't mind it at all, so long as it's directed
> > >against subordinate or minority groups they don't belong to - like
> > >women. Perhaps they think SftP really might be compatible with
> > >hostile oppression against women. After all, socialism has been,
> > >often enough.
> > >
> > >Or maybe many list members are simply so accustomed to the rampant
> > >misogyny of the blogosphere - which simply follows the lead long set
> > >in other mass media, even if it's dialled it up to nuclear levels,
> > >in which the most racist, misogynist, classist and homophobic use
> > >the mantra of "free speech" as cover for overtly hostile and even
> > >threatening posts. The problem of this growing incivility, and its
> > >particular assault on women and political minorities, is admitted by
> > >every commenter on mass media or the cyber-world (eg,
> > ><<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/technolog 
> y/09blog.html>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/technology/09blog.html>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/technology/09blog.html 
>
> > >)
> > >
> > >The interpretation of "free speech" as "everyone can say whatever
> > >they want, and those derogated and threatened can just leave" is
> > >exactly the one offered by the very people who either want to make
> > >those threatening and derogatory remarks. It's easy to agree with,
> > >especially if you aren't in the targeted groups, or ethically alert
> > >to its consequences.
> > >
> > >The consequences of laissez faire public speech policies are the
> > >same as those of unfettered "free market capitalism" - the most
> > >aggressively, obsessively, and unethically self-serving win. The
> > >more restrained, balanced, moderate, and collectively-minded are
> > >told to just go away, get offline, segregate themselves away
> > >somewhere, or be flattened -- or be debased into like-minded
> > >hostility. This does not further SftP's goals, either for science
> > >or for socially just society. It is rule by those most willing to
> > >be unjust. It re-segregates the world into a place where those who
> > >aren't willing to be loud, to rant endlessly, to batter and bully
> > >others, are pushed aside and trodden upon. (As a woman who rarely
> > >joins mixed-gender list-serves outside of academic ones moderated by
> > >a list-maintainer or the social checks of academia, I well
> > >understand the anger of many feminists [yes, this includes many men
> > >- and on this list] about this sad lowering 
> of the cybersphere's potential.)
> > >
> > >Surely these outcomes are contrary to SftP's goals -- as Herb pointed out.
> > >
> > >After all, if the rule is "anything goes - caveat lector", why not
> > >also encourage posts advocating institutional oppression of
> > >non-white people, or the poor, or disabled? Or privatizing and
> > >consuming the entirety of the planet's resources, including water?
> > >We could similarly tell those who find such discourse (a) contrary
> > >to SftP goals, and (b) constructive of a hostile list environment,
> > >that it's up to them to read and delete, or filter out, all such crap.
> > >
> > >Better yet, SftP could simply invite every right-wing totalitarian
> > >capitalist, racist, misogynist, homophobic, anti-environmentalist,
> > >etc., etc. to flood the list with their irrational ideas and hostile
> > >politics - and force EVERY member to view and delete the
> > >garbage. That would be more democratic. Instead, at present, we
> > >simply force the burden onto those scientists and other members who
> > >recognize the irrationality of misogyny. Are they a minority? If
> > >so, why is a theoretically socialist list privatizing the cost of
> > >the hostility onto this minority?
> > >
> > >Perhaps it is a substantial majority of the list who finds blatant,
> > >irrational, and offensive misogyny inconsistent with the goals of
> > >SftP. In that case, Herb's request should find support and lead to
> > >the actions he suggests, or something similar. There is no good
> > >reason for the list to invite its use as a free messaging service
> > >for moral mayhem.
> > >
> > >Claudia
> > >
> > >On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Michael H Goldhaber
> > ><<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >I myself have filtered out all of RM's posts for years. I only learn
> > >of one when someone else copies it. If everyone would refrain from
> > >copying or responding to the visibly misogynist ones, that would
> > >help. If RN would refrain from posting such things, that would help
> > >even more. If he would only recognize that misogyny invalidates any
> > >good he might accomplish, that would be better yet.
> > >
> > >Best,
> > >Michael
> > >
> > >
> > >On Aug 24, 2008, at 12:23 PM, herb fox wrote:
> > >
> > >That Rob Mann is a misogynist is not news to those who have been
> > >reading his stuff off and on. This serious flaw in his character
> > >and politics does not deny that he has also contributed
> > >well-informed critiques of GM and other stuff. Racism, misogyny and
> > >homophobia are contradictory to the stand and tradition of Science
> > >for the People. Since we (or rather Mike G) do not have the
> > >resources to examine his every contribution in order to filter out
> > >his destructive and insulting trash, it would be appropriate to
> > >invite him to remain on the list only if he suppresses his
> > >in-your-face misogyny.
> > >
> > >Robert should examine how he himself does exactly the opposite of
> > >that for which he commends Kendall. He has used unscientifically
> > >gathered correlations to determine cause. That the growth of
> > >interstate highways and divorce examined as time series beginning in
> > >the 50s through the 70s show strong correlation is hardly the basis
> > >to conclude that highways cause divorce. That there is a marked
> > >correlation between the misogynist trash appearing on this list
> > >serve and communications from New Zealand is hardly the basis for
> > >concluding that New Zealand scientists tend to be
> > >misogynists. Calling attention to the necessity that critics of GM
> > >including SftP maintain high credibility by well founded and
> > >documented science is a positive contribution. Maintaining our
> > >credibility as a progressive, critical voice based on sound science
> > >is indeed essential For that reason we must deal firmly with
> > >insulting, unscientific misogyny.
> > >
> > >I recommend that one racist, misogynist or homophobic post earns a
> > >warning to the poster. Repeated racist, misogynist or homophobic
> > >posts is an adequate basis to remove the poster from the list.
> > >herb
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >----------
> > >See what people are saying about Windows Live. Check out featured
> > >posts.
> > ><<http://www.windowslive.com/connect?ocid=TXT 
> _TAGLM_WL_connect2_082008>http://www.windowslive.com/connect?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_connect2_082008>Check 
>
> > >It Out!
>
>
>
>----------
>Get ideas on sharing photos from people like 
>you. Find new ways to share. 
><http://www.windowslive.com/explore/photogallery/posts?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Photo_Gallery_082008>Get 
>Ideas Here!
>
>
>
>
>----------
>Be the filmmaker you always wanted to beŚlearn 
>how to burn a DVD with Windows«. 
><http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/108588797/direct/01/>Make your smash hit
>
>"Rather, he generally and generically 
>(literally) intends that attack to apply to any 
>and all women who claim political and social 
>rights, or are in sympathy with that struggle."
>
>I'm not going to waste my time going back and 
>reading every post from said R. Mann, but I 
>really don't think this is accurate.
>
>
>
>
>--
>"EVERY GUN that is made, every warship launched, 
>every rocket fired signifies, in the final 
>sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not 
>fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This 
>world in arms is not spending money alone. It is 
>spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius 
>of its scientists, the hopes of its children." 
>--U.S. president Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953.
>
>"War is a way of shattering to pieces, or 
>pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the 
>depths of the sea, materials which might 
>otherwise be used to make the masses too 
>comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too 
>intelligent." --British author George Orwell (1903-1950)
>
>
>----------
>Talk to your Yahoo! Friends via Windows Live 
>Messenger. 
><http://www.windowslive.com/explore/messenger?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messenger_yahoo_082008>Find 
>Out How
>
>
>
>
>--
>"EVERY GUN that is made, every warship launched, 
>every rocket fired signifies, in the final 
>sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not 
>fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This 
>world in arms is not spending money alone. It is 
>spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius 
>of its scientists, the hopes of its children." 
>--U.S. president Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953.
>
>"War is a way of shattering to pieces, or 
>pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the 
>depths of the sea, materials which might 
>otherwise be used to make the masses too 
>comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too 
>intelligent." --British author George Orwell (1903-1950)