<flame suit>

Peter,

I understand you sentiment that what the general said to the woman interviewer was offensive.  I applaud the fact that you would stand up and say this.   But... you have a double standard.  The females comments were offensive, derogatory and inflammatory.  Just because everyone else has decided that its the PC thing to attack people who believe that rifles are something which can be used safely, doesn't mean its right.

Be honest with yourself and attack the interviewer with as much zeal for making commentary under the guise of an interview.  Attack the interviewer for making the assumption that "guns" are bad and anyone having anything to do with one must be dangerous.

While I disagree with the way the general went about making his point, it is nevertheless a valid one.  Just because I own a baseball bat does not mean I can play baseball.  Just because I have learned to use a rifle doesn't mean I'm a dangerous killer.  Just because I have a penis doesn't mean I'm a rapist.

If the interviewer had been male, the general could have said, "Well, you're equipped to be a rapist, but you're not one, are you."  This would be, I suspect a logical and symanticly equivalent statement.

</flame suit>

>>> Peter Bradley <[log in to unmask]> 09/10/99 08:35AM >>>
The way I read it this wasn't being offered to the list as an example of a
gaff by an idiotic general, as worthy of ridicule as any other gaff by our
<snip>