[Linux-aus] Special support for women

Russell Coker russell at coker.com.au
Wed Oct 30 19:33:20 EST 2013

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013, David Newall <davidn at davidnewall.com> wrote:
> Glen,
> This is an outrageous example selective quoting:
> >> women gain opportunities at the expense of more capable (or more needy)
> >> men.
> It's cheap, easy, feeble and quite unacceptable.  Imagine if I did this

Below is the paragraph he quoted from, it seems to be quite a reasonable 
summary of your position to quote that one sentence as a summary of the 

# Apparently we need special programmes to address an imbalance between 
# the sexes; in politics, employment, management and elsewhere, this is 
# widely accepted as appropriate.  Linux Australia is not immune to this; 
# we give opportunities and support to females.  This puts an elephant in 
# the corner: women gain opportunities at the expense of more capable (or 
# more needy) men. This undermines their credibility; it raises reasonable 
# doubts about their competence.  Are they there from merit or merely to 
# make up the numbers?

> to you:
> > Linux Australia welcoming women somehow deprives men.

But we compare it to Glen's message (which I properly quote below) and the 
section is entirely different.  Quoting without "it's not" is obviously wrong.  
Distilling a paragraph down to it's most relevant sentence is ok.

# it's not the case that Linux Australia welcoming women somehow deprives men

> You've taken this sort of pot-shot at me before, and those who know me
> know you hold a bias against me, so no surprise that you would repeat
> the offence; however I demand you retract.

His message was reasonable and addressed the points in your message.  Your 
latest response ignores the points and makes personal attacks.

I've pasted the definition of "pot shot" from my dictionary.  That definition 
seems to be a good match for writing a poorly considered message about a topic 
of concern to many people on a mailing list for which it's not even on topic.  
That definition doesn't seem to be a good match for making a reasoned rebuttal 
to said poorly considered message.

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:

  Pot shot \Pot shot\
     Lit., a shot fired simply to fill the pot; hence, a shot
     fired at an animal or person when at rest or within easy
     range, or fired simply to kill, without reference to the
     rules of sport; a shot needling no special skill.
     [Webster 1913 Suppl.]

My Main Blog         http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog    http://doc.coker.com.au/

More information about the linux-aus mailing list