Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    why did you put that article in here?
    

    
    this is still mennotes, isn't it?

    I was hoping to find out what your motivation might be for putting in
    such a silly article. I wasn't challenging your right to do it. 
    I guess your reaction
    
    
    		this is still mennotes, isn't it?
    
    is a good enough answer. In the absence of any additional info i'll
    just assume you want to start a fight.

    
    thanks for your opinion; mebbe others will contribute their
    wisdom also.

    Did the writer say anything about the division of crime between ethnic
    groups? Blood groups? Tall vs short people?
    
    

    re.0
    I'm going to puke..
    
    I could just as easily write an article blaming mothers for allowing
    their male children to grow up not knowing how to act within the law.
    
    -j

    re:.0
    
    The cost of prison is incurred to protect society from criminals.
    
    Not to protect women, not to protect men, to protect society.
    
    Mz Stephenson's perspective appears to be warped.

    Any woman who would write this trash has got some severe phobias about
    men.
    If the world had been left to women we would still be in the dark ages.
    I know I'm asking for it , but tell me ya feminist wowsers...what great
    inventions have women ever given to the world ????
    
    Oh I know the old excuses....we weren't allowed to do that, MEN
    oppressed us, etc, etc.
    But really, I can't think of anything women have done to improve the
    world except for Marie Curie, yet you only have to look around you to
    see almost everything has been invented by the men, so where does this
    "woman" get off saying men are cost ineffective.
    
    And leave out the "touchy-feely" improvements, thats what's wrong with
    the world.
    
    Luv
    
    John M

>    I know I'm asking for it , but tell me ya feminist wowsers

What is a feminist 'wowser'?

>    inventions have women ever given to the world ????

You mean besides medicine, Art, poetry, literature, films, a great number of 
sciences, and much more.  Just because they have not gotten as much 'press' as
Edison does NOT mean they have not contributed to society in the same way
(and in some cases, better) than men.

Given the number of 'inventions' in the last 100 years, are you claiming to
know how many were from each gender?  If so, perhaps you could take an 
RA82 or two and itemize?
    
>    And leave out the "touchy-feely" improvements, thats what's wrong with
>    the world.

Any others you want to leave out so reality will match your view?

-Joe

    RE: .8  John M.
    
    > If the world had been left to women we would still be in the dark ages.
    > I know I'm asking for it , but tell me ya feminist wowsers...what great
    > inventions have women ever given to the world ????
    
    Well, would you call "computer programming" an invention?  Ever heard
    of Ada (often recognized as the first computer programmer, although
    she did her work 150 years ago or so.)
    
    How about Grace Hopper (COBOL is still the programming language that
    has been used more than any other.)
    
    As an employee of a computer company, do you recognize these
    accomplishments as significant?
    
    > But really, I can't think of anything women have done to improve the
    > world except for Marie Curie, yet you only have to look around you to
    > see almost everything has been invented by the men, so where does this
    > "woman" get off saying men are cost ineffective.
    
    You're right - YOU simply can't think of anything.

-< Sounds like you live in the 'Dark Ages' yourself, in 1992... >-
    
    COBOL?  Ada?  Talk about dinosaurs.
    
    I suppose Von Neumann was really a woman, forced to dress as a man,
    you know, to fool the patriarchy.  :^)

>    COBOL?  Ada?  Talk about dinosaurs.

No less significant for being dinosaurs (now).  Then?  Achievements.

An aside... There is a series (5 part) on the Computer that is starting this
week on PBS.  Ada was mentioned in the first segment.

-Joe

    RE: .11  Mike Z.
    
    > COBOL?  Ada?  Talk about dinosaurs.
    
    Yo - I was referring to a HUMAN BEING named Ada (the woman whose
    work with Babbage 150 years ago is regarded as the first computer
    programming.)
    
    The language ADA was named after her.
    
    I'm surprised to have to explain this to you.

    RE: .12  Joe Melvin
    
    > An aside... There is a series (5 part) on the Computer that is starting 
    > this week on PBS.  Ada was mentioned in the first segment.
    
    Yes, she was indeed.
    
    I watched the first segment last night.  Really enjoyed it!!
    The 'teaser' for the next installment looks even more interesting.

    re:.13
    
    Right! And your title was ... oh nevermind... it was a joke that
    zoomed right by, about a foot too high.

    The basenote is so ridiculous, I can't even think of anything to say!
    
    8*)
    
    Karen

    
    >  arguing in a new book that the nation's annual $300 billion crime tab
    >  is exclusively a masculine problem for which men alone should pay.
    

    Hello,
    
    	It happens that from time to time I read mennotes. I must tell you
    that I am more and more surprised.
    
    	The large majority of the topics which have been entered for the
    last months are very negative towards men. I think I will soon rename
    the entry as "anti-mennotes".
    
    	Is it really the actual state of mind in the US that men are only
    bad people who must be accused of all the harms of the earth ????
    
    	I prefer to live in Europe, it is less extremist and it is easier
    to live in countries where we thing that if men are not better than
    women, they are not worse either.
    
    good luck !
    
    THIERRY
    

    	Of course there are other ways of discriminating between population
    sections than male/female. How about inner-city/countryside? Which
    should pay the higher prison taxes?
    
    	The base note is quite right that non-criminals should not be made to
    pay for keeping criminals in prison, but that argument applies equally
    to the men that are non-criminals as to the women who are
    non-criminals.
    
    	The only fair solution is to make work available in prisons at a
    reasonable rate. The cost of accommodation is deducted automatically,
    and any money they have left over is available to buy food, send to
    their victims, etc...   For those prisoners who are unable to earn
    enough to eat the other prisoners could organise their own social
    welfare system, or maybe criminals could take out "prison insurance"
    before they get caught.
    
    Just suggesting a non-sexist solution to the problem stated in the base
    note ;-)

    RE: .15  Mike Z.
    
    > Right! And your title was ... oh nevermind... it was a joke that
    > zoomed right by, about a foot too high.
    
    As a "joke," it didn't fly very high.  In fact, it took a dive next
    to the tidy-bowl guy.
    
    > -< I miscalculated yer sense of humor.  My apologies. >-
    
    No - you overestimated yours.

    re .0
    
    .0 does more to expose and damage the "feminist" movement than to 
    hurt men.
    
    re Ada Byron, Countess of Lovelace
    
    If you call using your daddy's money to "keep" Charles Babbage
    so he can play around with his new toy an accomplisment then
    have at it.
    
    fred();

I think the article quoted in the base note is the journalistic equivalent
of "firing for effect."  Someone is just trying to sell magazines.  It's
best ignored.

Ben

    Re: .11
    
    > COBOL?  Ada?  Talk about dinosaurs.
    
    FYI, dinosaurs were - and still are - the most successful vertebrates
    in the history of this planet.  They ruled absolutely for a period of
    about 150 million years, and they still exist in a larger proliferation
    of species than we "superior" mammals can boast - just take a look out
    your window at the birds.  They are, genetically speaking, dinosaurs.
    
    So when you call COBOL a dinosaur you are actually complimenting COBOL
    on its spectacular - and still continuing - success in the commercial
    world, where it stands head and shoulders above all other languages
    more than 40 years after Grace Hopper's team created it.  Modern ('90s)
    design, no.  Successful design?  You bet your bippy!  A true dinosaur,
    in the best sense of the word.
    
    -dick

    <Is it really the actual state of mind in the US that men are only
    <bad people who must be accused of all the harms of the earth ????
    
    
    No, just the radical feminists in womannotes and their male
    camp-followers in womannoters and mennotes.

    Re: .24
    
    "I'm lookin' at the world through rose-colored glasses..."
    
    -dick

    yup, i know you are

    RE: .21  Fred
    
    > .0 does more to expose and damage the "feminist" movement than to 
    > hurt men.
    
    Look who posted the article in the basenote - it wasn't a feminist.
    Anything written in criticism of men OR feminists can be used as an 
    attempt to discredit feminism (if someone is feeling threatened enough.)
    
    > re Ada Byron, Countess of Lovelace
    
    > If you call using your daddy's money to "keep" Charles Babbage
    > so he can play around with his new toy an accomplisment then
    > have at it.
    
    Are you referring to the extensive written correspondance they shared
    (during which Ada sent long series of instructions that are regarded
    as the first computer programs?)
    
    How easily you dismiss her with a comment that sounds like a sexual
    innuendo.  Do you (at least) recognize her as a human being?

    Wasn't it the last dinosaur who said "Life's a bitch, and then you
    die."?
    					- Vick

    re. .27
    
    >How easily you dismiss her with a comment that sounds like a sexual
    >innuendo.  Do you (at least) recognize her as a human being?

    Ada Byron was the daughter of Lord Byron.  Ada's biggest
    "accomplishment" was as "financier" of Charles Babbage.
    
    fred();

    RE: .29  Fred

    >> Do you (at least) recognize her as a human being?

    > Ada Byron was the daughter of Lord Byron.  Ada's biggest
    > "accomplishment" was as "financier" of Charles Babbage.

    So she was a "daughter" and a "financier" - rather than a human being
    - so her recognition (as the first computer programmer) by many in 
    OUR INDUSTRY (the computer biz) can be disregarded.
    
    Wonderful.  I can't wait to see how you similarly dismiss Grace Hopper.

I don't see how one can draw any conclusions from either the article posted
in the base note or even the book being reviewed.  The book is one woman's
opinion, which, it would seem, most others disagree with.  So what's the
big deal?

Arguing that because most prison inmates are male that implies that being male
is a predisposition to being a criminal is circular reasoning.  One could draw
an alternate conclusion that female criminals are not being sent to prison
in proportion to their numbers.

Why do so many people here go off the deep end when presented with opinions
they disagree with?

				Steve

>    Did the writer say anything about the division of crime between ethnic
>    groups? Blood groups? Tall vs short people?

    I suspect not. Had they referred to the ratio of white to non white
    men involved in crime they would have been widely regarded as racist.


    			Alfred

>Why do so many people here go off the deep end when presented with opinions
>they disagree with?
    
    A valid question if you drop the "here" in it as well. In general
    people seem to go off the deep end when presented with opinions that
    they disagree with. This effect appears to cross all lines of
    difference.
    
    		Alfred

    The "deep end" seems nearer by in electronic media.
    
    				- Vick

    
    re .30
    
    >So she was a "daughter" and a "financier" - rather than a human being
    >- so her recognition (as the first computer programmer) by many in 
    >OUR INDUSTRY (the computer biz) can be disregarded.
    
    I think the "rather than being a human being" part is about as absurd
    as .0.  I also think that Ada being given credit as "the first
    programmer" is due to the power of documentation.  After all before
    Charles Babbage could build his machine, I'd think he would have to
    have had a pretty good idea about how it would work.
    
    fred();

    How about giving us a list of people you feel have "gone off the deep
    end" so we know who you are talking about.

Sorry, Herb, I don't do lists.  If I did, someone would feel slighted that
I left them off.

			Steve

    I guess that's a pretty good definition of unattributable slander
    

    RE: .35  Fred
    
    >>So she was a "daughter" and a "financier" - rather than a human being
    >>- so her recognition (as the first computer programmer) by many in 
    >>OUR INDUSTRY (the computer biz) can be disregarded.
    
    > I think the "rather than being a human being" part is about as absurd
    > as .0. 
    
    You seem incapable of recognizing her as a human being in her own
    right (rather than someone defined by her relationship to REAL
    people, like a father or a research associate.)
    
    > I also think that Ada being given credit as "the first
    > programmer" is due to the power of documentation.  After all before
    > Charles Babbage could build his machine, I'd think he would have to
    > have had a pretty good idea about how it would work.
 
    In other words, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING is just "documentation" for the
    folks who designed the hardware, eh?
    
    Or does this only apply to software developers who happen to be women?

.35> I think the "rather than being a human being" part is about as absurd
.35> as .0.
    
    Agreed.

    Well, Fred and Mike Z., I suppose it might be difficult to imagine 
    how someone who doesn't happen to be male could be "de-humanized."
    

    You suppose wrong.  But don't let ME stop you.

    You failed to demonstrate a working knowledge of the concept - (the
    "de-humanization" described earlier.)
    
    If you do understand, you're doing a good job of concealing it.
    

    
    re Suzanne
    
    Just because I don't Cannonize someone doesn't mean that I am 
    de-humanizing them.  For instance would I be de-humanizing 
    Albert Einstein if (emphasize if) I said I had information 
    that indicates that maybe he shouldn't be held in such high
    esteem.  ie. He was a whiz at math and physics, but he couldn't
    find his way home at  night.
    
    IMHO your last few entries are more of an example of feminist
    retoric than any kind of logical argument.
    
    fred();

    RE: .44  Fred

    > Just because I don't Cannonize someone doesn't mean that I am 
    > de-humanizing them.  

    You seem incapable of acknowledging that some of the recognized
    early pioneers of computers were women.  I'd definitely regard
    this as dehumanizing these individuals.

    > For instance would I be de-humanizing  Albert Einstein if 
    > (emphasize if) I said I had information that indicates that maybe 
    > he shouldn't be held in such high esteem.  ie. He was a whiz at math 
    > and physics, but he couldn't find his way home at night.
    
    You'd be dehumanizing him (the way you've done to Ada) if you DENIED
    his feats in math and physics (or dismissed them as mere "documentation"
    for the REAL mathematicians and physicists.)  The dehumanization would
    continue if you then suggested that his only REAL accomplishment was
    to send his Mom's money to one of these REAL mathematicians/physicists.

    If you stated that Ada was truly a gifted innovator (and regarded by
    many in our industry as the first computer programmer) - I wouldn't
    mind at all if you also stated that she couldn't find her way home
    at night.  Some brilliant people do tend to be a tad eccentric.

    > IMHO your last few entries are more of an example of feminist
    > retoric than any kind of logical argument.

    Your prejudice against a computer pioneer who happens to be a woman
    is completely devoid of logic or reason.  It's simply appalling.

    reply Suzanne
    
    >Your prejudice against a computer pioneer who happens to be a woman
    >is completely devoid of logic or reason.  It's simply appalling.
    
    
    I doubt if you have any idea about what Ada's contributions were other
    than the popular feminist legends and that she was a woman.  In any 
    case, I sencerely doubt that you would be defending her so earnestly if 
    she weren't a woman.  Now whose prejudice is showing.
    
    Ie. why are you trying to hard to "de-humanize" Charles Babbage by
    attributing his codtributions to someone else who happens to be
    female?
    
    fred();

Charles Babbage invented the differential engine.  Ada Byron developed the
programs for it to run.  Different accomplishments, not directly comparable.
Certainly Ada was the world's first programmer, and was responsible for many
important concepts of software development (as well as experiencing the
common frustration of having to program for a moving target, as Babbage
kept changing the design.)

I don't understand what any of this has to do with the base note, though.

				Steve

    On a lighter note:
    	Some group recently built a copy of Babbage's difference engine. 
    After considerable tweaking it actually worked and produced results
    that were accurate to 7 (my memory) decimal places.  They didn't
    mention what software it ran or who wrote it.
    						John
    
    						

    RE: .46  Fred
    
    > I doubt if you have any idea about what Ada's contributions were other
    > than the popular feminist legends and that she was a woman. 
    
    My information about Ada Byron comes from the *computer industry* itself
    (most recently a 5-installment series - about the history of computers
    - that is currently showing on PBS.)  I've heard no "feminist legends"
    about her.  Perhaps you can provide pointers for me.
    
    > In any case, I sencerely doubt that you would be defending her so 
    > earnestly if she weren't a woman.  Now whose prejudice is showing.
    
    Your denial of Ada Byron's accomplishments goes AGAINST the known facts 
    about her work.  A justification for the support of facts is unnecessary.
    
    > Ie. why are you trying to hard to "de-humanize" Charles Babbage by
    > attributing his codtributions to someone else who happens to be
    > female?
    
    As Steve mentioned, Ada Byron was the person who wrote the software 
    for the machine built by Charles Babbage.  Software development is 
    a distinct accomplishment in itself (and takes nothing away from anyone 
    who develops the hardware being used.)
    
    I must admit that I am surprised to find you willing to DENY the
    work of one of our own computer pioneers because she was female.
    
    The early contributions of women to our business do not make the 
    computer any less important - honestly!

       Who said: "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a
       nail."?

       patrick
    						

    RE: .50  patrick
    
    > Who said: "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a
    > nail."?
    
    Is it the same person who said, "Hell, she's a woman after all, so
    we must accept that she may not be able to distinguish fantasy from
    reality"??
    
    Perhaps Ada Byron only FANTASIZED that the letters (written in her
    handwriting, followed by her signature) containing software programs
    were actually written by her.

.51> Is it the same person who said, "Hell, she's a woman after all, so
.51> we must accept that she may not be able to distinguish fantasy from
.51> reality"??
    
    And the really sad truth is, some can't.

    
    Mike,
    	Are they the women who say "Yes I am..No I'm not "  ??
    	Phewy!! Talk about going off the DEEP END. 
    
    But please, keep going.. tell me about ALL those inventive women..
    
    Luv
    
    John M

    RE: .52  Mike Z.
    
    > -< the majority of clinical paranoid schizophrenics are women >-
    
    Care to provide some data for this?
    
   .51> Is it the same person who said, "Hell, she's a woman after all, so
   .51> we must accept that she may not be able to distinguish fantasy from
   .51> reality"??
    
    > And the really sad truth is, some can't.
    
    Even sadder is that some men try to hold this as a generalization for
    all/most women (as a defense for their own crimes or misdeeds.)

    RE: .53  John M.
    
    > But please, keep going.. tell me about ALL those inventive women..
    
    I'd rather hear about YOUR inventions, John.  Please tell us all how
    you've made the world a better place to live (and include patent
    numbers, documentation of world recognition for your accomplishments 
    and a list of any/all published works.)
    
    If you refuse to take "credit" for some men's violence, then why should
    the sex of accomplished males be regarded as "credit" for you (or any
    other man)?  
    
    (Please note that I have not expressed agreement with the article posted 
    by a non-feminist in the basenote - so don't bother arguing with me
    about it.  Save the arguments for when you find someone who DOES agree 
    with it.)

  >   <<< Note 779.34 by DSSDEV::BENNISON "Vick Bennison 381-2156 ZKO2-2/O23" >>>
  >
  > The "deep end" seems nearer by in electronic media.
    
    Bingo.  Notesfiles dealing with opinions, like their cousin talk radio,
    operates by a kind of Gresham's Law: facts and reasons are driven out
    by insult and histrionics.
    
    
    Fun, but hard to take seriously.
    
    Kit

                     <<< Note 779.50 by BSS::P_BADOVINAC >>>


>       Who said: "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a
>       nail."?

I think it was B. F. Skinner.    						

.54>    Care to provide some data for this?
    
    % incidence of diagnostic classification
    
    Disorder			#cases	%Women	%Men
    Psychotic Depressive	 42379	72	28
    Manic Depressive		 44102	65	35
    Psychoneurotic		596055	70	30
    Psychophysiological		 33737	66	34
    Psychotic			463935	64	36
    Schizophrenic		307325	61	39
    Paranoid			108174	59	41
    
    [ source: Women and Madness, Phyllis Chesler ]

    re:.55
    
    How do John's inventions reflect on the contributions of women?

    that is the first time I have seen in writing documentatio of the
    disparity between male and females wrt psychiatric disorders
    
    I attribute it to the observation that women with mental disorders are
    more apt to come into the care of the medical community whereas men
    with mental disorder are more apt to come into the care of the
    correctional community.

    RE: .58  Mike Z.
    
    .54>    Care to provide some data for this?
    
    > [ source: Women and Madness, Phyllis Chesler ]
    
    Not good enough.  Please provide the sources for HER claims about
    this.
    

    i don't think it's worth the effort, Mike

    RE Suzanne
    
    Once again your asking for proof to *your* satisfaction and that is
    likely never going to happen.
    
    fred();

    RE: .63  Fred
    
    > Once again your asking for proof to *your* satisfaction and that is
    > likely never going to happen.
    
    Asking for the ORIGINAL source for stats presented in this forum is
    not an unreasonable request.  It's the very LEAST the one posting
    the stats should be willing to do.
    
    You can whine about the request all you like.  It still stands.

    re .64
    
    We'd probably disagree considerably about who is doing the whining
    here.
    
    fred();

    RE: .65  Fred
    
    Hey, I'm just asking for sources for posted stats.  It's a simple
    enough request.
    
    If you don't like it - tough.

    He threw out the line in .52 and you fell for it hook, line, and
    sinker.

    RE: .67  Herb
    
    > He threw out the line in .52 and you fell for it hook, line, and
    > sinker.
    
    Huh???  I've asked him for an original source for his claim/data.
    
    Is this the first time you've seen such a request in notes (or what??)

    you are acting like a pair of 11 yr olds

.61>  Not good enough.  Please provide the sources for HER claims about this.
    
    It's good enough for me.
    
    You want more?  You've got legs ...

    RE: .70  Mike Z.
    
    > It's good enough for me.
    
    Fine.  The stats are meaningless then (and will be discounted) until
    a legitimate source (such as the AMA or a national association of
    psychiatrists, WITH the name of the studies they conducted) is
    presented.
    
    Thanks for your time.

    RE: .69  Herb
    
    You take all this too seriously, Herb.  
    
    Do your blood pressure a favor and take a rest.
    

    
    What got this started boys??
    
    
    _d
    
    

       <<< Note 779.69 by VMSSG::NICHOLS "it ain't easy; being green" >>>

>    you are acting like a pair of 11 yr olds

Aren't they cute at this age!?!

    
    Time to pull the pin Mike,, when the stats you post  are dismissed with
    a wave of the keyboard it's time to look for a note with some sanity.
    
    Bye,bye
    
    John M

    RE: .75  John M.
    
    When stats involving medical/psychiatric conditions are posted, it's
    totally reasonable to ask for a medical/psychiatric association
    source or study to back them up.
    
    If someone claimed that 80% of all men in the world sexually abuse
    small children, I'd expect some folks to request sources for the
    claim (or to deny it outright without even BOTHERING to ask for
    sources.)
    
    I seriously doubt someone like you (or Mike Z.) would accept the
    stats willingly (saying, "Geepers, I didn't know that.  We men are 
    pretty terrible, aren't we?")
    
    Get real.

    By the way, John Moretti, I'm still waiting to hear about all your
    accomplishments (and how YOU'VE made the world a better place to
    live.)
    
    Don't be shy.  Tell us about your patents, your Nobel prizes, etc.
    
    (Surely you wouldn't want anyone saying to you, "My God!  If 
    civilization were left up to YOU, we'd still be living in the
    Dark Ages!")

    re:.last
    
    see .59.

.75>  Time to pull the pin Mike,, when the stats you post are dismissed with
.75>  a wave of the keyboard it's time to look for a note with some sanity.
    
    Oddly enough, denial is also a "female disorder" (this is what the
    author calls mental disorders that affect more than 1.5 times as many
    females as males, on average) according to the book.
    
    The data has been substantiated nicely, wouldn't you say, John?
    
    Oh, by the way those numbers are total admissions for the U.S. for
    general hospitals, private hospitals, outpatient hospitals, and state/
    city-run hospitals.

    RE: .78  Mike Z.
    
    > -< it's still a most curious detour you've chosen >-
    
    Well, if John M. feels he has the right to condemn others for not
    making what HE considers "great inventions" ("anything...to improve
    the world"), then he should be held up to the same criticism.
    
    If he's an individual who should NOT be tarred with the same brush
    as violent men, then he's an individual who should NOT be given
    credit (for being the same gender as) the men who achieved greatness.
    
    No "old excuses" will be accepted (about why he hasn't achieved
    greatness himself.)  
    
    If he hasn't done anything to improve the world (and if he doesn't
    want to be tarred with the same brush as violent men,) then he
    has NO ROOM to criticize anyone else for not achieving greatness...
    
    ...unless he wants to be a hypocrite, of course.  The choice is his.

    RE: .79  Mike Z.

    > Oddly enough, denial is also a "female disorder" (this is what the
    > author calls mental disorders that affect more than 1.5 times as many
    > females as males, on average) according to the book.

    So, DENIAL is a disorder (and a "female disorder" at that?)  Hmmmmm.
    
    Does she call violence (including murder) a "male disorder" (since
    FAR more than 1.5 times as many men commit violent crimes as women do)?

    Does she regard suicide as a "male disorder" (since twice as many men 
    commit suicide as women do)?

    Does she describe sexual assault/abuse a "male disorder" (since FAR 
    more men are convicted of sex crimes than women)?

    > The data has been substantiated nicely, wouldn't you say, John?

    As mentioned earlier, some men use stereotypes about female insanity
    to cover their own crimes and misdeeds (and/or their own inability to
    produce a credible argument.)  Yet another "male disorder," perhaps?

    > Oh, by the way those numbers are total admissions for the U.S. for
    > general hospitals, private hospitals, outpatient hospitals, and state/
    > city-run hospitals.

    Now we start to get to the real meaning of the stats you posted earlier
    (minus any sources such as medical/psychiatric associations or studies.)

    The author wasn't counting the numbers of people WITH DISORDERS - she
    only counted the number of people who bothered to get help.  The men 
    with these disorders tend not to get help (which, in part, accounts
    for the high suicide rate for men.)

    No wonder you didn't want to submit original sources for this stuff
    earlier.

    Suzzane when are *you* going to provide sourses for you assertations?
    I can recall a couple of topics where this request to you has gone
    unanswered.
    
    -j

    In my opinion this topic has rather drifted off the base note, unless
    it can be argued that women too should pay higher taxes because of the
    extra strain they impose on the social and medical services.
    
    Since we need to have patents for our opinions to be respected here (I
    have already been accused of joking in this topic) I will just sign
    myself
    
    	Brit. Pat. #1333951  ;-)

    re:.82
    
    Jerry, it's kinda ironic, isn't it?  :^)

    RE: .82  Jerry
    
    > I can recall a couple of topics where this request to you has gone
    > unanswered.
    
    You "can recall a couple of topics," eh?  Were people requesting
    "sources" (or simply asking me to compile a list of inequalities, 
    or some such?)
    
    If you need sources for the fact that men commit most of the
    violence and sex crimes in our culture (along with nearly twice
    as many suicides as women) - I'd be happy to provide them for
    you.  I'll do it over the weekend.

>      arguing in a new book that the nation's annual $300 billion crime tab
>      is exclusively a masculine problem for which men alone should pay.

 Seems to me that the people benefitting from the "solution" to the
problem oughtta be the ones paying...

 Maybe her attitude would change if we agreed, and then decided that we could
save alot of money by not imprisoning rapists and wifebeaters!

.85>    If you need sources for the fact that men commit most of the
.85>    violence and sex crimes in our culture (along with nearly twice
.85>    as many suicides as women) - I'd be happy to provide them for
.85>    you.  I'll do it over the weekend.
    
    Yes, please do, and to the same level of depth that you would require
    of someone else's posted data.
    
    By the way, wanna hear what the Merck Manual has to say about mental
    and mood disorders?

    RE: .86  The Doctah
    
    > Seems to me that the people benefitting from the "solution" to the
    > problem oughtta be the ones paying...
    
    Our whole society benefits from the prosecution and imprisonment of
    violent criminals (since men are quite often the victims of such
    crimes, too.)
    
    No matter who benefits from the solution, though, the problem is a
    societal one (and the cost should be paid by everyone in our society.)
    
    By the same token, sexual/racial/etc. discrimination is a societal
    problem (the cost of which should ALSO be paid by everyone in our
    society.)

    RE: .87  Mike Z.
    
    > Yes, please do, and to the same level of depth that you would require
    > of someone else's posted data.
    
    No problem.
    
    When I provided quotes of stats published by Susan Faludi (in her book
    "BACKLASH"), I used the sources listed in her FOOTNOTES as the ones 
    to back up the stats (such as the Bureau of the Census, with the exact
    report name, including the page number.)
    
    I expect no more (and no less) from others who post stats here.

    RE: .90  George Rauh
    
    Complain to Robert A. Holt about it.  He's the one who posted the
    basenote with the article in it (and he wrote the title.)
    
    Perhaps the mods would be willing to intervene for you.
    
    Don't take your anger at Robert A. Holt out on women, though.
    
    One individual wrote the article, but Robert A. Holt posted it here.
    Otherwise, most of us (including the women in this conference)
    would never have known the article existed.
    

    Ok then, George - you're merely disturbed and offended (per your exact
    words.)
    
    Again, take it up with Robert A. Holt (and don't take it out on women.)
    

    re: .90
    	Now what about the *really* poor cost/benefit sections of society.
    That has to be either politicians or the out-of-work. The first
    category won't vote the additional tax and the others can't pay.
    
    	.0 and its title are a joke, but that is no reason why we can't
    discuss round it ;-)

    re .73
    <what got this started boys?>
    
    for the proximate start you might look at the reaction in .51 to .50.
    From there, it is sort of point-counter-point.
    For the 'original start' i think that may be buried in the annals of
    womannotes-v1 back in 1986-88. As for the ultimate cause perhaps that
    is buring in the genes, or maybe ...
    
    re <boys>
    are you aware that Conlon is actually Suzanne Conlon?
    if so, who are the 'boys' you had in mind?
    
    				herb

Oops, looks like .98 is gone now.

Dan

    re:  .100
    You did that on purpose.  Those of us who read =wn= are onto your
    tricks, Dan.
    					- Vick

No, Mike Z. had a .99 that was referring to a (missing when
I came through) .98.

Dan

    
    	...and he hasn't restricted it to JUST =wn=, either...
    
    	right, dan?

>    	right, dan?

See JoyOfLex 396.10000 :-)

Dan

    nor, she

    Ladies and Gentlemen. It was me who wrote and deleted. So slap my
    hands. :) 

    I WILL IN A PIG'S PUCKY BOOBOO. WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, TELLING ME TO
    SLAP YOUR HANDS!
    
    
    
				_______
				|||||||
				 ~   ~
		@ @		(o) (o)    	@ @
		 >	       O|  ^  |O	 <
		\_/		| \-/ |		\_/
				 `---'
    				
				_______
				|||||||
				 ~   ~
		@ @		(o) (o)    	@ @
		 >	       O|  ^  |O	 <
		\_/		| \-/ |		\_/
				 `---'
    				
    
    

    
Note 779.105              
VMSSG::NICHOLS 
                            
>>    nor, she
    
    oh, ::NICHOLS???
    
    

    sorry, i don't understand.
    The 'she' I had in mind was the counter-pointer to Mike. Did I lose
    something somewhere?
    
    
    				herb

    
    	ah.... 
    	<dawn over marblehead>
    
    	nope but i did....but its better now.

    re.85
    I have no need to provide pointers my and the memory of other frequent
    noters in this conference know what I'm talking about. Frankly I doubt
    it would make any difference even if I did post the pointers you
    request. I haven't the time to enter a battle of the keyboard.
    
    -j

    RE: .111  Jerry
    
    > I have no need to provide pointers my and the memory of other frequent
    > noters in this conference know what I'm talking about. Frankly I doubt
    > it would make any difference even if I did post the pointers you
    > request.
    
    As a frequent noter here myself, the only instance I can recall (that
    sounds like what you're talking about) is when I was asked repeatedly
    to post a list of inequalities between the sexes.
    
    Guess what - it's not the same thing as asking for SOURCES for things
    I posted myself.  When asked to post such SOURCES, I've complied.
    
    If you disagree, then provide pointers.  Otherwise, your claim is
    totally unsupported.

    
    "Although of unclear etiological significance, it is a general clinical
    imporession that paranoid disorders are more common in females than in
    males and that their onset is highest in the third to sixth decade of
    life. This impression is supported by studies of paranoid disorders in
    general and paraphrenia in particular."
    
    The Paranoid, by David W. Swanson, M.D., Philip J. Bohnert, M.D. and
    Jackson A Smith, M.D., p243, chapter 11, Biological factors.

    RE: .113  Mike Z.
    
    Wow!!!  An entire "general clinical IMPRESSION"????
    
    And they got this after studies of paranoid disorders (which took place,
    no doubt, in the same institutions where women with disorders went for 
    help while the men with disorders were killing themselves, and/or killing 
    others, instead.)
    
    And the best they could come up with (even after all these "studies")
    was an "IMPRESSION"?  My, my.
    
    Are you trying to use insinuations of "insanity" against fellow employees
    as a debating technique here??  If so, it's pretty wierd.
    
    Are you ok?

    RE.112
    Suzzane I must assure you my claim needs no support but if I wanted to
    I could fine more than adequate proof of my claim. The real problem is
    I think you have made up your mind already and because of that I don't
    feel it is worth my effort to bother looking thru the whole conference
    just for my satisfaction. I hereby exit this conversation.
    
    -j

    RE: .115  Jerry
    
    > Suzzane I must assure you my claim needs no support but if I wanted to
    > I could fine more than adequate proof of my claim.
    
    Your "claim" is that I have refused to offer sources to substantiate
    stats I've posted.  Some dastardly deed, I must say.
    
    If you feel such a strong need to accuse me of this, while you and
    Mike Z. pointedly refuse to offer pointers and/or sources to substantiate 
    some of YOUR stats and/or claims - then I guess you're only accusing me
    of doing what you two feel completely *entitled* to do, so it's not that 
    big of a deal, really (even if your memory *is* faulty.) Who cares?
    
    Further, I won't bother posting stats to substantiate some things 
    I mentioned in a note last night:  namely, the higher number of
    violent crimes and suicides committed by males in our culture.
    
    If it will make you happy, you can now deny them.  I'll help you:
    
    		Men do NOT really commit suicide two or three times more
    			 often than women do.
    
    		Men do NOT really commit the vast majority of violent crimes,
    		         and men are NOT really imprisoned at far higher 
    			 numbers for violent and sexual crimes than women.
    
    It's ok.

    Enough is enough.
    
    If anyone here wants to claim that women have offered nothing to the
    world (and that women account for most of the numbers of insane and/or
    paranoid people in the world) - fine.
    
    Mike Z., if you want to use an "insanity defense" to make your
    arguments ("I'm ok - SHE'S just insane") - this is fine, too. 
    
    I admit that I should (actually) have my head examined for engaging
    you in these absurd discussions.  :-)
    
    Live long and prosper.

.117>    If anyone here wants to claim that women have offered nothing to the
.117>    world
    
    Where on Earth did you read this, or what did you read that led you
    to this conclusion?
    
.117>(and that women account for most of the numbers of insane and/or
.117>    paranoid people in the world) - fine.
    
    Just remember, YOU brought up mental disorders in women.
    
    All I've done is research it and post information at YOUR request.

	re .-1,
        
>.117>    If anyone here wants to claim that women have offered nothing to the
>.117>    world
>    
>    Where on Earth did you read this, or what did you read that led you
>    to this conclusion?
        
	Another example is the topic on Camille Paglia you started
        in WomanNotes-V4 (309, see .19 and .21).
                
>                      -< you started this tangent in .51 >-
>    All I've done is research it and post information at YOUR request.
        
        .51 made no such request.
        
        Dan

    RE: .118  Mike Z.
    
    .117> If anyone here wants to claim that women have offered nothing to the
    .117> world
    
    > Where on Earth did you read this, or what did you read that led you
    > to this conclusion?
    
    Remember this from John M:
    
           .8> But really, I can't think of anything women have done to 
           .8> improve the world ...
    
    Or, are you just quibbling about the semantic differences between
    "offered nothing to the world" and "[not being able to] think of
    anything women have done to improve the world..."?  If so, don't
    bother.
    
    > Just remember, YOU brought up mental disorders in women. [In .51]
    
    Not so.  I brought up a *negative stereotype* that is often used to
    try to discredit people who happen to be women.  It's not my fault 
    that it's a stereotype you were willing to try to substantiate with
    some misleading stats about how many women seek help for ACTUAL mental
    disorders (as if the stats were an indication of the total number of 
    PEOPLE in our society who are afflicted with these disorders.)
    
    None of this has anything to do with the basenote, however, so let's
    drop it.

.116> If you feel such a strong need to accuse me of this, while you and
.116> Mike Z. pointedly refuse to offer pointers and/or sources to substantiate 
.116> some of YOUR stats and/or claims - then I guess you're only accusing me
    
    What a load of malarkey and non-truths.
    
    You asked for substantiation, I gave it.
    
    
.116> Your "claim" is that I have refused to offer sources to substantiate
.116> stats I've posted.
    
    No, what he said was : "I can recall a couple of topics where this
    request to you has gone unanswered."
    
    An unanswered request is not a refusal.

.120> Or, are you just quibbling about the semantic differences between
.120> "offered nothing to the world" and "[not being able to] think of
.120> anything women have done to improve the world..."?  If so, don't
    
    The two sentences are distinct and very different in implication.
    
    Your version of it implies that women have offered nothing to the
    world, while John's does not.  Yours reflects what you THINK he said,
    not what he really said.
    
    Can you see the difference?

    RE: .121  Mike Z.
    
    > You asked for substantiation, I gave it.
    
    You gave me the name of some person I've never heard of who put them
    into a book (and you didn't explain til much later what the stats
    actually represented.)  You never did say who gathered them.
    
    > An unanswered request is not a refusal.
    
    True.  It could easily have been an oversight.  Either way, it's hardly
    a big deal when both you and Jerry actually DO refuse to give reasonable 
    resources for some of your stats or statements.
    
    Meanwhile, none of this has anything to do with the topic, so let's
    drop it.

    RE: .122  Mike Z.
    
    > Your version of it implies that women have offered nothing to the
    > world, while John's does not.  Yours reflects what you THINK he said,
    > not what he really said.
    
    John M. also said (in .8):
    
         "If the world had been left to women we would still be in the 
    	 dark ages."
    
    Also, my statement said "IF someone wants to claim..." (not "someone
    did claim...")  I presume you know what the word "IF" means.
    
    Shall we go into an infinite loop to quibble about this for the rest
    of our lives (continuing on into the afterlife for an eternity or two?)
    
    Or shall we NOTICE that it has nothing to do with the topic and drop
    it?

.123> into a book (and you didn't explain til much later what the stats
.123> actually represented.)
    
    Let's see, I ran to the library at lunch, posted the data, then
    explained what it meant after work that night.  That's much later?
    Eight hours, with five of them work hours?  Either I must learn to be
    more expedient, or you need to be more patient.  Which would you say
    is the real problem here?
    
    
.123> Meanwhile, none of this has anything to do with the topic, so let's
    
    But this has everything to do with telling the truth and not
    distorting or altering people's words or actions.

    "Based on the Epidemiological Catchment Area program, the largest
    study ever made of mental disorders in the United States, the
    National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) estimates about 6% of
    Americans age 18 and over are suffering from an affective disorder
    (affective disorders are mood disorders such as mania or depression)
    at any given time.  This include .7% in the midst of mania, 3.1%
    suffering a major depressive episode, and 3.2% with dysthymia.
    According to this study, women are diagnosed with affective disorders
    about 1.4 times as often as men."
    
    Mental Disturbances, Solomon H. Snyder, M.D., p25
    
    "By medical defintion, a hysteric suffers from as many as 37 specific
    symptoms.  Women must have at least 14 of the symptoms, men at least
    12, before they are diagnosed with the disorder."
    
    "Hysteria is primalrilya disorder of females."  (no numbers, though)
    
    "Hysterics are notoriously difficult to treat.  They are manipulative
    and often play one therapist against another, or they may provoke an
    argument between their therapist and their regular physician."
    
    Ibid, p93

    By the way, I have two more books, in case you require more
    substantiation.
    
    Dementia, by Leonard L. Heston, M.D. and June A. White is very
    interesting.

    RE: .125  Mike Z.
    
    > Let's see, I ran to the library at lunch, posted the data, then
    > explained what it meant after work that night. 
    
    You never did explain TO ME that the data (numbers of men and women
    with mental disorders) was ONLY the number of cases treated at hospitals.
    You mentioned it in an offhand way to John M. (and never did say WHO
    did the counting of these particular numbers.)
    
    .123> Meanwhile, none of this has anything to do with the topic, so let's
    
    > But this has everything to do with telling the truth and not
    > distorting or altering people's words or actions.
    
    The distortions (of this data) came from you.  You took numbers about
    how many women are TREATED for mental disorders, and you passed it off
    as a number showing how many women (versus men) HAVE such disorders.
    
    In the context of the discussion here, you offered this distorted
    information as an implied generalization about women:
    
    	.52> "the majority of clinical paranoid schizophrenics are women"
    
    Well, someone noticed that the upshot of all this is that women go for
    treatment more often than men do (which is all your stats show.)
    
    Sorry to spoil your game.

    RE: .126  Mike Z.
    
    > "According to this study, women are diagnosed with affective disorders
    > about 1.4 times as often as men."
    
    Again, this portion of your excerpt (which deals in the number of men
    versus women who are affected by mental disorders) only discusses the
    number of DIAGNOSES, not actual cases.
    
    People have to go for help before they can be diagnosed.
    
    Nice try, Mike.  No cigar.

.129> Again, this portion of your excerpt (which deals in the number of men
.129> versus women who are affected by mental disorders) only discusses the
.129> number of DIAGNOSES, not actual cases.
    
    Of course! The only way to confirm a mental condition is to diagnose it.
    
    And I agree that there are many cases of mental illness that go
    undiagnosed for years.  So, why do you bring this up?
    
.129> People have to go for help before they can be diagnosed.
    
    And criminals have to be caught before they can be jailed.
    
    Using your particular line of reasoning is akin to someone saying that
    since not all violent criminals get caught, they refuse to believe that
    men commit most of the violent crimes, based on prison populations.
    
    Some people might call that a closed mind.

    
    I'm SORRY, I'm SORRY, I'm SORRY!!!!!!!!
    How dare I make such a rash statement......
    Women are great contributors to the world as I see it.!
    
    My only invention so far is a sprinkler which behaves as a hovercraft
    when turned upside-down (HA Ha Ha HA)
    
    Really though, all I wanted to do was see what women had invented as my
    technical background has very few women in it and as I get into an
    argument with the feminists I would like to know what women contributed
    to the world at large.
    
    But pleeeease Mike, don't post any stats.......
    "We" know your stats _cannot_ be substantiated   :^)
    
    I think its funnier in the 'Box don't you Mike ??

    RE: .130  Mike Z.

    > Of course! The only way to confirm a mental condition is to diagnose it.
    
    And the only way to diagnose it is to have access to the patient, true?

    > And I agree that there are many cases of mental illness that go
    > undiagnosed for years.  So, why do you bring this up?

    You're only talking about DIAGNOSED CASES of mental disorders, not the
    TOTAL NUMBER of cases.  Since women are more likely to seek HELP for
    mental disorders than men are, it's to be expected that more women than
    men would be diagnosed.

   .129> People have to go for help before they can be diagnosed.
    
    > And criminals have to be caught before they can be jailed.

    "Going for help" is voluntary.  "Being CAUGHT" for a crime is not.
    When something is done on a voluntary basis, it's possible for one
    group to be more socialized to seek help than another group.

    > Using your particular line of reasoning is akin to someone saying that
    > since not all violent criminals get caught, they refuse to believe that
    > men commit most of the violent crimes, based on prison populations.

    In this case, individuals are being sought (to be "CAUGHT") for crimes.

    Unless one believes that women are substantially smarter than men (enough
    to avoid arrest by authorities on an EXTREMELY widescale basis,) it stands
    to reason that the ratios of arrests/prosecutions/incarcerations would
    support (in rough numbers) the idea that the majority of violent crimes
    are committed by men.

    > Some people might call that a closed mind.

    Someone might call your attitude (in this discussion) as "having an
    axe to grind against someone."  

    re:.131
    John, ain't that the truth.
    
    re:.132
    1. Voluntary vs involuntary capture is a strawman.
    2. You cite men refusing or not seeking treatment, but you supply
    	no data, no numbers.�  [Jerry G, you called that one right]
    3. You refuse to accept a "general clinical impression" because of the
    	word impression, a word just shy of "conclusion."
    
    �:	Do you realize that U.S. prison populations, which are 90+% male,
    	contain the vast majority of all the mentally ill males in this
    	country? That these prison inmates undergo a period of psychological
    	evaluation upon admission and before parole or release?
    
    	The data on males is available and is considered, yet the experts
    	still believe that "paranoid disorders are more common in females
    	than in males."
    
    
    	I believe them, you do not.  C'est la vie.

    By the way, this reminds me of the Tobacco Lobby and the AMA.
    
    After 24 years of data followed by more data followed by more data,
    they still cling tenaciously to the belief that cigarette smoking does
    not cause cancer.  In fact, a few smokers still believe this, too.

    RE: .133  Mike Z.

    > 1. Voluntary vs involuntary capture is a strawman.

    You wish.  When comparing the numbers of "people who go for help"
    versus "people who are captured for crimes," the differences between
    voluntarily accepting HELP (in a hospital) versus involuntary capture
    for INCARCERATION (in a prison!!) are pretty substantial.
    
    If you think there's no difference between mental hospitals and prison,
    then ask yourself why so many criminals do everything they can in
    court to be sent to a mental hospital INSTEAD of a prison.

    > 2. You cite men refusing or not seeking treatment, but you supply
    > no data, no numbers.�  [Jerry G, you called that one right]

    In Topic 768.*, you (and many others here) accepted the basenote's
    assertion that three times as many men as women commit suicide.

    Several people asserted in Topic 768.* (without objection from you)
    that this happens because men are less likely to see help.  Here's
    an example of the discussion (again, a note to which you did NOT
    object, nor did you demand substantiation):  [Of course, it was
    written by a male.]

    	    768.24> You've essentially outlined the most accepted explanation 
    	    of the difference.  Men (at least in the U.S.) are taught to be 
            self-reliant from an early age.  Asking for help do not come easy. 
            Added to that, we're specifically taught to ignore emotional 
            distress--we persist in scolding boys (as young as 2 or 3) that 
            "big boys don't cry".

    Make special note of this (an assertion you also let pass WITHOUT AN
    OBJECTION, nor a demand for substantiation):

    	    768.24> There are a commiserately greater number of women 
    	    hospitalized each year for mental health problems than men.  
            This is not thought to be due any real discrepancy in the 
            rate at which such problems occur in men and women.  Men are 
            simply too ashamed to ask for help.

    If you accept this from a male noter, then why object to it when a
    female noter states (essentially) the same thing?  Either you accept
    it from both men and women, or neither.

    (Wait, don't tell me.  Now you're going to launch into a NEW lengthy
    rathole with claims that I didn't write essentially the same thing
    that Mike Scott wrote in this note.  You'll use a whole bunch of
    "Huh????"'s, etc.)  Yawn.

    Give it up, Mike.

    I think the 1.4 figure is pretty unimpressive and could quite easily
    be explained by the greater reluctance of men to seek help.  Besides,
    if the attitudes of certain male participants in this discussion are
    typical of male attitudes at large then no wonder women are paranoid.
    
    					- Vick
    
    P.S.  I seriously doubt that the majority of mentally ill males in this
    country are in prison, as Mike so casually claimed.

    No, Vick, 1.4 represents the relative affliction rates.
    
    The admission rates for hospitals (.58) are dependent on people either
    seeking treatment or being committed.  Those show a larger difference
    than 1.4.  (eg: ~3.0 for psychotic depressive).
    
    
.136>  P.S.  I seriously doubt that the majority of mentally ill males in this
.136>  country are in prison, as Mike so casually claimed.
    
    You may doubt it, but it's true.  ("Prisoners" includes the people
    imprisoned in the mental hospitals in the US).
    
    How much data do you want on this?  Will you refuse to accept anything
    less than God coming down from the mountain and saying "wake up! read!
    open your mind!" ?

    i'd be rather surprised if the majority of the mentally ill males are
    in prisons. 
    My guess is that the majority of mentally ill males are walking free
    and easy throughout the United States. (allow with the majority of
    mentally ill females)
    But when mentally ill males come in contact with the bureaucracy it is
    more likely to be with the penal bureaucracy, whereas when mentally ill
    females come in contact with the bureacracy it is more likely to be
    with the medical bureaucracy.
    

    I agree with Herb.  For one thing, we all know that more criminals are
    on the streets then are in prison.  Secondly, I believe that the vast
    majority of "mentally ill" males (and females) are not criminals or
    even potential criminals.  
    					- Vick

    RE: .137  Mike Z.
    
    .136> P.S.  I seriously doubt that the majority of mentally ill males in 
    .136> this country are in prison, as Mike so casually claimed.
    
    > You may doubt it, but it's true.  ("Prisoners" includes the people
    > imprisoned in the mental hospitals in the US).
    
    None of the stats you've presented so far claim to know how many men
    (versus women) are living in our society with UNDIAGNOSED mental 
    disorders.
    
    It may be your personal opinion that the "vast majority of all the 
    mentally ill males in this country" are in the U.S. prison population,
    but you can't possibly expect anyone to accept this as "truth" just
    because you happen to believe it!
    
    > How much data do you want on this?  Will you refuse to accept anything
    > less than God coming down from the mountain and saying "wake up! read!
    > open your mind!" ?
    
    Do we only have the two choices, then??
    
    		1. Believe Mike Z.'s opinion.
    
    			or
    
    		2. Wait for data directly from God.
    
    Your theatrics are entertaining, but they don't go far as an argument.

Re: .141

Or maybe choice 3, as you suggest before - drop it.  Neither of you is going
to be satisfied with the other's statements.

			Steve

    re:.140, Vic
    
.137>      -< BTW, have you taken the time to research this, Victor? >-
    
    Or are you speaking from gut reaction?

    re:.141
    
    Oh my, shall I point out the distortions and exaggerations in
    your note, or can you spot them yourself, this time?

    RE: .144  Mike Z.
    
    
    Yawn.

    I'm not going to try to prove anything, because I don't care if anyone
    believes me or not, but in my opinion:
    
    	1.  If you think the majority of criminals are behind bars, you are
    	    woefully out of touch with reality.
    	2.  If you think the majority of mentally ill men are criminals,
    	    you are woefully ignorant of mental illness.
    
    					- Vick

.146>  <<< Note 779.146 by DSSDEV::BENNISON "Vick Bennison 381-2156 ZKO2-2/O23" >>>
[...]
.146>    	1.  If you think the majority of criminals are behind bars, you are
.146>    	    woefully out of touch with reality.
.146>    	2.  If you think the majority of mentally ill men are criminals,
.146>    	    you are woefully ignorant of mental illness.
    
    Well, you haven't done much reading or research, so instead of taking
    that as your qualified opinion, I guess I should take it as an insult,
    instead.  Yes?
    
    Oh, that's Ok, at least we've established the extent of your reading
    on this subject.  It's perfectly acceptable to speak from intuition
    and and hunches, just don't expect pseudo-science to carry as much
    weight as real research.  Fair enough?

    I thought paranoia was a female disorder.  
    							- Vick

.148>  <<< Note 779.148 by DSSDEV::BENNISON "Vick Bennison 381-2156 ZKO2-2/O23" >>>
.148>
.148>    I thought paranoia was a female disorder.  
    
    It's one of them.

Michael.  You have utterly failed to respond to Suzanne's statement of the
obvious: that the only statistics that are going to be in your books are
those of the people who have been diagnosed.  Whether those are the women
who come forward voluntarily in larger numbers or the men who come forward
involuntarily as inmates is incidental; you completely fail to account for
the overwhelming percentage of the population who've never come before the
eye of the diagnostician, those upon whom psychological evaluations have not 
been pronounced.  Vick's statement of this anecdotal truth strikes you only 
as something that hasn't been 'researched'.  Tell you what, Michael: I didn't
look it up in a book, either.  Doesn't mean your numbers are any more true
nor any more 'scientific' that what is obvious to any who can understand the
nature of a psychiatric examination.

Once again, you completely fail to understand the premises of the arguments
presented to you.

DougO

    	A random sampling technique could presumably conduct a survey on
    the incidence of mental illness in the general population - except that
    the paranoid would presumably refuse to cooperate ;-)

.150>Michael.  You have utterly failed to respond to Suzanne's statement of the
.150>obvious: that the only statistics that are going to be in your books are
.150>those of the people who have been diagnosed.

    Wrong, I did that in .130 : "Of course! The only way to confirm a
    mental condition is to diagnose it."


.150>Whether those are the women
.150>who come forward voluntarily in larger numbers or the men who come forward
.150>involuntarily as inmates is incidental;

    Right, but I already said that in .133 : "1. Voluntary vs involuntary
    capture is a strawman."  The good news is that at least _you_ seem to
    have a working knowledge of statistics, and that's better than some
    previous challengers.


.150>Tell you what, Michael: I didn't look it up in a book, either.

    Tell you what, Douglass, do me a favor, grab a few books on the subject
    and then come back here, and we'll discuss from data and facts and expert
    conclusions, rather than me citing references and you replying from a
    position based on your own personal opinion.

    Why waste time discussing this without data when a library can't be more
    than 5 miles from your house?  When you're ready, you know where to find
    me.

    Science does not "confirm", Mike.  Science hypothesizes, tests,
    predicts.  Science takes everything into consideration.  A few raw
    massaged statistics does not science make.  I have credentials as
    a scientist.  I have had both undergraduate and graduate courses in 
    probability and statistics.  I have taught undergraduage probability 
    and statistics.  So put a sock in it Mike.
    						- Vick

    RE: .153  Vick
    
    > A few raw massaged statistics does not science make.
    
    Calling these "SCIENCE" and "RESEARCH" is pretty laughable, actually.
    

>I have credentials a scientist.

 Oh, ohh. The invocation of credentials. Oooooh!

>I have had both undergraduate and graduate courses in 
>    probability and statistics.  I have taught undergraduage probability 
>    and statistics.

 A cy-en-tist fer sher! :-)

 Sorry, Vick. Righteous indignation just does something to me... :-)

    RE: .152  Mike Z.
    
    > -< it ain't easy being right so often ... >-
    
    It's far easier just to CLAIM you're right instead, eh Mike?  ;^)
    
    > Tell you what, Douglass, do me a favor, grab a few books on the subject
    > and then come back here, and we'll discuss from data and facts and expert
    > conclusions, rather than me citing references and you replying from a
    > position based on your own personal opinion.
    
    The "data" and "facts" you've provided (along with "expert OPINIONS" 
    from a couple of doctors who were lucky enough to find a publisher
    for them) do not support your theses in this topic.
    
    If pseudo-science and innuendo are the best you have to offer here, why
    do you bother?  

    I did not mean to imply that the probability and statistics expertise
    were my scientific credentials.  You misread my note.
    
    					- Vick

    Look, Mark, Mike stands there and accuses everyone else of not
    understanding scientific principles (like he does) and implied that I 
    and others don't know statistics.  I am well within the rules of human 
    discourse to inform him that he is mistaken about that.
    
    He is mistaken about that.
    
    - Vick

    oh dear

.153>  probability and statistics.  I have taught undergraduage probability 
.153>  and statistics.  So put a sock in it Mike.
    
    Put a sock in what, Victor?
    
    Are you planning to do any research on this matter or not?

    re:.157
    
    Still waiting for those numbers you were going to gather and post ...

        re .161
        
>    Put a sock in what, Victor?
>    
>    Are you planning to do any research on this matter or not?
        
        Yeah, like where *do* those socks go when they disappear?
        
        Do they disappear from the washer or from the dryer?
        
        Dan

.159>    understanding scientific principles (like he does) and implied that I 
.159>    and others don't know statistics.  I am well within the rules of human 
    
    Victor, where did I imply that about you?
    
    Rather, I'd say that you seem to have a fine grasp of statistics.  
    
    But, and this is key, until you research this matter, you're postulating
    from an uninformed position.  Are we in agreement on this last point?

 >         Yeah, like where *do* those socks go when they disappear?
 >         
 >         Do they disappear from the washer or from the dryer?

    Sounds like something in need of some statistical studies.

    Lessee - first we need 140 washers and dryers, and about 800 graduate
    students... 

    
    	Better still, 350 postdocs to research into sock/anti-sock
    reactions as observed when a critical mass of hosiery builds up
    in laundery machines such as washers,dryers and in latter day times,
    mangles.
    
    	Steve *8^)

    RE: .164  Mike Z.
    
    > But, and this is key, until you research this matter, you're postulating
    > from an uninformed position.  Are we in agreement on this last point?
    
    Where is your research on this matter?  All we've seen from you so
    far are some quotes from a few obscure authors (who happen to be
    doctors) about their "IMPRESSIONS" (even *they* don't claim that these
    can be regarded as facts,) and the labels (such as "female disorders")
    that they arbitrarily assign when the diagnosed cases of a particular
    disorder consist of 1.4 times as many females as males.  Big deal.
    
    "IMPRESSIONS" and labels aren't "facts" and "data" (much less "research.")
    
    Meanwhile, the only actual "numbers" you've posted are STILL simple
    quotes from other individuals (and you have YET to inform us where
    these other individuals came up with these numbers.)  Without this
    information, you might as well say, "Well, I know it's a fact because
    I can quote my friend Harry who says, 'It is a fact.'"
    
    Your "research" is a lot of hot air.  You have no case.
    
    Your entire stand in this topic has been a crock.

    Mike,
    I've stated my opinions.  I did not try to characterize them as science.
    There is no science apparent in anything that has been said in this
    note or its replies.  Suzanne was being too kind in characterizing
    your contributions as pseudo-science.  If you want to bring forth all
    your "scientific research" capabilities and "prove" my opinions wrong,
    be my guest.  I don't care to spend my time proving the obvious or
    disproving the laughable.  
    
    - Vick

    
    
    
    			 P L E A S E

    Please what?
    					- Vick (moderator)

    Have the socks in question pass the water test? Can you fill them with
    water and not have em leak? 

    If they do pass the test, just think, when Act-Up shows up at the local
    high school. Instead of passing out controversial material. Pass out 
    some socks! Athletic of course! :)

    stop this runaway discussion
    
    				herb

    Which part of the runaway discussion do you want stopped?  The part
    about the socks was adding a little comic relief that I was rather
    enjoying.  The rest seems still within guidelines to me and I'm not
    sure on what grounds I should stifle it.  Maybe Steve, as someone more
    disinterested, can pass judgment on this request.
    
    				- Vick (moderator)

    i agree about the sock diversion.
    
    As for grounds, common sense I guess. I will try to construct a more
    rigorous opinion if you feel it's necessary.
    
    				herb

    Pass the saute socks, spam, and the parfait rats! :)

    If you stopped every Zarlenga/Conlon repart�e the silence would be
    deafening.

       re .177:
       
       Does the word repartee not imply a certain level of wit, a certain
       level of cleverness?  Would you wish to reconsider your choice of
       words?
       
       --Mr Topaz

    Well, I've just seen excerpts from one of the books Mike Z. has been
    quoting.  Its premises are diametrically opposed to the assertions
    Mike has attempted to support with these books.
    
    It appears that Mike's entire stand in this topic has been in jest.
    
    The title of the book is "WOMEN & MADNESS, When is a Woman Mad...and
    Who Decides Whether She is?" by Phyllis Chesler, 1972.
    
    Here's some quotes from the book cover:
    
    	"Every year hundreds of thousands of American women seek or are
    	forced to receive some form of mental health care - either in
    	institutions or through private therapy.  From the time of
    	Sigmund Freud to the present day, psychiatrists, psychotherapists,
    	and psychologists have been treating or committing women for
    	depression, angry behavior, and a stubborn refusal to conform...
    
    	"Now, Phyllis Chesler, a qualified psychologist and a concerned
    	feminist, brings an impassioned indictment against a century of
    	psychiatric theory and practice...."
    
    Now, a person can agree or not agree with what the book says, but I
    don't know anyone (except Mike) who would regard any of this info at
    face value (as "science" or "research") without checking the sources
    for Phyllis Chesler's (or anyone else's) "expert OPINIONS" about this 
    particular subject.
    
    Ho hum.

    RE: .178  Mr Topaz
    
    You only say that, Don, because you're our pal.
    

    How about "Carnage", Topaz?
    
    Reminds me of the skit - 
    
    "I came here for an argument."
    "You did not."
    "I did so."
    "Did not."
    "This isn't an argument.  This is contradiction."
    "It is not." 

Gee thanks, Vick.  Set me up for cries of "Goderator" and "abuse of power"
and "censorship" again!  I would personally prefer to have the Conlon/Zarlenga
exchange take place somewhere other than in this notesfile, but I don't expect
either of them to voluntarily change the venue.  I think the sock idea has
much merit.

From a disinterested personal viewpoint, I don't see either Mike's or 
Suzanne's stated position as being defensible.  Mike cites some statistics
and quotes from a book, and then tells everyone else that only he is being
truly scientific.  Suzanne won't just say "that's interesting, but I don't
agree with it", and instead treats a notes discussion as if it were a
doctoral thesis in need of a 14-page bibliography.  (I'm exaggerating a bit
here, but you get the idea.)

It appears to me that both Mike and Suzanne are primarily interested in
"scoring points", and less interested in a productive discussion.   What if
we called it a tie and went on to other things?  Do we really need another
100 replies of "Yes it is!", "No it isn't!"?  Who will be the first to do
what Suzanne herself suggested many replies ago, that being to "drop it"?

				Steve

    .181
    
    Another Python fan! 
    
    I want to continue this argument!
    No.
    Why not!
    Because I don't want to.
    but I paid for it and I want it!@
    No~!
    
    :)

    RE: .182  Steve Lionel
    
    What you wrote is interesting, Steve, but I don't agree with it.
    
    		(Just kidding!)  :-)
    
    Yes, let's drop it.
    

    A little learning is a dangerous thing.
    
    Common sense is superior to bad statistics.
    
    - Vick

>    Look, Mark, Mike stands there and accuses everyone else of not
>    understanding scientific principles (like he does) and implied that I 
>    and others don't know statistics.  I am well within the rules of human 
>    discourse to inform him that he is mistaken about that.

 I know that. It's just the way that you do it. If you didn't get on your
high horse, it wouldn't be nearly as comical...

    If you knew me you would know how comical it is to think of me on a
    high horse.  Ah, words.
    					- Vick

    What Victor doesn't understand is what was said by Mark Twain in
    regards to liars, politicians, and stata-titions.(sp) And that there are 
    stats for women by women. But when there are stats against women by
    women. That kinda seems to be unproven or something. Or that the author
    is on some sort of mindless altering drug or a commie plot that is
    against apple pie and the American way. 
    
    I feel that this whole topic was originally a Python skit for the sake
    of an argument. So..... Pass the spam, the green eggs, and the saute
    socks. And if there is enough parfa rats left over...:)

    
    I may be off base here, but I  thought one of the points of Chesler's book
    was that more women were diagnosed as "mentally ill" because they
    didn't fit the definition of "healthy behavior" (which was heavily 
    skewed toward male norms).  Or am I confusing this with Carol
    Gilligan's work?
    
    clb
    

    A gentle reminder, for those who have become lost in all the claims
    of "but that's because women seek help more often than men ..."
    
    
    "Although of unclear etiological significance, it is a general clinical
    impression that paranoid disorders are more common in females than in
    males and that their onset is highest in the third to sixth decade of
    life. This impression is supported by studies of paranoid disorders in
    general and paraphrenia in particular."
    
    The Paranoid, by David W. Swanson, M.D., Philip J. Bohnert, M.D. and
    Jackson A Smith, M.D., p243, chapter 11, Biological factors.

    yup, just look at our sibling conference.
    It looks to be particularly virulent in the 3rd & 4th decade.

    It's something like 2-3 times as common for those decades, Herb.
    
    That seems about right to me.
    
    I'll try to remember to post those references tonight.
    
    Notice the quote makes no mention of total diagnoses, it refers instead
    to how relatively common the conditions are, for the two groups.

    If "impressions" of a few doctors are pertinent, some "impressions"
    from another one should be entered as well.  (None of these can be
    described as "conclusions" or "facts," of course.)

    Some additional quotes (from one of resources Mike Z. has been using):
    [One of these is on the same page as some 'stats' he posted earlier.]

    	"Women become 'depressed' long before menopausal chemistry becomes
    	the standard explanation for the disease.  National statistics and
    	research studies all document a much higher female to male ratio
    	of depression or manic-depression at all ages.  PERHAPS women *do*
    	get 'depressed' as they grow older - when their already limited
    	opportunities for sexual, emotional, and intellectual growth 
    	decrease even further.  Dr. Pauline Bart studied depression in middle-
    	aged women and found that such women had completely accepted their
    	'feminine' role - and were 'depressed' because that role was no
    	longer possible or needed."

    	[Women and Madness, When is a Woman Mad...and Who Declares Whether
    	She Is?, Phyllis Chesler, p. 62-63.]

    	"Men are generally allowed a greater range of 'acceptable' behavior
    	than women are.  It can be argued that psychiatric hospitalization
    	or labeling relates to what society considers 'unacceptable' 
    	behavior.  Thus, since women are allowed fewer total behaviors and
    	are more strictly confined to their role-sphere than men are, women,
    	more than men, will commit more behaviors that are seen as ill or
    	'unacceptable.'

    	"Self-destructive or 'loser' behavior, from suicide attempts to a
    	fearful narrowing of life experience, is only fully punished as the
    	female grows older.  The female child is usually praised for the
    	'maturity' of her submissiveness, obedience, and underadventuressness."

    	[Women and Madness, When is a Woman Mad...and Who Declares Whether
    	She Is?, Phyllis Chesler, p. 61.]

        That's what one of Mike's references says?  Gee, you'd
        never know it from his notes.
        
        Dan

    re:.194
    
    By the way, Suzanne, before you get carried away, remember that
    Ms Phyllis Chessler is not a doctor, so while her statistics and
    data may be useable, her conclusions and opinions have no
    qualifications behind them.
    
    The 3 co-authors of the reference in .190 are all M.D.s.

    RE: .196  Mike Z.
    
    > -< who do you trust, a woman with no training, or 3 M.D.s? >-
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    She was YOUR reference (the only one you offered for the stats you
    posted earlier.)  Now she's merely a "woman [as if her sex has a
    bearing on her qualifications in general] with no training."
    
    Your "sources" (and "research") are starting to fall apart before our 
    very eyes.
    
    > ...so while her statistics and data may be useable, her conclusions 
    > and opinions have no qualifications behind them.
    
    She's a psychologist (which gives her conclusions and opinions
    more qualifications behind them than YOUR opinions have.)
    
    > The 3 co-authors of the reference in .190 are all M.D.s.
    
    You haven't cited any of their conclusions, though - only their
    opinions and/or "IMPRESSIONS."  
    
    Neither an opinion nor an impression is a CONCLUSION (supported by 
    evidence.)

    RE: .192  Mike Z.
    
    > Notice the quote [in .190] makes no mention of total diagnoses, 
    > it refers instead to how relatively common the conditions are, 
    > for the two groups.
    
    They can only get their "IMPRESSIONS" (which are still not CONCLUSIONS)
    from diagnosed cases (i.e., patients that have been examined in a
    clinical setting.)
    
    These doctors have no way of knowing the numbers (or male-female
    ratios) of these disorders in the general population since they only
    have access to a *subset* of the total cases (and the *subset* is
    skewed by different cultural and social norms for men and women.)
    
    They can guess - but a guess is not a conclusion (supported by
    evidence) any more than an opinion or an impression is.

Yeah, I love how Mike's "M.D." quote starts with a complete disclaimer

  "Although of unclear etiological significance,..."

and he later references it as though it represents some definate
contribution to the cause of 'science'.  Durn engineers still need
english lessons, I see.

DougO

        Good point, DougO.
        
        Dan

    And another.  Hey, I should start collecting .x01's.  Then all I'd have
    to do is follow Dan around.
    						- Vick

    Don't bogart that snarf my friend,
    pass it over to me.
    
    Snarf me another one,
    
    
    :-)

       
       Suzanne, honestly, whenever you get heated up like this you do
       seem to go overboard with your uppercases and asterisks and
       parentheticals and all of those other eye-catchers.
       
       In the .197/.198 duo, for example, I counted 9 parenthetical or
       bracketed phrases, 5 all-uppercase words, 2 asterisk-encased
       words, 5 words or phrases in quotation marks, and 1 carated
       phrase.  That's a bit much, don't you think?  
       
       --Mr Topaz
       
       p.s.: If I've miscounted, perhaps Sancho P'anza can correct
       the totals.

    RE: .203  Mr Topaz

    > Suzanne, honestly, whenever you...

    Don, I'm always so very flattered when you notice every little word
    I write (and punctuation I use) in my notes, past and present.

    In fact, I recall a time (a year or two ago?) when I dubbed you the
    official "Conlon Historian" after a string of notes of recollections
    you wrote about me that went farther back than my own memory of the
    notes conversations you described.

    I'd love to take yet another stroll down memory lane with you here,
    but we do have a topic being discussed.  If I'm ever rich and famous,
    I'll send biographers to find you, though (if they have enough time
    and volumes planned to record the information you've collected over
    the years.)

    Thanks for being my pal.

       Suzanne, your style is becoming almost indistinguishable from that
       of Zarlenga.  He's mastered the style of 1-sentence paragraphs,
       and you've managed to do the same in 3 out of 4 in the last note. 
       Well done!
       
       --Mr Topaz
       
       p.s.: I have but a mere 600k free blocks on CALLME, so I decline
       to be the Guardian of The Writings of La Suzanne, lest I use them
       all up over the course of a week or so.

    RE: .206  Mr Topaz
    
    You're slipping a tad as the Conlon Historian, Don, if you've never
    noticed that I've always tended to use rather short paragraphs in notes.
    But I forgive you.
    
    > ...I decline to be the Guardian of The Writings of La Suzanne...
    
    You'll remember my writings anyway (even without recording the actual
    notes.)  You always have.
    
    You just can't help it, Don.  That's what being a pal is all about.

    re:.197
    
    Yup, my reference ... for one table and one note.
    
    The book's a paperback, written by a woman with no credentials.
    
    Trust her data, sure,  Trust her conculsions?  She's no more qualified
    than a janitor to speak on the subject.
    
    Get thee to a library and get a real book.  Written by a professional.
    

    re:.203, Mr Topaz
    
    "Hysteria, also known as somatization disorder and Briquet's syndrome,
    nearly always occurs in females.  It is a pattern of behavior that
    centers around numerous complaints that are made often and usually
    described in very dramtic terms."
    
    "Many women with hysteria have a history of delinquency or anti-social
    behavior ... ."
    
    "Mental Disturbances" by Solomon H. Snyder, M.D., p89, p93

    RE: .208  Mike Z.
    
    > Yup, my reference ... for one table and one note.
    
    Her book provided the only stats you've posted here.  Sure doesn't
    give you much of a claim to "science" and "research" since you now
    discredit the one and only source of your stats in this topic.
    
    > The book's a paperback, written by a woman with no credentials.
    
    She still has more credentials in this area than you have.
    
    > Trust her data, sure,  Trust her conculsions?  She's no more qualified
    > than a janitor to speak on the subject.
    
    She's a psychologist, which makes her far and away more qualified than
    you are in this area.
    
    You've drawn conclusions based on the quote from the 3 M.D.'s, in spite
    of their very clear disclaimer at the beginning of the quote.
    
    Trust your conclusions?  You have to be kidding.  You're far less
    qualified than an individual you describe as having no qualifications.
    
    You can't be serious about any of this.

    RE: .209  Mike Z.

    As mentioned before, some individuals use negative stereotypes about
    mental disorders in women to cover their own crimes, misdeeds and/or
    failed arguments.

    Pointing it out seldom stops the more desperate individuals, however.

.211>            <<< Note 779.211 by MOUTNS::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>
.211>
.211>    RE: .209  Mike Z.
.211>
.211>    As mentioned before, some individuals use negative stereotypes about
.211>    mental disorders in women to cover their own crimes, misdeeds and/or
.211>    failed arguments.
    
    What on Earth are you talking about?
    
    Please attack the facts, not the noters.

    RE: .212  Mike Z.
    
    > What on Earth are you talking about?
    
    "Some individuals," of course - as I stated.
    
    > Please attack the facts, not the noters.
    
    Excuse me?  Which noters are attacked when a person mentions the
    behavior of "some individuals"?
    

.213>      -< Not that there are any facts in this topic to attack anyway... >-
    
    See .209, on hysteria.

    RE: .214  Mike Z.
    
    .213> -< Not that there are any facts in this topic to attack anyway... >-
    
    > See .209, on hysteria.
    
    Your quote in .209 contains an M.D.'s opinions, but no facts at all.
    Opinions are not the same as facts.
    
    Doctors and scientists who present professional theories or theses
    are required to back them up with evidence that can be verified by
    others.  Neither the medical nor the scientific communities accept 
    data as factual purely on the basis of claims made by the individual
    who wrote the book or the paper.
    
    Substantiation is always required.

    Look, Mike - you brought up the idea that you were arguing from a
    scientific, researched position (and you've defined the difference
    between being qualified to speak on a subject versus having no 
    qualifications.)
    
    By your own definition, you have no qualifications at all, so we
    can't accept your conclusions.
    
    If we follow the principles of science - and medicine, which must be
    considered since you seem to regard anyone less than an M.D. as 
    unqualified to speak on this subject - we must expect more than 
    anyone's mere opinions, regardless of their qualifications.
    
    If you can't conduct your argument on the terms you set up yourself,
    then it's pointless to continue this.  So let's drop it, shall we,
    sport?
    
    Thanks for your time.

    from 	Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
    			third edition revised 
    
    				DSM-III-R
    published by the American Psychiatric Association 1987
    
    		Paranoid Personality Disorder pg 338 
    
    PREVALENCE
    Since people with this disorder rarely seek help for their personality
    disorders, or require hospitalization , the disorder seldom comes to
    clinical attention. Because of a tendency of some of them to be
    moralistic, grandiose, and extrapunitive, people with this disorder may
    be overrepresented among leaders of cults and other fringe groups.
    
    SEX RATIO
    This disorder is more commonly diagnosed in men
    
    		Schizephrenia pp 187-197
    
    Sex ratio: The disorder is apparently equally common in both sexes
    (for schizophrenia in general) Although Paranoid Schizophrenia
    specifically is discussed separately  no gender breakdown is given.
    
    Delusional (Paranoid) Disorder pp199-203
    Age at onset: is generally middle or late adult life, but can be at a
    younger age. In most studes average age at onset has been found to be
    between 40 and 55
    Sex Ratio: Delusional (Paranoid) Disorder is slightly more common in
    females than males.
    
    Hysterical neuroses, Conversion type pp 257-258
    Prevalence. Although Conversion Disorder was apparently common several
    decades ago (typist: and Freud made a good part of his early fame
    treating it), it is now rarely encountered. Most cases are seen on
    neurology or orthopedic wards and in military settings, especially in
    wartime.
    
    Sex ratio.
    No definite information is available; but one particular conversion
    symptom, globus hystericus, the feeling of a lump in the throuat that
    interferes with swallowing, is apparently more common in females.
    
    Hysterical Neuroses, Dissociative Type
    PP 269-271
    
    Predisposing factors:
    Several studies indicate that in nearly all cases, the disorder has
    been preceded by abuse (often sexual) or another form of severe
    emotional trauma in childhood.
    
    Sex Ratio:
    In several studies of psychiatric patients, the disorder has been
    diagnosed from three to nine times more frequently in females than in
    males.

Time to clean out the sock drawer again?

    We're all going to be going around barefoot 'fore long.  - Vick

    
   < Fire Side Theater >
    
    Hey Porgie what ja gonna do when you graduate from More Scienc High?
    
    Sit in a tree cut the souls of my shoes and learn to play the flute...

    Re: .182 <who will be the first to drop it.>
    i think the only way to prevent somebody from feeling a loss of face
    (real or imagined) and a corresponding need to reply again, is to
    disable the topic.

    I hope you realize that this is ALL your fault patrick BADovinac!
    
    (see .50)
    
    				herb

    re: .218
    
    Even if a person were to exhibit many of the 37 symptoms of hysteria,
    that's still a judgment only a professional should make.

.215>         -< An M.D.'s words are not gospel. Show his substantiation. >-
    
    Interesting that you posted of .170, the opinions of a feminist,
    without substantiation.

    RE: .224  Mike Z.
    
    > Even if a person were to exhibit many of the 37 symptoms of hysteria,
    > that's still a judgment only a professional should make.
    
    Only a professional is qualified to judge (after extensive psychological
    examination) whether or not ANY of the symptoms are present in a given
    individual.
    
    The speculations of an unqualified person would be bogus at best, and
    depending on the situation, mean-spirited or even slanderous at worst.

    RE: .225  Mike Z.
    
    > -< you set higher standards for opinions you don't like >-
    
    I used precisely the same standards I asked of your quotes.  See below.
    
    > Interesting that you posted of .170, the opinions of a feminist,
    > without substantiation.
    
    The reply was .179, and I wrote this after the text I quoted from
    Phyllis (the feminist) Chesler's book:
    
       "Now, a person can agree or not agree with what the book says, but I
        don't know anyone (except Mike) who would regard any of this info at
        face value (as 'science' or 'research') without checking the sources
        for Phyllis Chesler's (or anyone else's) 'expert OPINIONS' about this 
        particular subject."

>.224    that's still a judgment only a professional should make.

Of course, we can all judge whether your notes are unprofessional.

Dan

    FWIW.  I don't think any human being has the right to JUDGE another for
    any reason, unless of course we're talking about a capital crime, ie
    murder, rape, etc.  But that's not the stream we're talking about here. 
    If we are trying to *JUDGE* personalities and what the person is
    *like*, then nobody has that.  Dr's are just overpaid people who make
    life/death decisions about anybody and use common sense to do it
    (except for surgeons and medical determining dr's).  Psychiastrists are
    worthless.
    
    /p

    I resent you talking about Psychiatrists that way. Several of my good
    friends are psychiatrists. I'm sure they would agree with me that your
    comments are worthless (if not your motivation and other things)
    

    I wonder if that's saying anything (:-)).  Anyway, that's what I think
    they are.  They get paid big bucks to sit and listen to you and they
    sometimes don't even say anything.  I guess they are mostly put on
    earth to work in beverly hills and places like that where the people
    that have the money to spend, do so and don't look for much to come out
    of it.
    
    Paul

    
>    they are.  They get paid big bucks to sit and listen to you and they
>    sometimes don't even say anything.  I guess they are mostly put on
    
    
    Hmm ... the best consultant I ever saw used that MO
    
        ... I also know lots of folks for whom counseling has been a big help
    
        ... I also know lots of folks for whom counseling has not helped
    
    I'd guess it depends on the the desire of the person to learn, the
    ability of the "prefessional", and the relationship they develop.
    
    Greg
    
    

    "Bulimia, which means "ox hunger," is an irresitible craving for food
    that leads to repeated episodes of binge eating - the ingestion of huge
    amounts of food within 2 hours or less.
    
    Bulimics do not stop gorging themselves until they suffer abdominal
    pain, fall asleep, or are interrupted by someone or something, such as
    a telephone call.
    
    Bulimcs are very much aware that their eating habits are abnormal, and
    they worry - even to the point of becoming depresssed -  - about their
    uncontrollable consumption.
    
    There is wide agreement that anorexia nervosa and bulimia primarily
    affect white females.  Indeed, girls and women make up 90-95% of all
    cases."
    
    "Mental Disturbances" by Solomon H. Snyder, M.D. pp78-80

    
    Actually Mike, there's thought that people develop disturbances such as
    bulimia IN RESPONSE to biologically induced depression.
    
    The source for this is a book written by a treated depressive,
    whose ex-husband is a treated manic depressive and whose daughter is a
    recovered bulimic. 
    
    Sorry, no M.D. or PhD. here.  I suppose I'd have my doubts, but after
    reading what she had to say, it's much closer to what I've seen happen
    to those I know than any book written by a hoity-toity pshahchahtrist.
    
    Lisa

    
    BTW, one of the ways MEN respond to depression is to drink too much.
    Any stats as to the man/woman ratio of DUI?  Or AA?
    
    Same illness, different methods of dealing with it.  Both destructive.
    And I would hazard a guess that if it were so necessary for men to be
    thin to be considered "attractive", and if men's looks were emphasized
    as a measure of their worth to society as much as a woman's looks,
    there'd be just as many male bulimics.  Actually, I'd hazard another
    guess that steriod abuse is a man's anorexia.
    
    Lisa

    In AA, the male/female ratio is about 60/40 in the US.
    
    					andrew

    Lisa,

    The roids statement is a good comparison. I would, at present, agree
    with that statement.

    The DWI/DUI statement I might be inclined to disagree, for there are
    allot of drunk men driving their drunk dates home or from bar to bar.
    And because of the social role play that men must drive their dates,
    sets that analogy out the window. 

    There are many women and men who do not seek help and what of them?
    Yes you have a certain percentages of folks who will go to seek help.
    But the true measurement of these folks as a whole I would not speculate
    to guess who is the bigger drunkard. 

    Being a chauffeur on weekends, I see my share of drunken women who
    cannot find the door handle never mind their purse. 
    
    Peace

    
    	<tap tap tap>
    
    	jeeves....(HIC) home please.

    I wasn't trying to pit men against women here.  It was just that a lot
    of arguments about this being a woman's mental illness and such were
    being presented, and I just wanted to make a statement that it's very
    possible that men and women are suffering from the same types of
    disorders, it's just that for one reason or another, women take one
    method of action to deal with it, and men often use another.
    
    Sometimes the specific action taken is not always linked to the
    underlying illness, and thus, is makes it look like one gender suffers
    more from "xxx" problem when, in reality, it's just not being recorded
    that "yyy" behavior is actually caused by "xxx" illness. 
    
    It's similar to women suffering from AIDS.  They often get diseases
    that differ from those of men, and which aren't on the offical "AIDS
    list of dread diseases".  Hence, they aren't recorded as AIDS patients
    and the statistics get skewed.
    
    Lisa

    re:.236
    
    Lisa, I have no problem acknowledging that some disorders affect more
    men than women.  That's only common sense.  And so is the converse,
    that some disorders affect more women than men.
    
    Now, if we're going to sit in judgment on men, as the basenote's author,
    Ms Stephenson, and some noters here do, then we ought to also look at
    the disorders that primarily affect women.
    
    That's only fair, wouldn't you agree?

    RE: .241  Mike Z.
    
    > Now, if we're going to sit in judgment on men, as the basenote's author,
    > Ms Stephenson, and some noters here do, then we ought to also look at
    > the disorders that primarily affect women.
    
    Show us the noters who agreed with the article cited in the basenote
    (and please provide pointers.)  Putting words into other people's mouths
    won't count.
    
    I doubt you really believe that violent crime is an illness in itself,
    but if you do, then why aren't you working to abolish the imprisonment
    of all the people convicted of violent crime?  If their actions prove
    the presence of an illness, then violent criminals belong in hospitals.
    Imprisoning people for being ill is unconstitutional.

    re:.243
    
    I don't believe that! That's a load of propaganda published some
    people who hate men.  It's just another way they oppress us males
    and keep us down.  Yay, brother!!
    
    I wanna see the numbers!  No, I wanna talk with the people who
    published the numbers.  No!!!  I WANT YOU TO DOCUMENT THAT CLAIM IN
    TRIPLICATE OR ELSE IT'S WORTHLESS!!!  Yes!!! That's it, by George,
    WORTHLESS.  Just you remember ... if I say it's worthless, it IS!!!
    
    $ Set Mode/Sane
    
    re:.243
    Yeah, 10:1 sounds about right.

        re .244,
        
>    re:.243
>    
>    I don't believe that! That's a load of propaganda published some
>    people who hate men.  It's just another way they oppress us males
>    and keep us down.  Yay, brother!!
>    
>    I wanna see the numbers!  No, I wanna talk with the people who
>    published the numbers.  No!!!  I WANT YOU TO DOCUMENT THAT CLAIM IN
>    TRIPLICATE OR ELSE IT'S WORTHLESS!!!  Yes!!! That's it, by George,
>    WORTHLESS.  Just you remember ... if I say it's worthless, it IS!!!
>    
>    $ Set Mode/Sane
>    
>    re:.243
>    Yeah, 10:1 sounds about right.
        
        So can we conclude that your primary personality
        is the raving hysteric, and that you will use a
        special disclaimer on those rare occasions when
        you wish to write from an alternate personality?
        
        Dan

    re: .243: hmmmm, you didn't hafta
    
    "set mode insane"
    
    :-)

    re:.245
    More importantly, Daniel, did you like my impression?
    
    re:.246
    I figured it would help get the point across ..  :^)

        re .247
        
>    More importantly, Daniel, did you like my impression?
        
        It left the impression that its author is a jerk.
        
        Dan

    
    	is this a direct parry to Z's impression?

        Hi Denise!
        
        He asked me a question, so I gave him an answer.
        In general though I would be surprised if a lot
        of you cared enough what I thought of your notes
        to bother to ask.
        
        Dan

.249>        <<< Note 779.249 by GUESS::DERAMO "Dan D'Eramo, zfc::deramo" >>>
.249>
.249>        re .247
[...]
.249>        It left the impression that its author is a jerk.
.249>        
.249>        Dan
    
    Is that all you got from it?

        What else if anything do you think you put into it?
        
        Dan

    
    	oh come on, Z.
    
    	i think its terribly chivalrous the way dan protects his
    	SO.

       re .254:
       
       To say nothing of always staying a respectful 2 paces in arears.
       
       Sort of like Dan Quayle, who never really has a thought of his own
       but who always smiles and speaks well of his boss.
       
       --Mr Topaz

    RE: .255  Mr. Topaz
    
    Don, I'm not sure if you read =wn= - I know that Mike Z. does, though.
    He wrote the "set mode/sane" entry in this topic 14 hours after I
    posted a note in =wn= that my Mother is dying.  I haven't read much
    (or written anything) in notes other than notes about my Mother since
    early Sunday morning - until now.
    
    I'll be back here after the funeral, so please save your comments about
    me (and/or about my family, including my SO) until then.
    
    Thanks,
    Suzanne E. Conlon

       Suzanne, I know nothing about your personal problems, though I
       wish you well in their resolution, and I understand that you would
       be upset.  I hope that when you will have returned to notes, you
       will see that the note in question characterized Mr D'Eramo and
       his recent notes (rather than yourself and your notes).  As Mr
       D'Eramo does not seem to have a problem in writing contentious
       notes at this time, it seems extraordinary to ask that people not
       comment about his notes.  
       
       --Mr Topaz

    RE: .257  Mr Topaz
    
    > Suzanne, I know nothing about your personal problems, though I
    > wish you well in their resolution, and I understand that you would
    > be upset. 
    
    Don, if you can characterize the death of a close family member as
    "personal problems" that require "resolution," then I doubt you have
    any idea what I'm feeling right now.  In any case, I haven't discussed
    my feelings with you, so I'd appreciate it if you refrained from making
    further speculations about them.
    
    > I hope that when you will have returned to notes, you
    > will see that the note in question characterized Mr D'Eramo and
    > his recent notes (rather than yourself and your notes). 
    
    Don, I did see the note you wrote about Dan (in which you negatively
    characterized him in terms of his relationship to me.)  Your note
    mentioned nothing else.
    
    All I'm asking is that you save such remarks for when I've returned
    to the general discussion here (after the funeral.)

	Mr. Topaz,
        
        Of course, to say that your .255 did not characterize
        Suzanne is a blatant lie.
        
>.255
>       To say nothing of always staying a respectful 2 paces in arears.
        
        Two paces separating whom?
        
        Actually we usually walk side by side, holding hands.
        
        Dan

    
    	oh dear, i must have read .255 all wrong then.
    
    	

    re:.256
    That's terrible news.
    
    But, I don't see the connection to the note of mine that you reference,
    besides the fact that it was written 14 hours after yours.
    
    
    re:.260
    Me too, I guess.

    Now that we've established that male and female brains are different,
    this seems like a good time to take another look at the different types
    of mental illnesses that affect the sexes.
    
    Perhaps the data in 830 will shed some light on this, and vice-versa.

	"One area where, in the European edition of Brain Sex, we
	could merely hint at singificant differences due to the
	organization of the male and female brain, concerned mental
	illness.  We made the general observation that abnormalities,
	be they criminal, sexual, or morally neutral like dyslexia
	and stuttering, are overwhelmingly a matter of the male.

	"This, we suggested, was because the natural matrix of the
	brain was female; it needed the active intervention of androgens
	to rewire it into a male circuit, and such a conversion and
	restructuring inevitably provided scope for error.  We also
	suggested that a male brain, being so discretely compartmentalised,
	or arranged in tidy little boxes, would be less capable of
	compensating for any such shortcoming.  It's the eggs-in-one-
	basket analogy - damage to a control centre in man has drastic
	effects, whereas woman can summon up the resources of her more
	scattered cerebral substations.

	"Now, thanks as always to the work of others, we can begin to
	fill out that admittedly somewhat sketchy hypothesis.  An issue
	of 'Schizophrenia Bulletin' devoted to Gender significantly
	broadens the horizons.  

	"Up to two-thirds of young adults with serious mental illnesses
	are male.

	"The trend of male mental problems reveals itself early - boys
	react much more strongly than girls to stresses and conflicts
	in the family home.  Young males are much more vulnerable to
	infantile autism.  Later life reveals significantly large male
	majorities among a whole range of obsessives, suicides, fetishists,
	and schizophrenics.

	"In men schizophrenia develops earlier than in women, men respond
	less well than women to treatment, and have less chance of recovering
	and returning to a normal life in the community.  

	"Yet studies of schizophrenia have nevertheless largely ignored
	the evident male bias of the affliction.  So great is the gender
	bias that some researchers now believe that the malignant form of
	schizophrenia is the result of neurological vulnerability in the
	male, while the incidence in females may have a more familial origin.

	"Certainly at last the doctors are beginning to look to the different
	brain organisation in men and women as a possible key to their
	understanding of the illness:  'The organisational and activational
	effects of hormones on brain morphology...open up new areas of
	research in studies of schizophrenia.'  A recent paper in 'Compre-
	hensive Psychiatry' agrees that disturbances in the normal process
	of brain growth cause structural abnormalities associated with
	schizophrenia, and 'one of the most crucial influences on this 
	process may be the effect of sex hormones on brain growth.'"

							  Brain Sex
							    p. 200-201

	"Just as there is a marked gender difference in schizophrenia,
	it is possible that the overwhelming male bias in criminal
	behavior may have a similar origin - in the wiring errors liable
	to occur when the natural female circuitry of the embryonic brain
	is reconnected into the male mode.

	"Tests on a sample of aggressive psychopaths showed that 90 per
	cent suffered from an abnormal neuropsychological profile...

	"There is an uncanny symmetry between schizophrenia and certain
	forms of extreme criminal behaviour (such as homicide, rape, and
	assault) both in their common male bias and in what part of the
	brain is damaged."

							Brain Sex
							  p. 202

    Re-iterating one line (from the 'Brain Sex' book,) in case anyone
    missed it:
    
    	"Up to two-thirds of young adults with serious mental illnesses
	are male."
    
    							    Brain Sex
    							      p. 201

.263> We made the general observation that abnormalities,
.263> be they criminal, sexual, or morally neutral like dyslexia
.263> and stuttering, are overwhelmingly a matter of the male.
    
    Stuttering and dyslexia are known to be male disorders.
    
    What sexual and criminal abnormalities are they referring to?
    
    I remind you that abnormalities are, by definition, abnormal due to
    deviation from a statistical norm.  For example, being a math wizard
    is abnormal.
    
    Let us not confuse abnormalities with disorders.
    
    
    re: schizophrenia
    
    That's very odd.  When I looked into this, every source I found said
    said that this was a either neutral or a distinctly female disorder,
    depending on how the individual classifications were tabulated.
    
    Please be a little more specific ... what types of schizophrenia are
    characteristically male, and in what ratios?
    
    
.263> "Up to two-thirds of young adults with serious mental illnesses
.263> are male.
    
.265> "Up to two-thirds of young adults with serious mental illnesses
.265> are male."
    
    There's still no need to repeat yourself.

    RE: .266  Mike Z.
    
    > That's very odd.  When I looked into this, every source I found said
    > said that this was a either neutral or a distinctly female disorder,
    > depending on how the individual classifications were tabulated.
    
	"Yet studies of schizophrenia have nevertheless largely ignored
	the evident male bias of the affliction..."
    
    > Please be a little more specific ... what types of schizophrenia are
    > characteristically male, and in what ratios?
    
	"Up to two-thirds of young adults with serious mental illnesses
	are male.

	"The trend of male mental problems reveals itself early - boys
	react much more strongly than girls to stresses and conflicts
	in the family home.  Young males are much more vulnerable to
	infantile autism.  Later life reveals significantly large male
	majorities among a whole range of obsessives, suicides, fetishists,
	and schizophrenics.
    
	"In men schizophrenia develops earlier than in women, men respond
	less well than women to treatment, and have less chance of recovering
	and returning to a normal life in the community."
    
    The exact ratios are not listed, but they may be found via the footnotes
    present for this section of the book.  Shall I list these for you?
    
    > What sexual and criminal abnormalities are they referring to?
    
	"There is an uncanny symmetry between schizophrenia and certain
	forms of extreme criminal behaviour (such as homicide, rape, and
	assault) both in their common male bias and in what part of the
	brain is damaged."

    
    Do you believe the researchers when they say that these differences
    between men and women are biological, and almost entirely a function
    of being male or female?

    RE: .268  Mike Z.
    
    > Do you believe the researchers when they say that these differences
    > between men and women are biological, and almost entirely a function
    > of being male or female?
    
    I've never believed that such differences are almost entirely a
    function of being male or female.
    
    However, you seem to put great store in the idea of such innate
    biological differences, so I guess you'll have to take mental
    illness (especially schizophrenia) in the bargain as being innately
    male...
    
    ...not to mention violent criminal behavior (such as rape, murder
    and assault.)
    

    What are the full name, authors, and publication date of that book?

    
    I'll post this info tonight.
    
    By the way, the information about the large male majorities among
    those with serious mental illnesses was in the Epilogue for the
    American edition of the book (which may not be included in Dave's
    copy of the book.)
    

    You asked for info about the "Brain Sex" book.  Here it is:
    
    	Brain Sex, by Anne Moir, Ph.D. and David Jessel
        ---------
    	Copyright 1989, 1991 (Reprinted by arrangement with Carol
    		Publishing, Printed in the United States, Published
    		simultaneously in Canada - September 1992.)
                                           --------------
    
    	Anne Moir has a Ph.D. in genetics.  A former BBC producer,
    	  she is currently European editor for CBC in Britain.  She
    	  lives in London and Wittshire.
    
    	David Jessel writes and presents television programs.  He lives
    	  in London and Oxfordshire.
    
    
    References for the section of the Epilogue dealing with Mental
    	Illness (BrainSex differences):
    
    		DELISI, L.E. et al, 'Gender differences in the brain:
    		   are they relevant to the pathogenesis of schizophrenia?',
    		   Comprehensive Psychiatry, 30, No. 3 (1989), 197-207.
    
    		Schizophrenia Bulletin, National Institute of Mental Health,
    		   Issue Theme:  Gender and Schizophrenia, 16, No. 2, 1990.
    
    		SIKICH, L. and TODD, R.D., 'Are the neurodevelopmental
    		   effects of gonadal hormones related to sex differences
    		   in psychiatric illness?', Psychiatric Developments, 4
    		   (1988), 277-309.

    Why is the book "Brain Sex" starting to look like the new Bible of
    social correctitude? 
    
    Mike

    Because it's being selectively quoted ...
    
    More on this soon.

    RE: .273  Mike Smith
    
    > Why is the book "Brain Sex" starting to look like the new Bible of
    > social correctitude? 
    
    When the book only seemed to highlight positive aspects of so-called
    'male wiring,' it was scientific.  Now that it reveals less positive
    aspects of 'male wiring,' it's politically correct.
    
    Funny how that works.  :>

    Well, Suzanne, I haven't read the book, nor have I read more than a
    smattering of the rather dreary and predictable replies dealing with
    the book.  From where I sit, though, it seems like the book is well on
    its way toward canonization as the gospel of social correctness. 

    Mike

    RE: .276  Mike Smith
    
    > Well, Suzanne, I haven't read the book, nor have I read more than a
    > smattering of the rather dreary and predictable replies dealing with
    > the book.  From where I sit, though, it seems like the book is well on
    > its way toward canonization as the gospel of social correctness. 
    
    Don't be fooled.
    
    Please notice that you didn't get this impression until *I* started
    quoting from it.  Until then, it was being used to help make a faulty
    case against women's mental capabilities.
    
    It's a neutral book that provides nothing whatever to celebrate for
    people of either sex (unless a person only quotes isolated sections.)
    After getting the book and realizing that only certain sections were
    being quoted, I decided to give this conference a taste of some other
    things it was saying.

    RE: .274  Mike Z.
    
    > More on this soon.
    
    Honest to God, you're starting to sound like a politician running
    for office.  (Only, in this case, you seem to be running against
    the slightly_more_than_half of the human race that is female.)
    
    Geeeeesh!

    re: .277
    
    
    >Don't be fooled.
    
    By whom, and about what?
    
    >Please notice that you didn't get this impression until *I* started
    >quoting from it.  Until then, it was being used to help make a faulty
    >case against women's mental capabilities.
    
    Suzanne,
    
    As I said, I haven't read either the book or all the entries discussing
    it.  The fact that you had already entered into the fray when I started
    to pay some attention to the debate would seem to indicate that your
    suggestion that your entry into this was some sort of starting point
    for me.  I assure you, it was not.
    
    In any case, as I am commenting more on the debate rather than on the
    book itself, I used the term, "social correctitude" in a completely
    neutral sense.  Notice I did not specify to which side I thought the
    term applies.  Unless you are here and now stipulating that you are on
    the side of "social correctitude", and the other side isn't.
    
    Mike

    RE: .279  Mike Smith
    
    > In any case, as I am commenting more on the debate rather than on the
    > book itself, I used the term, "social correctitude" in a completely
    > neutral sense.
    
    My apologies.  I thought you meant this to be "politically correct"
    ("social correctitude" seemed like a new phrasing of this very specific 
    insulting term.)
    
    Never mind.

    re:.278
    
    Suzanne, it's YOU who is tryng to make this into a male vs female
    "who is worse?" thing.
    
    In fact, it was pointed out to nme that in all of 830.* you didn't
    have one positive thing to say about men in general.
    
    That's most telling.
    
    From the get-to I was careful not to forget to mention the areas in
    which women excel, not just those in which they fail.

    RE: .281  Mike Z.
    
    >>> More on this soon.
    
    >> Honest to God, you're starting to sound like a politician running
    >> for office.  (Only, in this case, you seem to be running against
    >> the slightly_more_than_half of the human race that is female.)
    
    > Suzanne, it's YOU who is tryng to make this into a male vs female
    > "who is worse?" thing.
    
    On the contrary, I've explained many, many, many times that we're
    part of the same species (so we have far more overlapping similarities
    than total differences.)  I've also pointed out many times that the
    information in "Brain Sex" was not intended to be used as ammunition
    for an ever-escalating gender war.  It was meant to bring us together.
    
    > In fact, it was pointed out to nme that in all of 830.* you didn't
    > have one positive thing to say about men in general.
    > That's most telling.
    
    As someone who doesn't believe in strict "male traits" and "female
    traits," I'm not in a position to say anything about either sex
    that doesn't also apply (to some degree) to persons of the other
    sex.
    
    However, I did say some very, very positive things about men like
    my wonderful Dad in 830.348:
    
    	"Please keep in mind that a big, big part of 'accepting differences'
        includes accepting that people may also be different within their
    --->own 'group' (such as men, like my Dad, who are excellent at nurturing
        children.)  Although my Dad was also career-driven (and very successful)
        and a very dedicated sports fan, etc. - he is the most nurturing person
        (as a parent and grand-parent) I've ever known in my life.  It is a
        natural part of who he is (along with all the other parts of him that
        make this individual who happens to be my Dad.)"
    
    > From the get-to I was careful not to forget to mention the areas in
    > which women excel, not just those in which they fail.
    
    Women (as half the human race) do not "fail" in any of the areas you
    listed, so your "positive thing" falls rather flat, as far as I'm
    concerned.  Some individual men and women fail (and scientists have
    noted that there tend to be differences in skill patterns between
    the sexes, but they don't know why.)
    
    If a difference in behavior/performance patterns means that one sex
    has "failed," then men (as a group) have failed to refrain from 
    being rapists and murderers.  As always, I *reject* the notion
    that a difference in behavior patterns means that EITHER sex has 
    "failed" (whether it comes to math or violent crime) - but if you're
    going to characterize such patterns as "failure," then you must
    accept failures that relate to other behavior/performance patterns
    as well.
    
    I prefer to see human beings as individuals.  I do recognize the
    differences in skill patterns between the sexes, but it's absurd
    to suggest that these differences are absolute in any way (when
    scientists themselves have pointed out that any individual is
    capable of having non-typical skills, as I've mentioned many, many
    times now.)

RE Note 779.282               Men are not Cost Effective                 282 of 282
CSC32::WSC641::CONLON                                62 lines   2-OCT-1992 18:36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    I prefer to see human beings as individuals.  I do recognize the
>    differences in skill patterns between the sexes, but it's absurd
>    to suggest that these differences are absolute in any way (when
>    scientists themselves have pointed out that any individual is
>    capable of having non-typical skills, as I've mentioned many, many
>    times now.)
    
    
    So let me see: All people are individuals, correct? All individuals
    should be judged on their abilities and deeds, correct? 
    
    That being the case then, do you believe in quotas for anything based 
    upon race, or gender, or national origin, or ...? Trying to correct :)
    real or imagined past or present transgressions against selected groups
    by punishing present _INDIVIDUALS_ by not basing selection for * based
    upon their abilities or deeds is correct to you?
    
    Do I recall a difference from previous notes about partriachy, white
    het males etc having all the good jobs and the system needing
    adjusting?
    
    
    Steve

    RE: .283  Steve
    
    Never in my entire life have I suggested that non-qualified or
    less-qualified people should be given any job based on a quota.
    
    However, I'm aware that there has long been a "white male quota"
    in our system (based on the idea that a white male must necessarily
    be better than anyone without the proper color of skin and the
    correct sex.)
    
    Our system needs to recognize that qualified, intelligent individuals 
    come in every color/race/creed/sex (regardless of the desparaging
    remarks some may make about the brain size or capacity of another
    racial/ethnic/sexual group.)

    And the beat goes on.
    
    Mike

.283> That being the case then, do you believe in quotas for anything based 
.283> upon race, or gender, or national origin, or ...? Trying to correct :)

.284> Never in my entire life have I suggested that non-qualified or
.284> less-qualified people should be given any job based on a quota.

    You conveniently managed to answer a question that wasn't asked and to
    not answer the one that was asked.

    Do you believe in employment quotas?  Yes or no?


.284> Our system needs to recognize that qualified, intelligent individuals 
.284> come in every color/race/creed/sex (regardless of the desparaging
.284> remarks some may make about the brain size or capacity of another
.284> racial/ethnic/sexual group.)

    Firstly, it's dIsparaging, secondly, sometimes the truth is a hard
    pill to swallow.

    RE: .286  Mike Z.
    
    .283> That being the case then, do you believe in quotas for anything based 
    .283> upon race, or gender, or national origin, or ...? Trying to correct :)

    .284> Never in my entire life have I suggested that non-qualified or
    .284> less-qualified people should be given any job based on a quota.

    > You conveniently managed to answer a question that wasn't asked and to
    > not answer the one that was asked.

    > Do you believe in employment quotas?  Yes or no?
    
    Do you believe you have some right to interrogate me (demanding that
    I respond to questions with "yes or no" answers?)  Yes or no?  :>

    RE: .286  Mike Z.
    
    .284> Our system needs to recognize that qualified, intelligent individuals 
    .284> come in every color/race/creed/sex (regardless of the desparaging
    .284> remarks some may make about the brain size or capacity of another
    .284> racial/ethnic/sexual group.)

    > Firstly, it's dIsparaging, secondly, sometimes the truth is a hard
    > pill to swallow.
    
    Bigotry disguised as "truth" is an injustice.

    And sometimes the truth is labeled as bigotry because it is too
    difficult to swallow.
    
    Mike

    RE: .289  Mike Smith
    
    > And sometimes the truth is labeled as bigotry because it is too
    > difficult to swallow.
    
    If someone is calling it "truth," though, they'd better have solid
    backing for it (and not just impressions, assumptions or presumptions
    that go well beyond the work of professionals in the field.)
    
    When it comes to making assumptions about racial/ethnic/sexual
    inferiority or superiority, such assumptions do amount to bigotry.
    Every race/ethnic_group/sex/etc. should be given the benefit of
    the doubt in the face of such assumptions/bigotry.

    re: .290
    
    >When it comes to making assumptions about racial/ethnic/sexual
    >inferiority or superiority, such assumptions do amount to bigotry.
    >Every race/ethnic_group/sex/etc. should be given the benefit of
    >the doubt in the face of such assumptions/bigotry.
    
    Why?
        
    Mike
    

    RE: .291  Mike Smith
    
    >> When it comes to making assumptions about racial/ethnic/sexual
    >> inferiority or superiority, such assumptions do amount to bigotry.
    >> Every race/ethnic_group/sex/etc. should be given the benefit of
    >> the doubt in the face of such assumptions/bigotry.
    
    > Why?
    
    People of other races/ethnic_groups/sex are not "guilty [of being
    inferior] until proven innocent," Mike.

    As mentioned before, Mike Smith, I found absolutely nothing in either
    "Brain Sex" or the Scientific American article on gender brain
    differences that was bothersome or 'tough to swallow' in any way.
    
    It's only when some individuals take the studies/information farther
    ("So, this must mean...") that we're dealing with assumptions,
    presumptions, etc., as opposed to "the truth."
    
    I object strenuously to these assumptions, presumptions, etc.

    Well, Suzanne, the book and the Scientific American article should be
    taken as an expostulation of theory, and not gospel.  So, as it stands,
    nothing has been proven, one way or the other, scientifically speaking.
    As regards the "truth", then, one is pretty much left free to make
    whatever assumptions one wishes, keeping in mind that acting on those
    assumptions might entail some fairly unpleasant repercussions,
    depending on the action taken, where, and against whom. 

    You see, to me, all of this is politics.  The political actions of the
    professional victim's groups who are not really interested in obtaining
    equality, but who want to use their new-found political power to their
    own advantage, and to the advantage of their like-minded peers.

    And let me say that is is becoming quite clear to me that even the
    sacred halls of scientific thought are being pressed into the service
    of those who seek such power by others who seek to share in that power. 

    But listen not to me as I am but a reed shaking in the winds blowing
    hot in the deserts of racism, sexism, homophobia, and all the other
    original sins of political claptrap to which a white male is
    inextricably heir. 

    Mike


    Mike

    oh, poor you!  You do a pretty good job of sounding like a
    "professional victim" yourself, in your last paragraph.  The poor,
    straight white males get blamed for everything,and it's just *not*
    fair!!  
    
    Lorna
    

    Well, hey, If they can do it, why can't we?  
    
    Oh, I see, white guys aren't supposed to use such tactics, eh?
    
    We are just supposed to keep a stiff upper lip, turn the other cheek,
    and just take whatever is meted out to us.  Silly me.     
    
    Mike

    RE: .294  Mike Smith
    
    > Well, Suzanne, the book and the Scientific American article should be
    > taken as an expostulation of theory, and not gospel. 
    
    Sure, I agree.  (Of course, this means that the folks making assumptions,
    presumptions, etc. have even less claim to "the truth" than they would
    have had if we'd regarded these professional works as "the truth.")
    
    > So, as it stands, nothing has been proven, one way or the other, 
    > scientifically speaking.
 
    Fine.  Then it's time to give different races/ethnic_group/sexes the
    benefit of the doubt.
    
    > As regards the "truth", then, one is pretty much left free to make
    > whatever assumptions one wishes, keeping in mind that acting on those
    > assumptions might entail some fairly unpleasant repercussions,
    > depending on the action taken, where, and against whom. 
    
    When someone invokes "the truth" (as being "hard to swallow") in light
    of the fact that (as you said) "nothing has been proven, one way or the 
    other, scientifically speaking" - it's pretty dishonest, wouldn't you
    say?
    
    > You see, to me, all of this is politics. 
    
    Thanks for acknowledging that this is only your opinion.
    
    > The political actions of the
    > professional victim's groups who are not really interested in obtaining
    > equality, but who want to use their new-found political power to their
    > own advantage, and to the advantage of their like-minded peers.
    
    You have your OPINIONS about what's going on, and mine differ from
    yours (big surprise, right?)  :>  Further, your label of "professional
    victim's groups" is a bias (and, of course, part and parcel of your
    personal opinion.)
    
    In my opinion, many of those who benefit most from the 'status quo'
    are going to fight with all they've got to prevent change (for purely
    selfish reasons.)  What these "professional victims" (of the "we poor
    white males are the most discriminated minority on the planet, boo hoo"
    variety) fear is that equality is a losing proposition for them so they 
    attribute the most diabolical motives possible to the people offering
    this horrifying threat.
    
    > And let me say that is is becoming quite clear to me that even the
    > sacred halls of scientific thought are being pressed into the service
    > of those who seek such power by others who seek to share in that power. 
    
    The threat to the "status quo" is pretty scary, eh?
    
    > But listen not to me as I am but a reed shaking in the winds blowing
    > hot in the deserts of racism, sexism, homophobia, and all the other
    > original sins of political claptrap to which a white male is
    > inextricably heir. 
    
    Racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of bigotry still exist.
    You can't pass them off as historical relics for which a planet of
    innocent white males are paying some terrible price today ("boo hoo.")
    
    And you're a guy who wrote (in .289) that "sometimes the truth is
    labeled as bigotry because it is too difficult to swallow" right
    before admitting that "as it stands, nothing has been proven, one way 
    or the other, scientifically speaking."
    
    Surely you don't expect me to believe that racism/sexism/etc. is dead
    when we're faced with such promotions of "the truth" (based on sheer
    nerve alone, absent of scientific backing) by the heirs of the 'status
    quo' on a continuing basis???

    RE: .296  Mike Smith
    
    > Well, hey, If they can do it, why can't we?  
    > Oh, I see, white guys aren't supposed to use such tactics, eh?
    
    Ok, so you're a self-admitted "professional victim."
    
    Fine.

    Mike, you must remember who you're dealing with here ...
    
    This is the woman who said "white is beautiful" is racist, but "black
    is beautiful" isn't.
    
    Is it any doubt that she sees "men excel at [insert anything]" as
    sexist?
    
    Also, if you choose to continue the conversation, when you catch her
    ducking questions or changing her reasoning midstream, you risk such 
    things as accusations that you're "interrogating" her, or perhaps that
    you're "intensely and aggressively hounding her!"

    Mike Smith -
    
    You must remember that when a note is written by "HDLITE::ZARLENGA"
    that puts words in my mouth, it must be taken with a 'grain of salt'
    the size of the Sahara Desert.
    
    He's stalling for time (to dodge his "more on this soon" pledge.)  :>
    
    It's like being at the arcade (watching someone going non-linear
    after losing yet another one.)   >;^)
    

    what's with ZARLENGA and CONLON ?

    i noticed they are one each others necks all the time in different
    places !

    i cant figure who is right and who is wrong, they are both very good.

    being a new noter here, i just wanted to get a feeling for the major
    events of what is happening.

    /Nasser

    Nasser:
    
    with regard to Suzanne and Mike.  They both tend to debate a
    point from complete opposite sides of the field.  There are
    many things that Suzanne vehemently believes in with which
    Mike disagrees and vice-versa.  Thus, particularly hot subjects
    upon which they both have strong opinions can get quite colorful.
    Some folks use other words (pedantic, useless, boring, predictable),
    but I choose colorful because I think these exchanges add spice here.
    VERY RARELY do these two agree on anything and it's actually a bit
    boring when they do :-).
    
    Mike and Suzanne, I hope you don't mind my explanation...
    
    Christine

.301>i cant figure who is right and who is wrong, they are both very good.
    
    One is right, the other ducks questions.

    RE: .303 Mike Z.
    
    > One is right, the other ducks questions.
    
    Hey, thanks for reminding me.  You're still ducking my question
    in .288 (cut that out!)
    
    (The problem, of course, is that you don't think you owe anyone answers
    - but you think I do.  It's just another one of your double standards.)

    By the way, this exchange occurred shortly after I quoted from the
    "Brain Sex" book on the subject of male dominance in schizophrenia
    (and other serious mental illnesses) and violent crimes:
    
      .273> Why is the book "Brain Sex" starting to look like the new Bible of
      .273> social correctitude? 
    
      .274> Because it's being selectively quoted ...
      .274> More on this soon.
    
    Mike Z., you made a pledge to show how the information posted here
    from "Brain Sex" was 'selectively quoted.'  Why are you ducking
    this pledge?  (Didn't you mean for us to 'read your lips,' Mike.) :>

    Ms Conlon, judging by past history, it would be fruitless to confront
    you with facts.
    
    You may now have the last word.

    RE: .306  Mike Zarlenga
    
    >> Mike Z., you made a pledge to show how the information posted here
    >> from "Brain Sex" was 'selectively quoted.'  Why are you ducking
    >> this pledge?  (Didn't you mean for us to 'read your lips,' Mike.) :>
    
    > Ms Conlon, judging by past history, it would be fruitless to confront
    > you with facts.
    
    As you're so fond of saying, this is a non-answer.  (But I'll accept
    it since I think you've realized by now that you have no other choice.
    The "Brain Sex" book was very clear in its characterization of serious
    mental illness and violent criminal behavior as being male-dominated,
    or as you'd put it, "innately male.")
    
    > You may now have the last word.
    
    You play games to the last, Mike.  I do admire your consistency in
    this much, at least.
    
    See you in the funny papers.

    re .271
    
>    American edition of the book (which may not be included in Dave's
>    copy of the book.)
    
    If and when I ever get my books (and other stuff) past customs in
    Rotterdam I'll check it.  I bought my copy in Australia, which means it
    is the British edition.

    re: .297
    
    Well, of course I am only expressing my opinion.  Whose opinion do you
    think I might be expressing?  Unless you think I would have the
    temerity to claim that the rantings and ravings of anything written
    here in notes is divinely inspired, or something.
    
    
    
    Suzanne, as I said earlier, I have no problem with people seeking and
    obtaining equality.  Nor have I even asked that you or anyone else
    declare the war against inequality is over, now or anytime soon.  It
    clearly is not.  I do have an enormous problem with those people who
    seek to gain, not equality, but an ascendency.  When some folks say
    that only white males can be sexist, or racist or what have you, then a
    little bell goes off in my brain that warns me that I have before me,
    not someone who wants equality, but to take away from me, and those
    like me, those things that are properly and honestly ours.  That is,
    those things we earned on our own merits.  Such people do not seek a
    level field of opportunity, but a field tilted in their favor.  And it
    is those people who, through the practice of the politics of
    victim-hood, aided and abetted by muddle-headed men who are unable to
    distinguish between their inchoate feelings of "guilt" and rational
    thought, are able to accomplish their mission.
    
    Mike

    re: .298
    
    
    >Ok, so you're a self-admitted "professional victim."
    
    Why no, I wouldn't say so.  All I was doing is offer up a sample of how 
    the rantings of professional victims sound to me.  Not terribly
    edifying, is it?

    Mike                       

    RE: .310  Mike Smith
    
    >> Ok, so you're a self-admitted "professional victim."
    
    > Why no, I wouldn't say so.  All I was doing is offer up a sample of how 
    > the rantings of professional victims sound to me. 
    
    Oh, I get it.  You want something you wish to deny to others (i.e.,
    the right to complain about what you perceive as injustice without
    being labeled a 'professional victim.')
    
    And you think you're asking for equality (not 'ascendency')??????

    RE: .309  Mike Smith
    
    > Well, of course I am only expressing my opinion.  Whose opinion do you
    > think I might be expressing?  Unless you think I would have the
    > temerity to claim that the rantings and ravings of anything written
    > here in notes is divinely inspired, or something.
    
    You had the temerity to toss around accusations about people finding
    "THE TRUTH" hard to swallow, Mike, although this so-called truth turned
    out to be nothing more than opinion (which is why I mentioned it.)
    
    > I do have an enormous problem with those people who seek to gain, not 
    > equality, but an ascendency.  
    
    It's so much easier to fight the efforts of those who seek equality
    if you convince yourself (and others) that you're REALLY fighting some
    nebulous wish for dominance.  (It reminds me of my sister's ex-husband
    in the late '60s who was a NY City cop at the time.  He told me that
    we, as whites, had to FIGHT against civil rights because the blacks
    would do to us what we'd done to them if given half a chance.  He said
    that one race had to be on top, so it'd better be US WHITES.  After my
    Dad and I threw up at his remarks, we never spoke about it again.  It
    was pointless to talk to someone like that about equality.)
    
    > When some folks say that only white males can be sexist, or racist or 
    > what have you, then a little bell goes off in my brain that warns me 
    > that I have before me, not someone who wants equality, but to take away 
    > from me, and those like me, those things that are properly and honestly 
    > ours.  That is, those things we earned on our own merits. 
    
    It's easy to convince yourself that you've heard this from a person
    (or that a person thinks this) to justify fighting against their quest
    for equality.  Recently, Mike Z. accused me of saying something like
    this, but I'll bet you'll remember it as if I'd said it myself (which
    I didn't.)  He offered no proof that I said it, but it won't matter
    to you, will it?  I might as well have said it here and now.
    
    > Such people do not seek a level field of opportunity, but a field 
    > tilted in their favor. 
    
    Keep trying to convince yourself of this (so that it won't "feel" to
    you as though you're trying to deny anyone equal rights.)
    
    > And it is those people who, through the practice of the politics of
    > victim-hood, aided and abetted by muddle-headed men who are unable to
    > distinguish between their inchoate feelings of "guilt" and rational
    > thought, are able to accomplish their mission.
    
    Please keep in mind that you're still talking about your OPINION ONLY,
    Mike, so it's pretty nervy to describe other men as "muddle-headed"
    for having a different view than your MERE OPINION.

    RE: .311
    
    >Oh, I get it.  You want something you wish to deny to others (i.e.,
    >the right to complain about what you perceive as injustice without
    >being labeled a 'professional victim.')
     
    Why no, Suzanne.  I don't recall ever mentioning that people should not
    be allowed to express opinions that are incongruent with mine.  Or even
    complain about things that I think are quite right and good.  After
    all, I still believe in the first amendment, as I'm sure you do too.
    Nice try at ascribing things to me that I didn't mean, though.
    
    Mike

    RE: .313  Mike Smith
    
    >>Oh, I get it.  You want something you wish to deny to others (i.e.,
    >>the right to complain about what you perceive as injustice without
    >>being labeled a 'professional victim.')
     
    > Why no, Suzanne. 
    
    Then you *are* a "professional victim," Mike.  Thanks.
    

    RE: .312

    >You had the temerity to toss around accusations about people finding
    >"THE TRUTH" hard to swallow, Mike, although this so-called truth turned
    >out to be nothing more than opinion (which is why I mentioned it.)

    So, do you think that there aren't any people around who have a
    difficult time swallowing the truth, then?  Since I rather think that
    the answer to that is obviously NO, I felt no urge to include a
    qualifying "opinion" marker. 

    But nevertheless, let me make this blanket statement that I regard
    anything written about such political subjects as we are discussing as
    a matter of personal opinion, no matter who is expressing them and
    regardless of whether the writer explicitly says it is only an opinion. 
    After all, politics are about nothing if they are not about personal
    beliefs.

    >It's so much easier to fight the efforts of those who seek equality
    >if you convince yourself (and others) that you're REALLY fighting some
    >nebulous wish for dominance.  (It reminds me of my sister's ex-husband
    >in the late '60s who was a NY City cop at the time.  He told me that
    >we, as whites, had to FIGHT against civil rights because the blacks
    >would do to us what we'd done to them if given half a chance.  He said
    >that one race had to be on top, so it'd better be US WHITES.  After my
    >Dad and I threw up at his remarks, we never spoke about it again.  It
    >was pointless to talk to someone like that about equality.)
    
    If someone had said such a thing in front of me, I would have been
    disturbed as well.  Suzanne, while it is a useful debating tactic to 
    lump those who say something that you don't like into the same bin with
    someone else who said something else you don't like, you do yourself an
    intellectual disservice by trying to equate two such incongruent points
    of view.  

    When I say I support equality, I mean just that.  While it might make
    my life more difficult to compete with more people than I had to in
    times past, I'm perfectly willing to live with that as a matter of
    human fairness, always provided that I get to compete on a level
    playing field.  So, while your sister's ex-husband might have different
    thoughts on civil rights, they are not mine, and nothing I have said
    should lead you to believe that they are.

    As to "nebulous wish[es] for dominance", the evidence is quite clear that
    there are those who seek it.  All one has to do is listen to what they
    say about themselves and about those they call their enemies. 

    Mike

    RE: .314
    
    No Suzanne, I am not a professional victim in as much as I do not
    propose to make my living by depending on some "victim" status.
    
    But you know that, don't you.
    
    Mike

    RE: .316  Mike Smith
    
    > No Suzanne, I am not a professional victim in as much as I do not
    > propose to make my living by depending on some "victim" status.
    
    Neither do the people you have unfairly labeled "professional victims."
    
    > But you know that, don't you.
    
    I'm not sure if you know how unfair your label is (you only seem to
    know that it's 'acceptable' in our culture to use it as an insult
    against others when they speak out about injustice while not using
    it for yourself when you speak out about what you consider injustice.)
    
    I'm not sure if you see the double standard you're using, either.

    RE: .315  Mike Smith
    
    >>You had the temerity to toss around accusations about people finding
    >>"THE TRUTH" hard to swallow, Mike, although this so-called truth turned
    >>out to be nothing more than opinion (which is why I mentioned it.)

    > So, do you think that there aren't any people around who have a
    > difficult time swallowing the truth, then? 
    
    You didn't use the phrase in a hypothetical sense, but rather in the
    sense of having some claim to "the truth" (which turned out to be your
    opinion.)  Don't be so careless next time.
    
    > If someone had said such a thing in front of me, I would have been
    > disturbed as well.  [re: The statement from my sister's ex-husband.]
    
    I hope so.
    
    > Suzanne, while it is a useful debating tactic to lump those who say 
    > something that you don't like into the same bin with someone else who 
    > said something else you don't like, you do yourself an intellectual 
    > disservice by trying to equate two such incongruent points of view.  
    
    Now, now.  I didn't "lump" anyone into anything.  I stated that your
    note reminded me of what he'd said (about fighting against equality
    based on being convinced that those seeking equality were really
    seeking dominance.)
    
    > When I say I support equality, I mean just that.  While it might make
    > my life more difficult to compete with more people than I had to in
    > times past, I'm perfectly willing to live with that as a matter of
    > human fairness, always provided that I get to compete on a level
    > playing field. 
    
    The playing field has never been level (and it won't be, as long as
    those in power keep fighting against it.)
    
    > As to "nebulous wish[es] for dominance", the evidence is quite clear that
    > there are those who seek it.  All one has to do is listen to what they
    > say about themselves and about those they call their enemies. 
    
    Ah.  Then, your term "professional victim" can be used to determine
    that you seek dominance rather than equality, right?

    Suzanne, perhaps I should have defined my terms somewhat sooner than
    this, as it would have made the discussion more efficient.  So I plead
    guilty to that sin.  So, in expiation, let me now define my term
    "professional victim" as those people who propose to make their living
    by depending on their victim status.  I suspect you know who they are
    as well as I do, even though you may chose to not acknowldge this. 
    
    Those who do not depend on their membership in a group of people who
    have suffered discrimination to make their living, but prefer to get
    ahead on their own merits, are NOT professional victims.  At the risk
    of being accused of pigeonholing people, I'm inclined to place you in
    the latter category, for instance.
    
    Mike 
              

    Well, Suzanne, after your last two missives, I find that I have not the
    time or the energy to pursue this with the same zeal that you seem to
    desire.  
    
    Suffice it to say that I have said what I have said, defined the term
    in question (admittedly a bit late in the discussion), and presented
    what I think and feel in what I believe to be a reasonably rational
    manner.  Based on this, you are, of course, free to think of me in any
    way you like.  I hope you decide to not take it personal, of course,
    but that is quite beyond my control.
    
    Therefore, I propose to agree to disagree at this point, and let it go
    at that.   No doubt someone else will jump in and present opinions on
    this or related topics that you may find worthy of further discussion.
                                                              
    Mike

    RE: .319  Mike Smith
    
    > Suzanne, perhaps I should have defined my terms somewhat sooner than
    > this, as it would have made the discussion more efficient.  So I plead
    > guilty to that sin.  So, in expiation, let me now define my term
    > "professional victim" as those people who propose to make their living
    > by depending on their victim status. 
    
    I presume this is your personal definition (so we shouldn't use it as
    proof that others in notes have attempted to grossly insult and defame
    their co-workers at Digital by using this term.)
    
    > I suspect you know who they are as well as I do, even though you may 
    > chose to not acknowldge this. 
 
    Your description of this term shows your ignorance in these matters
    (if not your malicious intent against others.)
    
    Yes, let's drop this (and agree to disagree) before this gets worse.

    Suzanne,

    While I wanted to agree to disagree, I certainly cannot leave this
    discussion leaving unanswered the unfair and unwarranted accusations
    you have leveled at me.  
         
    Might I suggest that perhaps you are simply having a difficult time in
    separating what I am saying from what other, more odious folk have
    said.  Indeed, you have already attempted to equate me with your
    ex-brother-in-law who you claim had expressed a desire to fight against
    equality. 
    
    Further, might I suggest that you think you see some sort of  "code
    words" being used here?  If so, may I request that you try to put your
    preconceptions of those words out of your mind and concentrate,
    instead, on the commonly accepted meanings of them as found in a
    dictionary fo the English language.

    Finally, might I suggest that you have no basis in fact for accusing me
    of insulting and defaming anyone within Digital or anywhere else.  In
    fact, I challenge you to specify one individual whom I have defamed. 

    You, obviously dislike some of my ideas, but I am not here to please
    you or anyone else.  I have tried to be respectful, but apparently that
    doesn't count for much when one disagrees with your political agenda. 
    I am here to speak the truth as I see it, but I do not seek to squelch
    anyone else by intimidation, or any other means, from speaking out on
    the truth as they see it, either.   

    Mike          

    RE: .322  Mike Smith
    
    > While I wanted to agree to disagree, I certainly cannot leave this
    > discussion leaving unanswered the unfair and unwarranted accusations
    > you have leveled at me.  
    
    You're talking about your mistaken assumptions and presumptions now.
    I accused you of absolutely nothing.
    
    > Indeed, you have already attempted to equate me with your
    > ex-brother-in-law who you claim had expressed a desire to fight against
    > equality.
    
    As explained to you already (I'll do this as many times as you need
    to hear it) - your note reminded me of what he said, that's all.
    (No equating was involved.)
    
    > Finally, might I suggest that you have no basis in fact for accusing me
    > of insulting and defaming anyone within Digital or anywhere else.  In
    > fact, I challenge you to specify one individual whom I have defamed. 
    
    Read what I wrote:
    
          "I presume this is your personal definition (so we shouldn't use 
          it as proof that ****others**** in notes have attempted to grossly 
                               ^^^^^^
          insult and defame their co-workers at Digital by using this term.)"
    
    Translation:  "The definition is YOURS ONLY (so we can NOT presume that
    		   others have used the same term in a way that would be so
    		   insulting to your/my co-workers at Digital.)"
    
    Geeeeeesh - if you don't understand something, please ask next time.
    
    > I have tried to be respectful, but apparently that doesn't count for 
    > much when one disagrees with your political agenda. 
    
    It helps when you understand what you're reading.
    
    > I am here to speak the truth as I see it, but I do not seek to squelch
    > anyone else by intimidation, or any other means, from speaking out on
    > the truth as they see it, either.   
    
    You're here to push your own agenda, in other words (while I am here
    to speak the truth as I see it.)  [It's all a matter of perspective.]

    Mike Smith -
    
    Just to be even clearer (on the point about your definition of
    "professional victim")...
    
    I didn't see you use the term about any particular person at Digital
    (or anywhere else.)  However, I've seen the term used by others against
    identifiable individuals at Digital.
    
    I found your definition quite insulting (to those who might be labeled
    this way,) so I made the comment to tell you this (and to offer that
    the definition is YOURS ONLY, so that others who use the term against
    co-workers could not be presumed to have been so insulting to known
    individuals.)
    
    Do you get it now?

    Suzanne, I feel we have pretty much settled this via mail, at least to my
    satisfaction.  I would like to propose now that we go back to an
    agreement to disagree.
    
    D'accord?
    
    Mike

    RE: .325  Mike Smith
    
    > D'accord?
    
    You betcha.
    

    re .271 (Conlon)
    
    My copy of Brain Sex (British 1991 edition) has a summary but does not
    have an epilogue.  Is it too long to enter here?