Then let us settle the issue at the very heart of this dispute at once. To
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:01 AM, James Mckernon wrote:
> [gratuituous, unhelpful sarcasm liberally snipped here...]
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:01 AM, James =
Mckernon <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
[gratuituous, unhelpful sarcasm liberally snipped here...]
I'll leave 'witty' to the discretion of the reader, but I'm=
that I think it's a bit much to call this remark 'accurate'. In=
sense is it 'accurate' to imply that only one who weighs 350lb woul=
object to this image?
In general terms, the nasty tactic of insulting a woman's (presumed?)
appearance, rather than responding to the substance of her position
itself, is seen all too often when gender issues like these are
discussed. I don't think it's a nice habit.
To make a slightly distasteful joke in an unguarded moment on IRC is
hardly a crime, but I don't think this particular remark deserves to
be held up as a paragon of insight, free thinking, accuracy, etc.,
Then let us settle the issue at the very heart of=
this dispute at once. To the scales!