SWLAB-MJG Facts and a proposal
renee
I spent some time with deja-news this morning researching MJG stuff. I
must admit she is fascinating in the amount of disbelief she instills in
me. I learned some interesting statistics.
Deja News shows that since mid July MJG has posted 222 posts to this
news groups demonstrating a prolific output and impact on this newsgroup
as well as the english language.
Some 1900 plus articles are either from her or are about her. Since July
this is an unheralded amount of bandwidth. Truly MJG is a SWLAB phenom.
I found I had forgotten many of MJG's wisdom nuggets such as this jem:
>Dear Chris, I am glad to know we are acquaintances and that you
>are familiar with my credentials. The emperical evidence is listed in my
>letter to Johannah--soon to be posted. Look, instead of bashing my line
>of though senslessly, try refuting it with your own thoughts and stream of
>logic. I was not seeking to offend you, although you have sought to
>offend me. Why? Consider this when responding to comments you do not like:
> a) List the parts of the text that are in dispute
> b) Say that you do not agree
> c) Present an opposing point of view/differing point
> d) List examples of how the points of view relate to the
> discussion
This was one of her earliest post's to the NG where she freely
instructed a veteran poster on how to debate her. No charge !
I realize that MJG has stopped any arguments by saying "show me a
reference."
I find that I spend way too much time going through Deja News looking
for her wisdom tidbits. It has occurred to me that we could compile an
MJG wisdom compendium in word processor format so we could find her
quotes rapidly in the comfort of our very own pc's. Actually we may find
the Complete Works of MJG in Barns and Nobles or Borders some day.
Wonder how much it would cost to have deja-new to concatenate all these
jems to a file?
Renee
--
Soc.women.lesbian-and-bi is a moderated newsgroup. The moderation policy
is available at <http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~wjfraser/swlab/modpolicy.html>
and is posted weekly. Questions and concerns should be addressed to the
moderators at <swlab-...@panix.com>.
Christine Waigl
renee <rcu...@gslink.com> schrieb:
>
>Deja News shows that since mid July MJG has posted 222 posts to this
>news groups demonstrating a prolific output and impact on this newsgroup
>as well as the english language.
<g> I thought the latter to be a bit more robust than that.
At least I hope so -- I'm here to learn English, after all.
I think.
>It has occurred to me that we could compile an
>MJG wisdom compendium in word processor format so we could find her
>quotes rapidly in the comfort of our very own pc's.
Oh, a way to get back to s.w.l-a-b-normal-mode would be to
have an exhaustive argument about which word processor
_format_ to choose.
-- the EAAD, who's currently failing at installing
AucTeX and ispell for her NTEmacs-19.34, but
of course votes for LaTeX anyway.
renee
Christine Waigl wrote:
>
> renee <rcu...@gslink.com> schrieb:
> >
> >Deja News shows that since mid July MJG has posted 222 posts to this
> >news groups demonstrating a prolific output and impact on this newsgroup
> >as well as the english language.
>
> <g> I thought the latter to be a bit more robust than that.
> At least I hope so -- I'm here to learn English, after all.
> I think.
>
> >It has occurred to me that we could compile an
> >MJG wisdom compendium in word processor format so we could find her
> >quotes rapidly in the comfort of our very own pc's.
>
> Oh, a way to get back to s.w.l-a-b-normal-mode would be to
> have an exhaustive argument about which word processor
> _format_ to choose.
>
ROFL ... well I considered that too. I hate to do this but.... If we put
it in ascii most word processors could read it and do their own thing.
Perhaps we could maintain your fantasy if we distributed it in EBSIDIC.
Renee
Ellen Evans
In article <1./j-5s2^7...@panix.com>,
Christine Waigl <Christi...@lpt.ens.fr> wrote:
[]
>Oh, a way to get back to s.w.l-a-b-normal-mode would be to
>have an exhaustive argument about which word processor
>_format_ to choose.
Just borrow the thread going on in motss right now.
--
Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
je...@netcom.com New York Times, 7/14/96
Kiira Triea
Christine Waigl (Christi...@lpt.ens.fr) wrote:
: renee <rcu...@gslink.com> schrieb:
: >
: >Deja News shows that since mid July MJG has posted 222 posts to this
: >news groups demonstrating a prolific output and impact on this newsgroup
: >as well as the english language.
:
: <g> I thought the latter to be a bit more robust than that.
: At least I hope so -- I'm here to learn English, after all.
: I think.
:
: >It has occurred to me that we could compile an
: >MJG wisdom compendium in word processor format so we could find her
: >quotes rapidly in the comfort of our very own pc's.
: Oh, a way to get back to s.w.l-a-b-normal-mode would be to
: have an exhaustive argument about which word processor
: _format_ to choose.
: -- the EAAD, who's currently failing at installing
: AucTeX and ispell for her NTEmacs-19.34, but
: of course votes for LaTeX anyway.
: --
Gwendolyn Alden Dean
On 22 Nov 1997, renee wrote:
> I realize that MJG has stopped any arguments by saying "show me a
> reference."
Indeed, she seemed most displeased last time I provided a reference.
Veronica Beacher
renee (rcu...@gslink.com) writes:
> I spent some time with deja-news this morning researching MJG stuff. I
> must admit she is fascinating in the amount of disbelief she instills in
> me. I learned some interesting statistics.
>
> news groups demonstrating a prolific output and impact on this newsgroup
> as well as the english language.
postings so very much, you not only continue to read and respond to
them but actually go to dejanews in hopes of seeing even MORE of
her posts.
Ron
renee
Veronica Beacher wrote:
>
> renee (rcu...@gslink.com) writes:
> > I spent some time with deja-news this morning researching MJG stuff. I
> > must admit she is fascinating in the amount of disbelief she instills in
> > me. I learned some interesting statistics.
> >
> > Deja News shows that since mid July MJG has posted 222 posts to this
> > news groups demonstrating a prolific output and impact on this newsgroup
> > as well as the english language.
>
> I'm at something of a loss to understand why, if you dislike her
> postings so very much, you not only continue to read and respond to
> them but actually go to dejanews in hopes of seeing even MORE of
> her posts.
>
Well Ron, I guess this is something you just get to contemplate. Maybe
if you stare at what I write and squnt real hard, it'll come to you.
Renee
Melinda Shore
In article <1.*z-5s...@panix.com>, renee <rcu...@gslink.com> wrote:
>Perhaps we could maintain your fantasy if we distributed it in EBSIDIC.
That's "EBCDIC", a character encoding. Rather a different
question from document mark-up languages, and yet another
opportunity for argument.
--
Melinda Shore sh...@nr-atp.cit.cornell.edu
If you send me harassing email, I'll probably post it
renee
Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
> In article <1._29...@panix.com>, dr...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Veronica
> Beacher) wrote:
>
> >renee (rcu...@gslink.com) writes:
> >> I spent some time with deja-news this morning researching MJG stuff. I
> >> must admit she is fascinating in the amount of disbelief she instills in
> >> me. I learned some interesting statistics.
> >>
> >> Deja News shows that since mid July MJG has posted 222 posts to this
> >> news groups demonstrating a prolific output and impact on this newsgroup
> >> as well as the english language.
> >
> It should be obvious from the above that Renee went to DejaNews to research
> the impact on this newsgroup of MaryJane's presence, not to read her posts.
Michelle, today has been a day of real introspection for me because this
is a growth process for me too. I am student of human behavior...which
means I eek out a living as a chief resident in clinical psychology.
Really unusual behavior fascinates me. Often people go into fears of
being analyzed when i say I am in psychology. I'd like to alay those
fears before thay start.
As I said earlier... I spend a lot of time attempting to understand the
ins-and-outs of MJG and the meanderings of her logic over time. I find
that I quite automatically store interesting little sentences and quips
and things that she has said in the back of my mind. Often, as you will
see me do here, because it is just what I do, psychologists don't look
at behaviors as much as we do to ask what the motivations for behaviors
are. Behaviors which maintain themselves in the midst of significant
adverse social pressures are of particular interest. When the behavior
persists it means... that even though the source may not be apparent the
behavior is being rewarded. We are just unaware of what needs we are
meeting.
This is why MJG is so interesting to me. Michelle, you are right and I
felt supported when you said I went to get statistics. But there were
more reasons too. I wen't looking for two specific tweaks in back of my
mind where MJG said something like:
(On approximately 7/24/97 MaryJaneG wrote email to me where she extended
the option for me to post which I did)
>>I did not post it, but if you want to please do. Also, thank you for
>>continuing this with me. You have brought up a lot of good points
>>with out discarding me as .........
I was looking for this quote because it was one of those tweaks I had
stored away. It was significant because Sarah (Nov 20, 97) said:
>Lisa, I snipped most of your post because of the length, and not
>because I didn't think it was an excellent post, because I did. Thanks
>for responding in a well thought out manner that didn't include a
>>personal attack on me or a hostile attitude. I appreciate it.
These were not the same quotes... or even the same words but they are
the same sentiments and expectations.....
That in itself is pretty coincidental but then I remember another MJG
quote early in her tenure here which was something like... (loosely
paraphrasing)
Wheeeee this is really fun... I could do this for a long time.
I was looking for this quote ..... because.... Thursday Sarah said:
>>I've been here on swlab for over 2 years, occasionally posting but mainly
>>reading. But this is so much fun, you may hear a lot more from me... ;)
Hmmm you see... all this is still very circumstantial... but....
The behaviors are very similar. The sensitivities are the same. And they
have both let us know that something rewarding in the roles they have
selected.
So Michelle, it is true, is that I gathered the statistics while
thinking about MJG's social impact on the news group. As I said before,
I really do see her as a bit of a phenom and know I can learn much from
what she has to show me. And while I was looking for MJG's "whheeeeeee"
quote. After reading enough MJG I become a little ill. I was also
re-sensitized in very sharp relief to many of the things she has said to
people in this newsgroup.
I come to see that I have been afraid that Sarah may be settling into a
similar role. Given that Sarah has chosen to reveal little about
herself... I don't have anyway to understand where she is coming from.
Consequently I have little of the wommon to relate to other than the
tactics she uses. If she chooses to be a mystery, I wont have any better
way to understand her other than to "connect the dots" in ways that I
understand.
Thank you for you support... I got the statistics while I was
researching the quirky little similarities, **I perceived**, between MJG
and Sarah.
Hugs to you Michelle :)
Renee (whose middle name is also Michelle )
Ellen Evans
In article <1._29...@panix.com>,
Veronica Beacher <dr...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>renee (rcu...@gslink.com) writes:
[]
>> Deja News shows that since mid July MJG has posted 222 posts to this
>> news groups demonstrating a prolific output and impact on this newsgroup
>> as well as the english language.
>
>postings so very much, you not only continue to read and respond to
>them but actually go to dejanews in hopes of seeing even MORE of
>her posts.
Weeeeell, I'm at a loss to understand why, if you think this is such a
*silly* thread, you continue to respond to posts you find, apparently,
so silly.
See, this is fun!
--
Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
je...@netcom.com New York Times, 7/14/96
--
Kathryn Burlingham
On 23 Nov 1997, renee wrote:
> I eek out a living as a chief resident in clinical psychology.
> Really unusual behavior fascinates me. Often people go into fears of
> being analyzed when i say I am in psychology. I'd like to alay those
> fears before thay start.
>
> As I said earlier... I spend a lot of time attempting to understand the
> ins-and-outs of MJG and the meanderings of her logic over time. I find
> that I quite automatically store interesting little sentences and quips
> and things that she has said in the back of my mind.
If this is an example of how you "alay (sic) those fears," I think you
need to work on your technique.
{snip quotes where MaryJane and Sarah express thanks to folks for not
being hostile or dismissive, and where they each express that they have
*fun* posting to swlab}
> The behaviors are very similar. The sensitivities are the same. And they
> have both let us know that something rewarding in the roles they have
> selected.
Both of these sentiments are expressed ad nauseum by posters to swlab.
Particularly by newbies. My analysis of the "roles" they have selected,
based solely on the examples you cited, is "newbie poster to swlab". What's
yours?
--Kathryn
goodnight noises everywhere
Veronica Beacher
renee (rcu...@gslink.com) writes:
> Veronica Beacher wrote:
>> I'm at something of a loss to understand why, if you dislike her
>> postings so very much, you not only continue to read and respond to
>> them but actually go to dejanews in hopes of seeing even MORE of
>> her posts.
>>
>
> if you stare at what I write and squnt real hard, it'll come to you.
>
I tried that, darn it!
It still seems silly.
Ron
Veronica Beacher
Michelle Steiner (ste...@best.com) writes:
> In article <1._29...@panix.com>, dr...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Veronica
> Beacher) wrote:
>
> apologetist for MaryJane.
Is that, like, being a counter revolutionary? Or maybe a heretic?
Actually, I don't even know who MaryJane is. I can't say for sure
I've ever read any of her posts. I'll have to go and look at one or
two after this.
My reason for responding is the same as on the VE threads. I see
a bunch of people ganging up on someone because they don't like
the attitude or opinion of that person. This behaviour strikes
me as bullying, and I hate bullies.
Now Renee might claim that what she's up to is some deep, meaningful
social science research, but that would only explain her research, not her
posting about it. She posted because she wanted to publicly insult
and ridicule MaryJane, and she wants to enlist others to do the same.
Not that that's hard here. I've seen more ganging up on people who dare
to express unpopular opinions or beliefs on this newsgroup than any other,
including the political ones.
There are a lot of bullies here.
Ayana Craven
In article <1.~6|6s2...@panix.com>,
Veronica Beacher <dr...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
[]
>Not that that's hard here. I've seen more ganging up on people who dare
>to express unpopular opinions or beliefs on this newsgroup than any other,
>including the political ones.
>
>There are a lot of bullies here.
This *is* rather rich. People across the world read something they
find objectionable, and respond to it, and this is "ganging up" and
"bullying" ? Big Hint: I believe it would be very safe to bet that
almost nobody who posts to swlab consults with others before
posting. By your "logic", we'd have to assign turns for posting, so
we wouldn't have seven people all objecting to the same bit of
idiocy at the same time, which bit of idiocy they all saw on their
own server at whatever time it showed up and they happened to read
it, and to which they responded without knowing if anybody else had
already responded.
I'm sure it doesn't occur to you that multiple people react to what's
posted because they find it *offensive*.
Ayana, not-a-mod
--
"From the place where I stand watching
I swear my ship is coming in!"
-- Nanci Griffith
Melinda Shore
In article <1.s3{6s2...@panix.com>, Ayana Craven <ay...@panix.com> wrote:
>I'm sure it doesn't occur to you that multiple people react to what's
>posted because they find it *offensive*.
While it's obviously true that that's what happens, in
all fairness I think that there's something of an MHR
effect here, as well - someone sits quietly until a
miscreant is identified by others, and then that person
joins in once it's clear that it's safe to smack the
miscreant around. I think that that happens here more
than it does in soc.motss.
--
Melinda Shore sh...@nr-atp.cit.cornell.edu
If you send me harassing email, I'll probably post it
--
The Breyers Traitor
dr...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Veronica Beacher), in article <1.?}+6s2x#9...@panix.com>, dixit:
>renee (rcu...@gslink.com) writes:
>> Veronica Beacher wrote:
>>> I'm at something of a loss to understand why, if you dislike her
>>> postings so very much, you not only continue to read and respond to
>>> them but actually go to dejanews in hopes of seeing even MORE of
>>> her posts.
>> Well Ron, I guess this is something you just get to contemplate. Maybe
>> if you stare at what I write and squnt real hard, it'll come to you.
>I tried that, darn it!
>It still seems silly.
Thus proving ... that Ron <> Renee. Thank goddess! Renee is
perfectly charming as she is.
--
____
Piglet \bi/ "The faded grain of super-8 makes everything
pig...@piglet.org \/ look really great." -- Jill Sobule
SarasDream
>>>I eek out a living as a chief resident in clinical psychology.<<
>>>>Given that Sarah has chosen to reveal little about
>herself... I don't have anyway to understand where she is coming from.<<<
Does this mean that you are unable to understand your clients unless you know
their orientation? What hogwash! If that were true, according to APA
standards you would be violating the ethics code by treating clients who were
straight. Somehow I don't think that you refer all of your straight clients
out, do you?
Beth
Veronica Beacher
Ayana Craven (ay...@panix.com) writes:
> In article <1.~6|6s2...@panix.com>,
> Veronica Beacher <dr...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
> []
>>Not that that's hard here. I've seen more ganging up on people who dare
>>to express unpopular opinions or beliefs on this newsgroup than any other,
>>including the political ones.
>>
>>There are a lot of bullies here.
>
> This *is* rather rich. People across the world read something they
> find objectionable, and respond to it, and this is "ganging up" and
> "bullying" ?
Let's be honest. What Renee was saying, in effect, was "Hey, look
at all the stupid things I found on MG at Dejanews. Let's all post the
stupid things MJ has said and psychoanalyse what a ditz she is"
I've gone through most of what MJ has written here over the past few weeks,
and aside from one or two occasions (that stupid "I have to check on my
baby" among them) she hasn't really been what I'd call offensive, certainly
not enough to justify the incredibly amount of abuse heaped upon her.
This NG is very clicheish, and there's a tremendous pressure put on
people to keep their posts in line with what's considered acceptable
group thought. MJ seems pretty civil in her posts, but obviously
makes a few mistakes in that area. So what? So she's not the most educated
woman on earth (by her own claim). So she's never had a sexual relationship
with another woman. If she gives bad advice, ignore it. If you don't like
what she says put her in your kill file.
She says she's here because she wants to learn (IMO she might be
better off to lurk more then and post less, but that's just IMO),
and that certainly implies she realizes there is a lot about
motss relationships she's in the dark about. Calling her names
and sneering at her "heterocentricity" isn't going to teach her
much.
Ron
renee
SarasDream wrote:
>
> >>>I eek out a living as a chief resident in clinical psychology.<<
>
> >>>>Given that Sarah has chosen to reveal little about
> >herself... I don't have anyway to understand where she is coming from.<<<
>
> Does this mean that you are unable to understand your clients unless you know
> their orientation? What hogwash!
I want to compliment you on your hogwash recognition! :).
> If that were true, according to APA
> standards you would be violating the ethics code by treating clients who were
> straight. Somehow I don't think that you refer all of your straight clients
> out, do you?
Beth.... I hope this is humor. It's interesting to know what some people
will burn brain glucose on.
renee
Ellen Evans
In article <1.91m7s2y?5...@panix.com>,
Veronica Beacher <dr...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
[]
>Let's be honest.
Yes, let's.
>What Renee was saying, in effect, was "Hey, look
>at all the stupid things I found on MG at Dejanews. Let's all post the
>stupid things MJ has said and psychoanalyse what a ditz she is"
Well, putting aside the fact that Renee is hardly the whole of the
newsgroup, why do you believe that someone here would have to go to
DejaNews to get a grasp on MJG's posting tradition here? Some of us - a
lot of us, in fact - got to witness it emerging in all its glory here the
first time around.
>I've gone through most of what MJ has written here over the past few weeks,
>and aside from one or two occasions (that stupid "I have to check on my
>baby" among them) she hasn't really been what I'd call offensive, certainly
>not enough to justify the incredibly amount of abuse heaped upon her.
That would be In Your Opinion. Obviously Other's Mileage Has Varied.
>This NG is very clicheish, and there's a tremendous pressure put on
>people to keep their posts in line with what's considered acceptable
>group thought.
Oh, yeah.
We're all just one great hive mind.
Bzzzz,bzzzz,bzzzz.
--
Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
je...@netcom.com New York Times, 7/14/96
--
Ayana Craven
In article <1.7{l7s...@panix.com>, SarasDream <saras...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>I eek out a living as a chief resident in clinical psychology.<<
>
>>>>>Given that Sarah has chosen to reveal little about
>>herself... I don't have anyway to understand where she is coming from.<<<
>
>Does this mean that you are unable to understand your clients unless you know
>their orientation? What hogwash!
Perhaps if you tell us what part of "has chosen to reveal little
about herself" you're having trouble understanding, we can explain
it to you.
Ayana, not-a-mod
--
"From the place where I stand watching
I swear my ship is coming in!"
-- Nanci Griffith
--
Ayana Craven
[]
>> This *is* rather rich. People across the world read something they
>> find objectionable, and respond to it, and this is "ganging up" and
>> "bullying" ?
>
>at all the stupid things I found on MG at Dejanews. Let's all post the
>stupid things MJ has said and psychoanalyse what a ditz she is"
I must have missed where anybody reposted MJG's stuff. At least
*something*'s gone right recently.
>I've gone through most of what MJ has written here over the past few weeks,
>and aside from one or two occasions (that stupid "I have to check on my
>baby" among them) she hasn't really been what I'd call offensive, certainly
>not enough to justify the incredibly amount of abuse heaped upon her.
MJG has quite a bit more than 2 weeks history here. Like it or not,
this is not a space where you can be a complete jerk one week and
expect everyone to have forgotten it by the next week. People who
post here tend to interact as a more-or-less continuous group,
rather than a drop-in center where you'll seldom find the same
people twice. For some, that's a *feature*, not a bug.
Among your friends, if someone comes by every week or two and acts
like a jerk, for a period of several months, do you really give that
person a clean slate every time she shows up ? I'm amazed.
>This NG is very clicheish, and there's a tremendous pressure put on
>people to keep their posts in line with what's considered acceptable
>group thought.
This is calling up one of my most favoritest cliches:
Yes, if you consider reasonably well-thought out opinions which can
be backed up by explication of *why* one has that opinion to be
"group thought", then I'd have to agree that there's quite a bit of
insistence that people live up to that standard. There's not a lot
of slack for people parroting what they've heard someone else say
*if* it's an opinion that somebody doesn't think can stand up to
scrutiny. Again, some of us find this to be a *feature* rather
than a bug.
>MJ seems pretty civil in her posts, but obviously
>makes a few mistakes in that area. So what? So she's not the most educated
>woman on earth (by her own claim). So she's never had a sexual relationship
>with another woman. If she gives bad advice, ignore it. If you don't like
>what she says put her in your kill file.
Some of us prefer to clean up our own backyards. If you don't want
to do that, don't. I'm not in the habit of letting people spout
bullshit in my offline life without my getting in their face about
it. Why should I do that here ?
Toria Dahl
It is never necessary to publicly humiliate another human being, either by
direct verbal assault or implication. It may be the easiest response, but
hardly the most effective. What seems apparent to me is that a person cannot
ask for and truthfully expect compassion unless she is first willing to extend
it to anyone, regardless of race, color, creed, or orientation.
This does not in any way suggest that it's appropriate to condone a bigoted or
insensitive statement made by another writer. However, there is absolutely
nothing to be gained by attacking another individual, by calling her opinions
idiotic, or questioning her right to post here.
I think many times it's easy to forget the big picture and engage in
meaningless little power plays which do nothing to further the overriding goal
of acceptance, or at the very least, true tolerance for people of all
orientations.
The fact that some people stay with the process and continue to post means that
they are willing to engage in dialogue. This is an opportunity to educate and
inform at least one individual. Who knows how many others she might reach in
time? But a person who is attacked will inevitably spend most of her energy
defending and deflecting, rather than absorbing new ideas.
Personally, I'd like to focus on the ideas, which are ultimately more valuable
to all of us as a whole.
MaryJaneG
> ay...@panix.com (Ayana Craven)
>Date: Wed, Nov 26, 1997 01:00 EST
>Message-id: <1.h||7s2...@panix.com>
>
>
>Some of us prefer to clean up our own backyards. If you don't want to do
that, don't.
Wow, back to swearing. Anyway, what *do* I have to clean up in my back yard?
> I'm not in the habit of letting people spout
>bullshit in my offline life without my getting in their face about
>it. Why should I do that here ?
In "real life" there is no real way to avoid situations out of the blue.
Here, you *know* I'm posting and you *know* the contents. You _can_ avoid it,
unless of course, you are on duty.
Sometimes I believe you read what I write just to find a point to argue.
M.
Welsh Pig*
tori...@aol.com (Toria Dahl), in article <1.1w~9s2&6...@panix.com>, dixit:
>It is never necessary to publicly humiliate another human being, either by
>direct verbal assault or implication.
What was humiliating about the post to which you responded? Here's
the content:
"Weeeeell, I'm at a loss to understand why, if you think this is such a
*silly* thread, you continue to respond to posts you find, apparently,
so silly." -- Ellen Evans
Now, what's so all-fired humiliating about that?
>Personally, I'd like to focus on the ideas, which are ultimately more valuable
>to all of us as a whole.
Good, then why don't you focus on ideas, instead of taking swipes at
unnamed posters to the group? You're the one who thinks that's rude,
remember?
--
____
Piglet \bi/ *Like Welsh rabbit, only not as cheesy.
pig...@piglet.org \/ http://www.piglet.org/momentum
Toria Dahl
>tori...@aol.com (Toria Dahl), in article <1.1w~9s2&6...@panix.com>, dixit:
>>It is never necessary to publicly humiliate another human being, either by
>>direct verbal assault or implication.
>
>What was humiliating about the post to which you responded? Here's
>the content:
>
>"Weeeeell, I'm at a loss to understand why, if you think this is such a
>*silly* thread, you continue to respond to posts you find, apparently,
>so silly." -- Ellen Evans
>
>Now, what's so all-fired humiliating about that?
Please note that I did not quote that post, nor was I responding to that one in
particular. I assure you if I'd wanted to be that specific, I would have been.
I was responding to a general trend, the latest evidence of which is this
particular thread. I chose to post at the end of the thread after reading it
all the way through. Please do not assign motives to me that do not exist.
>>Personally, I'd like to focus on the ideas, which are ultimately more
>valuable to all of us as a whole.
>
>Good, then why don't you focus on ideas, instead of taking swipes at
>unnamed posters to the group? You're the one who thinks that's rude,
>remember?
>--
Please note that I deliberately avoided "taking swipes" at anyone. I simply
observed a trend going on in the newsgroup. That it has become personal for
you, worthy of attacking me, is something I did not intend.
What I think is rude is singling people out for flames or ridicule. There is
nothing good to be gained from these kinds of attacks. Speaking about the
compassion needed to interact successfully together is not inconsiderate, it's
putting another line of thinking out there for people to consider. After
watching the wave of hostility that is currently riding high within these
boards, it seemed appropriate to present another viewpoint. You are more than
welcome to disagree. But I can promise you that it's highly unlikely I'll
change my opinion on this one.
What I said was: "It is never necessary to publicly humiliate another person,
either by direct verbal assault or implication."
Taking your assumption about what I was responding to out of it, I'd be
interested in knowing what it is in that statement that goes against your own
line of thinking.
SarasDream
>Perhaps if you tell us what part of "has chosen to reveal little
>about herself" you're having trouble understanding, we can explain
>it to you.
I had no trouble understanding what Sarah was trying to say....and I have no
idea what her orientation is (or really care) for that matter. <shrug> So
sue me.
Beth