>as much as i happen to agree with the concept that we are responsible
>for the society in which we live, and that we perpetuate it with our
>choices (or non-choices), i agree with matt here (surprise, surprise).
>you keep overlooking some really important components..
uhm, ac, how about you and matt and others, right here and right now. when you type *nix _you_ and matt and me and a few other folks here know what you mean. everyone else doesn't. that's just a small example, but illustrative. it's also the case that in your last post you implicitly blamed people for still being ignorant about linux. all the press they've gotten? come on ac, do ordinary people read the stuff that you read? do you see a lot of articles about linux? etc.
>.
>
> > shall i tell you about my high school computer course some more.
> > were those boys/men who treated me as a dumb bimbo blonde at all at
> > fault for treating me as if i didn't belong there?
>
>yes, *but,* i would contend that they were as scared of you as you
>were "scared" of computers. you invaded their haven (good for you),
>you should expect that there are costs to that...
@@ women are just as guilty of the same behavior!
> > geek culture used to--i think that's changing--valorize a kind of
> > separatism , a kind of nietzschean transvaluation of values that
> > turns out to be individualist to its core in many ways, despite the
> > patina of communitarianism.
>
>somehow, i always get the feeling that we are defining individualism
>differently. lots of time when you are observing individualism in
>"geeks," what you are seeing is their anti-social tendencies. one
>could argue that this tendency has been foisted upon them, but i think
>by the time one goes geek, they really choose that degree of anti-
>social behavior.
yes we are using it differently. if you want to discuss sociological and philsophical views of the world, don't ask me to translate for you, you impudent pud! do your own homework, luser! :)
heh.
kelley