Women and TLUG - a personal rant

[Randy Jonasz]

On 14-01-15 10:40 PM, CLIFFORD ILKAY wrote:
> On 01/15/2014 10:12 PM, Randy Jonasz wrote:
>> On 14-01-15 09:55 PM, Colin McGregor wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 9:15 PM, William Park <opengeometry-FFYn/CNdgSA at public.gmane.org 
>>> <mailto:opengeometry-FFYn/CNdgSA at public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 08:39:26PM -0500, Scott Elcomb wrote:
>>>     > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:53 PM, William Park
>>>     <opengeometry-FFYn/CNdgSA at public.gmane.org <mailto:opengeometry-FFYn/CNdgSA at public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>>>     > > Come on, guys.  This bitching about TLUG meeting is strange
>>>     to me and
>>>     > > counter productive as group.  People come to the meeting
>>>     because they
>>>     > > want to learning something, and people don't come to the
>>>     meeting because
>>>     > > they have nothing to learn.
>>>     >
>>>     > People come for other reasons as well. They also come for the
>>>     > community - I hate not making it out more often than I do.
>>>     >
>>>     > > Heckling and harassment are side issues.
>>>     >
>>>     > On the contrary, people are talking about why they no longer
>>>     > participate in person.  If community is the heart of GTALUG then
>>>     > meetings should be the lifeblood.  Such topics should not be
>>>     dismissed
>>>     > out of hand.
>>>
>>>     What I mean is, they no longer participate because they see no
>>>     need to
>>>     come to the meeting (e.g. Linux distros are easy to install, tons of
>>>     info on Web, etc.), and not because there is heckling.  That is,
>>>     they
>>>     are acting in their own self interest.
>>>
>>>     For example, if SAP were to present at TLUG and give free samples of
>>>     their software, I'd bet women would be more than happy to come
>>>     in garter
>>>     belt and sucking on their favourite dildos.  I would attend,
>>>     too, only
>>>     because I normally have to pay to see that.
>>>
>>>
>>> William,
>>>
>>> Sigh, the above sort of comment is part of the problem, not part of 
>>> the solution...
>>>
>>>
>>> Colin.
>>
>> I must admit William's comment took me by surprise and shocked me.  
>> But in a free society where free speech is lauded and exported beyond 
>> our borders I must disagree with the condemnations.  Are we to censor 
>> ourselves so only anodine speech is acceptable?  Free speech involves 
>> the freedom to be offended.  If William wishes to represent himself 
>> as someone who objectifies women as sexual objects so be it.  
>> Although he has my condolences.  Poor taste and a lack of judgement 
>> is no excuse for censorship.
>
> Randy, please refer to GSF#1 in the article Colin posted. While anyone 
> is free to make a fool of themselves, others are free to hold them to 
> account and condemn their behaviour. Comments like the ones made by 
> William only serve to add insult to the original injury.
Injury is a fact of life and on a list we can choose to ignore any 
thread we wish.  Expressing distaste for someone's behaviour is 
unproblematic but banning from the list is.


> -- 
> Regards,
>
> Clifford Ilkay
>
> 647-778-8696
>
> Dinamis
>
> <http://dinamis.com>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gtalug.org/pipermail/legacy/attachments/20140115/7f2f5855/attachment.html>