Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    
         I agree with you on the need for communication.  It is the
    entire basis of my fight against sexually discriminatory topics
    and conferences.  Having corporate policy on my side is not half
    as important as having basic fairness on my side.  I won't apologize
    for the vigorous way I have opposed this discrimination because
    I see nothing wrong- and everything right with it.  I value the
    interchange of ideas which take place in womannotes, and apparently
    must fight to keep it happenning.  I must say, though, that with
    a moderator now starting these topics, the fight seems silly.
    
                                 Greg
    

    Greg, I'm assuming you are referring to the 2 parallel strings I
    started on Defining Relationships.
    
    I presented the idea of having parallel strings before I was asked to
    help moderate this conference.  It was an idea worth trying because it
    appeared to meet both sets of needs, yet without trying it, I didn't
    know if it would be awkward or not.  (It is.) I'm still committed to
    the ideas I mentioned in the note which used a tennis analogy, and
    would very much like to see a way where women can converse with one
    another while men can respond, if they wish, in a separate place. 
    
    Currently I'm thinking that FWO notes should be used sparingly,
    and that the next topic should be set aside for a mixed discussion
    of the same topic by men and women who wish to discuss it together.   
    
    Is that a personal or a moderator opinion?  I don't know.  It's
    certainly not the "official policy" of this conference.  It is the
    opinion of someone who cares deeply about the problem and the ensuing
    issues and would like to find a solution which doesn't resort to
    meeting one group's needs at the expense of the other's.
                                                                       
    Holly

    Greg, one of the concepts *I*'ve been pushing since Day One...though so
    far with depressingly little effect...has been that we can TRY things.
    We can EXPERIMENT.  We don't have to adopt anything that doesn't work
    for us.  We can try it once and never again.  Or we can try/modify/try
    again... ad infinitum if it looks like we're getting somewhere.  We can
    do whatever seems to work, and toss out whatever doesn't work.  THERE
    IS NO PENALTY FOR TRYING TO DO IT BETTER.                          
    
    						in Sisterhood,
    						=maggie

    
         Yeah, I know what you folks are saying.  My comments are not
    meant to express anger.  It's just that a VT220 is so lacking in
    its ability to express sadness.  If the exisiting FWO topics are
    the only ones to ever exist, I have no qualms, but if it becomes
    a permanent scar, I would indeed be disappointed.  The problem I
    see with the experiment is that the determination of success would
    depend on the group queried.  For those who pushed for such topics,
    the experiment would certainly be a success.  For the opposing group,
    the reverse would be the answer.  How will you discern success?
    
                            Greg
      

    
    
    We are only as successful as to the degree which the idea being
    conveyed is communicated to the intended audience.
    
    _peggy
    
    		(-)
    		 |	If you get my drift you get my meaning.
    

    I feel like I could write a book on this one. . .hold on - don't
    hit that "NEXT UNSEEN" -  I said I *could* write a book; much to
    your relief, I won't.
    
    But (and the other shoe dropped) I would like to add two cents
    worth.  First cent:  I agree with Peggy - granting (i.e. assuming)
    the adultness/fairness/intelligence of the reader sure seems to
    help.  Second cent:  Grammar, language, and syntax are almost
    the only way of communicating here ("smileys/frownies" acknowledged).
    I believe it's fairly well accepted that non-verbal cues (e.g. body
    language, facial expression, tonal inflections, etc.) comprise a
    major (some would say majority) portion of our daily communication
    efforts.  Even with these cues, successful communication is no
    easy feat - one school of thought says that all business problems
    can be reduced to three issues:  responsibility, communication,
    and I'll be danged if I can recall the third; but the point is
    that communiction is a very common problem in most human endeavors.
    
    In any case, I think that paying some attention to two particulars
    might help to improve communications.  The first is the "loaded"
    word, the second is the presentation of opinion as fact.  Consider
    the following:
    
    1)  "That's a stupid idea."
    
    2)  "I think that idea won't work because. . ."
    
    In 1 the word "stupid" is emotionally loaded and, as written, the
    sentence is incongruous.  Stupidity is a human attribute; an idea
    can, at most, exist (by being thought/stated).  Now when someone
    says to me "Steve, that was a stupid idea", I ought to reply
    something like "I don't understand; that statement is logically
    incongruous".  But, like most, I'm still a few steps away from
    cosmic enlightenment so I make the common *translation* of the
    statement "Steve, that was the idea of a stupid person".
    
    Yep - there go my hackles; I could stand being "uninformed"; I've
    even gotten to the point where I can accept being "ignorant" (though
    I'd appreciate the qualifier "in the literal sense of the word"),
    but *stupid*. . .seeth, froth, boil.  Not only that, but, as written,
    1 is stated as fact; that is, it's presented as being true and,
    without qualifiers, "true" denotes true for all, including me.
    The MUSIC conference version of this goes something like "I just
    heard the latest xxx (insert artist name) song and it's a real
    piece of trash."  Leaving aside the logical incongruity, if I happen
    to like "xxx's" new song, the opinion has been stated as a fact
    and I'm left to consider the "fact" that I like trash.  Or I can
    go get *my* flamethrower.  And all my (now) opponent had to do was
    say "I really dislike xxx's latest. . ."  Stated as opinion, this
    phrase leaves room for mine and we can begin to trade thoughts 
    about our opinions.
    
    Well, I've already gone on longer than I intended; I should have
    done my thinking and editing in the DCL (vs. NOTES) environment
    so I could come back tomorrow and say the whole thing in half
    the space.  Suffice it to say that I feel that the success of
    communications in NOTES would be enhanced by the use of emotionally
    neutral words which clearly indicate whether the writer is stating
    fact or opinion.
    
    Steve
    
    P.S.  Just one more little thing (honest, I can quit anytime. . .)
    I acknowledge that it's tougher, more cumbersome to have to stop
    and check for loaded words and opionions stated as facts.  And
    people who get to know each other well tend to develop a "shorthand"
    so that communication becomes faster and clearer; because I know
    the person, I know the emotional intent behind phrases that we 
    use (mainly because over time, we've discussed and agreed on "what
    we mean".)  How many of us know each other *that* well? 
    

    Communication is a tricky thing indeed, isn't it?
    Clearly, communication is an expression of opinion for the most
    part, so there are bound to be barriers or pitfalls in any such
    cosmopolitan endeavor.
    
    As for what I have thus far read in this topic, I would offer this:
    I tend to agree with Holly's suggestion -  a "parallel string" approach
    to communication. I have NO apprehension whatsoever in having a
    "Females Only" dialogue, with a parallel string for intergender
    or Male Only response to that topic. Considering the title of this
    conference and all, I think it is not only an excellent idea but
    an essential one in many respects. I support it completely.
    
    As for Steve's reply (.6), I agree with some of his basic points
    about communication etiquette, but the part about "emotionally
    neutral words" is an area I hesitate to embrace. Communication
    is not an emotionally neutral enterprise, as a rule. There are
    such forms of communication, but they often lack vitality. Also,
    if one is so guarded in their effort to say what's in their heart
    or on their mind, by consciously avoiding expressing the emotions
    that might help define their view, the resultant contribution may
    not express what they really feel. Use discretion, but don't 
    compromise expression.
    
    The complexities of Communication predispose us to find new ways
    to interact  - this networking system being such an avenue. Within
    this system are new possibilities, most of us are neophytes or
    pioneers in the enterprise. I look forward to whatever progress
    is made toward human interaction in this format, and applaud those
    who are willing to establish new criteria for communication.
    
                                                   Marvin

    re: .7
    
    Well said, Marvin.  And I agree that there's a risk of sanitizing
    a thought with "neutral" words to the point where meaning is
    lost.  What I'm really trying to say (a telling phrase, no) is
    that, particularly when the topic is one of high emotion, a 
    bit of care and forethought might go a long way towards successful
    communications.  
    
    For example, it's clear to me that many people feel a great deal
    of anger about some things.  I think that it's dangerous not
    to get that anger out somehow - when strong emotions are "buried"
    I begin to hear a time bomb.  How long it ticks and how big
    the explosion depend on individuals' various tolerances, but I
    think that few, if any, people can bury "heavy stuff" indefinitely;
    just seems to work its way out, often through an unexpected "vent".
    I believe that this and similar conferences *can* be a very positive
    way to help this process.
    
    The only caution I'm trying to give is that when those discussions
    get going, a little extra care can help a lot.  What I'm thinking
    of is the difference between saying
    
    "I'm *extremely* angry at what ___ said; when I read 'xxx', I 
    felt. . ."  
    
    on the one hand, and 
    
    "Hey bozo, when you say "xxxx", you're full of bull pucky. . ."
    
    BTW (before someone states the obvious) this is a message I've
    tried to state clearly. . .several times, with several variations
    of wording.  If I were so damned good at it how come I'm having
    trouble being understood?
    
    Other-small-thought-dept:  I think some other things that help
    promote successful communication are a willingness to admit 
    uncertainty and/or error, a willingness to apolgize for errors,
    and an understanding that such admissions or apologies aren't
    easy in a public forum, particularly when the discussion is highly
    emotional; knowing that I won't be held up and ridiculed as the
    moron-of-the-week for such an admission might make it easier to
    state.  Such a tacit agreement rests an assumption that after I
    admit my error, apologize and you forgive me, I'll try hard not
    to make the same error again. . .
    
    Steve
       

    Thanks for your clarification Steve.
    I especially agree with your last statement - that apologies etc
    are + ingredients, and that acceptance of same is equally encouraged.
    In this electronic forum, communication is unique; perhaps we *would*
    converse with each other in a like fashion if we were face-to-face,
    but something tells me that this medium offers a freedom of expression
    that might not exist in normal communicative channels. Therefore,
    the immediacy for introspection is sometimes delayed or lost and
    people surround their view with their chosen bias, apology becomes
    a nonconsideration when weighed against that bias.
    
    Personally, I appreciate it when I am challenged in my view, and
    if it seems to warrant apology, I would not hesitate in such a reply.
    It *is* a difficult thing to discern what anger etc may be harboured
    by any individual involved in conference communication, and often
    times that anger does explode on the screen - sometimes when you
    least expect it - a moderator's bane, I'm sure - but I suppose that
    is all part of the nature of this format. 
    
    I enjoy this networking, sometimes I think we should have conferences
    designated for vehement debates, just so anger, biases,prejudices
    etc could find an "appropriate" conference for release - with no
    restrictions or fear of "reprisal" - an anonymous conference, if
    you had to. But barring such a possibility, these channels now open
    offer great possibilities for communication and for the most part,
    it seems to work quite well.
    
                                     Marvin