Re: Read between the lines

Subject: Re: Read between the lines
From: Stuart Reynolds <stuartr -at- FIRSTGRAPHICS -dot- COM>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 01:17:46 -0700

>>Nowhere in the Constitution is freedom limited to one gender or race.
>>To paint the original document itself in racist terms is historical
>>revisionism in the extreme.

>Bunk. To imagine that twentieth century notions were built into it, just
>waiting for us to discover them is revisionism.

Geez, is it just me, or does anyone else have the feeling that the tech
writers mailing list, has spilled into the Great American Constitution
Debatre forum>? I coul appreciate the finer points of the "word-smithing"
of the document and the finer points and attributes of said article, but who
gives a flying f*ck about "revisionism"? and as for who's version of
revisionism is correct, who cares? It's a personal point, n'est pas?


------=| First Impression Graphics |=------
Yes these are my own thoughts and/or opinions.. Why the hell do I need to have
this disclaimer anyways?!?!?!?! It's my opinion and everyone's entitled to it.
If you don't like it, then don't read it! My employer backs me up on this as
I am one and the same person.
---------====== | | ======---------


Previous by Author: Re: Re[2]: Portfolio contents
Next by Author: Re: A definition for "server"
Previous by Thread: Read between the lines
Next by Thread: job offer & pay bargaining


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads