[Wikipedia-l] "genetically unequiped" women

[Michael R. Irwin]

Adam Williamson wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 2002-09-11 at 06:51, Michael R. Irwin wrote:
> 
> > You really think that is helpful when approaching
> > someone on behalf of the mailing list to ask that
> > they comply with predefined community customs,
> > rules, policies, etc.?
> >
> > If provocatively stupid things are appropriate
> > then they are appropriate for all, if not
> > appropriate then they are not appropriate for
> > all.   Tis the American myth.
> >
> > "With justice and liberty for all."
> >
> > or
> >
> > "With insults and intolerance for all."
> >
> > Free advice follows, clearly worth nothing
> > because I am not a popular fellow at the
> > moment.
> >
> > Pick your customs carefully.  You may
> > find yourself subject to them.
> 
> Think before you post, Mike.
> 
> Those who responded to Jaap's post merely exercised their own right to
> freedom of expression. None of them denied Jaap's right to hold such an
> opinion, or said he should be stopped from expressing it. The freedom to
> speak does not include freedom from criticism for that speech.
> 
> Now compare to what Jaap said. The implication of his post is that men
> should decide "important" issues alone and women should be barred from
> any consideration in deciding them. Now that truly IS a restriction of
> liberty, wouldn't you say?
> --
> adamw

What I would say is not necessarily relevant
in all cases.

When some sects of Muslims show up to provide 
information shall we tell them they are obviously 
offensive and not welcome?

Broad except for some (extreme in our framework
or view, religiously correct in their own) Muslims.

Deep except for grisly (offensive but accurate) details.

What should we tell more liberal Moslem
(or Indian, etc.) women candidate contributors 
who show up and provide a  view that is 
"incontroversially" incorrect according to our 
more "modern" participants?

Finally, if you reread my post you will find
it is not necessarily a criticism of Daniel's
criticism, it could be read as a criticism of his own
past "offensive" behavior on the mailing list.

Paradoxical no doubt, perhaps I am getting the
hang of local paradox theory or double standards.
I might be a "regular" any day now.

Regards,
Mike Irwin