Conference turris::womannotes-v2

        My guess would be 'MEN', but I may be being cynical/paranoid...
        
        &y
        

    
    It's A-G-E...they say I *hide* it well.
    
    am

    Gotta be "all".
    						Ann B.

    and may I say...
    
    A Happy Birthday to you, Ann Marie...
    
    You don't look a day over 20!
    

    HA!
    
    She looks at least 25.
    

    oh come on now, Dawn...be kind...
      

    .1 BINGO!  I think its their own little rebellion toward those
    inconsiderate egotistical ignorant sexist male types...OPPPS!  I'm
    one of those .... Ah well.
    BTW  I forgot Abusive.

    "Men" is the operative word here.  I'm told it was meant as a joke,
    but this man, at least, finds it insulting and somewhat intimidating.
    But I don't find it surprising, sad to say.
    
    				Steve

    Considering that I sometimes feel like doing a "set humans hidden",
    more often "set me hidden", occasionally "set fat, stupid cats hidden",
    I guess I don't feel it surprising, insulting, or indimidating.
    
    (other) Steve
    

    Ditto steve.  

    re:.10
    
    Which Steve?  Lionel or Mallet?
    
    --- jerry

    After thinking about this a while longer, I realize that part of what
    I said could be misinterpreted.  By saying I wasn't surprised, I meant
    that I knew what the effects of "mob psychology" can be and that
    the separatists among this gathering of women are very vocal - it
    was apparently easy to convince others to go along with this bit
    of vicious humor.
    
    I'd like to ask those who participated in this to think for a moment
    how you'd feel if you discovered that a group of men secretly gathered
    and decided to play a "joke" like this at your expense - a joke that
    devalues you and shows disrespect for you. 
    
    It never ceases to amaze me how women who flame at men who have not
    chosen their words carefully could deliberately and maliciously plan
    an insult of this nature.  
    
    				Steve

	RE:  .14

	> Would I be incorrect to assume that if some male noters started
    	> to use "Set _____ Hidden", they'd be on the receiving end of about
    	> 5 bazillion harassment complaints?
    
    	You meant that as a joke, right?  (Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!)
   	Very humorous.
    
    	As to the meaning of "set ___ hidden," it seems obvious to me
    	that a few folks are jumping to conclusions here (about both
    	the *meaning* and the *intent* of the phrase.)
    
    	Or have I missed an important aspect of noter etiquette?  (When-
    	ever I see a "personal name" that I don't understand, should I
    	assume that it means something bad about ME and gripe about
   	it in a new note?)  Sheesh!

    
    Well, there are only 3 letters in "men" and there are 5 dashes.
    
    Ah, but "males" has 5 letters.... did I guess correctly?
    

       I think it's silly to get worked up about someone's personal name,
       even if it's a secret message known only to a cabal/claque.  I
       suppose I got upset when I was 6 or 7 and couldn't decode Captain
       Midnight's Secret Squadron message, but not really since then.
       
       --Mr Topaz

    re: .21
    
    Who wants a bunch of barefoot, pregnant chimps running around?
    
    Steve
    

    I used to get upset when the girls in my high school would do
    things like that -- it made it so obvious they thought there was
    an in-group and an out-group, and they thought they were the
    in-group.
    
    But sometime during my junior year I realized my own circle of
    friends was bigger and did more things I found more interesting --
    trips to art galleries, working in the drama club, going to poetry
    readings up on the college campus -- and I didn't really mind
    being left out of some social activities I wouldn't enjoy much
    anyway.  

    DIGITAL has a lot of similar interesting clique-tags -- the use of
    a particular acronym to identify the people who are in the know
    about a project is one of the most amusing.  One project I know of
    has changed its code name about six times in the past six weeks
    trying to maintain its exclusivity, but since it's a project
    everybody's worried about, the new name becomes current almost
    before the developers have figured out what it is. 
    
    --bonnie

    I always thought that private jokes were a lot of fun. I would
    never deny others their right to have them. On the other hand,
    flaunting an inside joke before large numbers of people does
    seen a little childish to me.
    
    			Alfred

    	Gee, I knew nothing about where it originated, but I kind of
    enjoyed the variations, and was trying to come up with a clever
    one of my own.  It's kind of like standing on a street corner in
    NYC, looking up, and seeing how many people you can get to join
    you.
    
    	I wasn't offended at all...
    
    						--Doug

    I agree with Alfred's views in .24.
    
    In times past I wouldn't have given this a second thought.  But my
    participation in this conference has sensitized me to issues of
    "objectification", and I see it where I would not have noticed
    earlier.  I find it an interesting exercise in irony to compare
    this subject and the comments thereupon, with the note on catcalls;
    to me, the women who played this joke are doing exactly the sort
    of thing objected to about men who make catcalls - done in a group
    from a "distance", to make themselves feel good at the expense of
    another group.
    
    				Steve L.  (too many Steves!)

   re:.24
   
   Let's not trivialize what happens to women when they are drooled
   on by catcallers.
    
   Thanks.

   Ann Marie

    Time to learn, time to grow.....

    justme....jacqui

    
    Re: .27  I referred to the wrong note in my reply.  For the record,
    it should have been .26 and not .24.
    
    I was responding as a noter...
    
    Ann Marie
    

    Sometimes I feel like saying "Set *EVERYF***INGTHING* hidden! You're
    ALL a bunch of whining children!" Then I remember that there are
    people I really like here, and I want to listen to them. I realize
    that not EVERYONE is whining even though the whining is awfully
    loud.
    
    But I STILL want to say it. It's not rational, it's not fair, it's
    just how I feel.
    
    	-- Charles

    Ann Marie, in no way do I intend to trivialize anything, but
    I meant what I said.  In the catcalls note, several women appeared
    to claim that catcalls resulted from a supposed universal conspiracy
    of men to demonstrate their power over women, and also that they
    did it in safety to boost their own image amongst their peers.
    We were also told that the catcalls (which, of course, themselves,
    are harmless words and gestures), were harbringers of more malevolent
    intentions and made the victims feel threatened.
    
    So - tell me - where's the difference?  Or is it to be "what's sauce
    for the gander isn't for the goose"?
    
    				Steve

    Well, Steve, the line *is* "set --- hidden" and not "delete ---".
    
    Why do you feel that a shouted suggestion of a felonious activity
    (Such as, to be fairly innocuous, "Hey, baby, let's ****." to a
    married woman.) is equivalent to a suggestion for a [traditionally]
    temporary measure against words on a disk?
    
    							Ann B.

    
    re: .32  Steve, catcalls have been directed at women for YEARS and
    comparing that situation to this particular one is, imho, comparing
    apples and oranges.
    
    am, the noter

    re .34
    	Oh I see now!   Then a woman who gets catcalled at for the first
    time doesn't have the right to be upset because it hasn't been
    happening to her for years...  Thanks for clarifying that for me.
     
    	(It should be obvious that the above it *dripping* with sarcasm.)
    
    	I don't know what the people who were using the "set ___ hidden" meant
    for us to fill it in with.  None of them have told me and there
    are a BUNCH of three letter words in many languages so how would
    I know.  
    
    	BUT!!!  If it were to be filled in with "men"  I see it as pretty
    directly analogous to catcalling.  Someone said for Steve not to
    "trivialize" catcalling by comparing it to this.  Then someone
    else said it's just 1's and 0's.  Well, folks, catcalling is "just"
    words.  Nasty words meant to express power, yes, but words
    nevertheless.  Just like the words in the personal name.  The act
    is unkind, and in my value system wrong, no matter which one you're
    talking about.  It doesn't matter if it's happened before.  It doesn't
    matter if it will happen again.  In my book, it is wrong.  Justifying
    it by saying "well you've been doing this to us for years" gets
    us nowhere!  Let's rise above tit for tat.  If sisterhood really
    is strong, we should be able to manage that.
    
    tlh 
    who doesn't like catcalling no matter the gender of the "caller" or
    "callee"                                                        
    

    
    re .35
    
    That is NOT what I said! What I am addressing is that catcalling
    has occurred for years and Steve's comparison with whatever was
    happening in noters' p_n's to catcalling (which is rooted in sexism)
    trivializes a woman's pain, anger, shame and any other unpleasant emotion
    you'd like to add to this list. 
    
    Ann Marie, the noter.

    re .36
    	What *I'm* saying is that by claiming that that the two are
    not comparable, *you* are trivializing the men's feelings at this
    kind of insulting behaviour.  Nowhere in this string did I see anything
    by the men that trivialized catcalling.  *You* decided that catcalling
    was "worse" than the personal name business and therefore it was
    trivializing catcalling. 
    
    	I don't understand how you can expect men to respect women's
    feelings about catcalling, if you will not respect theirs about
    a similar discriminatory and just plain rude act.  How long it's
    gone on doesn't signify.  REmeber the old saying "two wrongs do
    not make a right"?
    
    tlh
    
                                 
    

    Folks, I think maybe we're losing sight of something here.  Lemme have
    a go at explaining (though many other people have already said the
    same thing I'm about to...apparently to no avail)
    
    I've never enjoyed the kind of behavior we're calling "catcalls", but I
    have been the target of them on a few occasions.  When the catcaller
    has been someone I know and like, I've taken no offence because I knew
    that he knew I don't enjoy it and that he was doing it to yank my
    chain. Typically I take chain-yanks in the spirit in which they're
    intended and life goes on just fine.  When the caller has been a
    stranger or someone I know but don't like, however, I've felt very
    differently:  people in those categories have earned _no_ right at all
    to impose on my goodwill or expect me to hold still while they have
    a good time at my expense.
    
    Intentionality counts for a lot, doesn't it?
    
                                                =maggie

    The road to hell is paved with "good intentions" so where do bad
    intentions lead?
    
    Dondi
    

    	Well, one comment I'd like to make is that it is to be
    	*expected* that some members of the majority group will consider 
    	even the SMALLEST sign of disrespect from the minority as a MAJOR 
    	AFFRONT (no matter WHAT the intentions of the minority group 
    	might have been.)
    
    	So, sure, I can see where some people might think that a personal
    	name like "Set <UN-NAMED ENTITY> hidden" is pretty *outrageous*
    	coming from women.  
    
    	I'm not surprised AT ALL by some of the reactions I've seen
    	to this incident so far.  
    

re: .38.

Perhaps the unspoken message you're hearing is that some of us feel
like unwelcome strangers here.

Martin.

    Gads, -Q (Dick Wagman) aren't you sorry you asked?  I hope my minor
    variant of it wasn't one that prompted you to put this question!  
    For me, seeing an "in" joke on a Friday had something of the mysterious
    prank about it, so I coopted my own personal name for one entry.
    I can hardly believe this string.
    
    I feel just like Charles did in .31.  I want to say it too.
    
    DougO
    
    P.S. Title credits to Elvis Costello.

    1. Catcalls are perpetrated by members of the group IN power
       against the members of the group NOT in power.
    
    2. They are performed in a setting which allows for physical
       confrontation and violence
    
    3. They are performed  by a larger group against a smaller, preferably
       one or two lone individuals
    
    4. The performers are almost always more physically (as well as
       socially) powerful
    
    I see very little connection between the two. 
    
    Oh. Wait. Women are supposed to take catcalls as attention,
    feedback on how they're doing.......hmmmmm.......
    
    --DE
    

    <--(.41)
    
    Martin, are you speaking for yourself?
    
    						=maggie

	I saw the "Set --- Hidden" on a rock at Stonehedge.
	Evidently it was part of a cult that has now been
	revitalized. So watch out you (or me) maybe next.
	For those who complain about catcalls. I call my
	cat every day or the poor thing would starve :-)

	PS. I nominate this note as the Rathole Note of
	the year.

Re:  .42 by SKYLRK::OLSON "green chile crusader!"

To be perfectly honest, DougO, I'm virtually thunderstruck.  I had no idea
that the paranoia here ran so deep.  When I saw the matching personal names
I assumed that a few people were trying to be cute, clever, or celebrate an
in joke of some sort, and I expected that one or two of the noters in
question would share the joke and that would be it.  This was intended as an
essentially silly note.  I took no offense with all the "--- hidden" personal
names at the time they were written (and nothing I've since seen has suggested
to me that I should have been offended).

Well, so far only one of the original "--- hidden" noters has replied
(.2) with anything that suggested an explanation.  She said that the ---
referred to "age", but didn't say why "age" should be hidden (or whose, for
that matter).  And since no one else has chosen to clarify it, a whole group
of people have now decided that it must have been "men" that they were trying
to hide.  And off we go into the wild, paranoid yonder.

Why has everyone assumed that there was evil (or even slightly nasty) intent
in those personal names?  Nothing in their notes suggested to me that they
were intending to put men (or any other group of noters) down.  I agree with
you, DougO, that it looked like a Friday morning prank.

So let's try again:  would any others of the "--- hidden" care to come forward
and let us in on the joke?  I promise I won't slap your hands!

			:-)

						--Q

PS:  In spite of all this, I'm not sorry I asked.

Re:  .45

>	I saw the "Set --- Hidden" on a rock at Stonehedge.

Thank you.  I hadn't seen this when I wrote .47.

>	PS. I nominate this note as the Rathole Note of	the year.

Yes, it does seem like it.

					--Q

Yes, at some times I do feel very unwelcome in this file.  Not because
someone calls me a fool, but because I'm being lumped into some amorphous
group called "men".  When I see a note saying "I don't want to read anything
written by a man," I feel as if I'm being judged by some strange standard
and want to ask whether the writer means "white men" or "beer drinking
male marathon runners" or whatever.

I have no objection to someone hitting <Next> whenever they see a note
I write: I often do that when I see a note by certain participants (or
a note with several hundred lines of text).  But, I don't ignore
all notes written by WC-II, or notes written by paraplegics, or
whatever.

If you don't like what I have to say, fine.  If you feel its appropriate
to inform others that I'm not worthy of your attention, that's fine, too.
But, I feel I have the right to be treated as an individual, not as
some sort of footsoldier in the international male conspiracy.

Martin.

Martin,

Is it the gender, or is it the grouping? I'm sure any analogy I'll make will be
stupid, but if you were writing in a gay notesfile and someone said they
weren't going to read notes by hets, or if you were writing in a notesfile for
marketing types and someone said that they weren't going to read notes by
engineers, would that hurt as much? (I am making assumptions about the gender
you have sex with and your job; I hope I don't offend.)

I'm trying to ask sincerely and openly. Please read my note in RESPECT before
responding. Thank you for any insights.
	Mez

    <--(.42, .47)
    
    I'm with you guys.  I'm really surprised and saddened by the amount of
    suspiciousness and the intensity of the bad feelings that seem to be
    bubbling up over this issue; it's almost incredible.  You two took the
    whole thing in exactly the spirit in which it was meant:  a trivial
    prank/chain-pull/in-joke. We expected that we'd get a reaction, but
    good heavens!!   
    
    You don't suppose that now we're having *our* collective leg pulled,
    do you?
    
    						=maggie

    re: .46
    
    � Perhaps the unspoken message _men_ are hearing is. . .
    
    It sounds like you're trying to speak for me; I'd be more
    inclined to listen better if you'd speak for you.
    
    Steve
    

   When I was in grade school, jr hi and high school, I was the butt
    of many jokes. I was a female nerd. I didn't date, and I wanted
    to, I didn't belong and I wanted to. Many times the 'in' crowd
    singled me out and made major fun of me. Have any of you been
    offered laxitive chocolates by someone you thought was a good friend?
    Have any of you had your name be the 'in' expression for jerk of
    the week? Have any of you had a committee named in your honor -
    i.e. all the rejects from the year book committee...the teachers
    said that everyone who wanted to should be on the year book - so
    I found out later that there was a Bonnie Power committee...that
    was my committee because I was so outspoken...that was where the
    rejects were assigned...and I found out about it years later..
    
    interestingly enough I talked to a woman from my hs class before
    our 25th reunion...and asked her why I'd never heard about a reunion..
    and I offered to try and contact lost members...and after 25 years
    she was still in that old mind set...she let met start another
    Bonnie committee and gave me no input or power.
    
    and no lost class memebers came to the class reunion.
    
    So I lost in that I will never go to a high school reunion..and
    they lost because they are still hanging on to old business...
    
    but it hurts me now to see the same kind of tactics...you are not
    part of the in group, I don't have time for you...and creating
    in jokes that go from funny to painful...and the only reason
    I didn't have 'set---hidden' in my personal name is that I was not
    at work Friday...thought it was good joke at the time..but now
    I have a problem because I do not feel it is right to pick on anyone
    for any reason...the fact that women have been discriminated against,
    that they have been denied jobs, that they have been trivialized,
    does not to me justify, and I admit I colluded and thought it was
    funny, making an in joke against men any more than it was right
    to make an in joke against jews or blacks or nerds...if we as women
    justify using the 'enemy's' tactics against any male or all men...
    then we lose...we are no better than those who discriminate against
    us...and arguments about the jerks and etc don't matter....if we
    stoop to 'isms' and stoop to name calling and stoop to hurting those
    who have not hurt us...we are *wrong* .
    
     Nothing, absolutely NOTHING  makes discrimination right...nothing.
    
    Bonnie
    
    Damn it ..I will not tolerate discrimination...no matter what
    cloak it wears or what justification it offers.

    
    	   Personal names seem to be quite the hot topic these
    	days.  I have often received insulting remarks from people
    	who assume my personal names are directed at them.  I find
    	it quite amusing.  Perhaps someday I'll keep statistics
    	and try to analyze the groups who are offended by certain
    	remarks.
    
    	   Until then, may I please suggest that we all take a somewhat
    	more apathetic attitude regarding the tiny little buffer
    	that we use to display some part of our twisted personalities.
    	
    	   In short, who cares what the three dashes stand for?  
    	Would it be so terrible if it was MEN?  In general, I'd
    	be inclined to agree with the sentiment.  How about if the
    	three dashes stood for YOU.  Then their personal names
    	are ALMOST as insulting as mine.  Still, I get very few
    	complaints about mine, and I didn't have to use dashes
    	to introduce ambiguity.
    
    	  Don't take personal names so seriously.  They are, after
    	all, only words.  And who among us cannot recall the childhood
    	rhyme:
    
    			Sticks and stones
    			May Break My Bones
    			But [personal] Names will Never Hurt Me
    
    - Greg

    I took the whole thing as a playful joke. In a reply of mine
    in another note, I alluded to the whole thing as indicative of
    a conspiracy, but it was meant tongue-in-cheek (as indicated
    by the accompanying ":-)").
    
    On the other hand, this doesn't invalidate the hurt, insulted
    feelings that some other men are having as a result. If they
    feel that the joke is insulting, then it's insulting, regardless
    of the intentions of the perps.
    
    I've seen many a note in this conference in which women are
    complaining about men "invalidating their feelings". If a
    number of men conspired to pull a joke at the expense of women,
    I dare say that it would not be taken by everyone in the light
    in which it was intended.
    
    Here we have the reverse. Some of the women here are invalidating
    the feelings of the insulted men. They are telling those men
    that they "shouldn't" feel insulted or hurt. That it was "just
    a joke".
    
    Now *this* bothers me, whereas the joke itself didn't.
    
    And I would like to thank both Trace and Bonnie for their heart-
    felt, supportive replies.
    
    --- jerry

    	RE:  .55
    
    	Jerry, no one started invalidating men's feelings in this
    	particular topic until a man stated that this incident felt
    	like cat-calls must feel to women and was THEREFORE invalidating
    	women's feelings about cat-calls (in the eyes of some folks.)
    
    	I went back and read through this entire string (starting around
    	.10) so if you saw something here that I didn't, I'd appreciate
    	your telling me.
    
    	When some men 'invalidate' women's feelings (especially when
    	it comes to something like catcalls, nudie posters, etc.,) the
    	invalidation part doesn't come when someone says "I didn't mean
    	it in a bad way."
    
    	To me, it's perfectly acceptable for someone to say, "I only
    	meant it as a joke" or "I didn't mean to offend you."
    
    	The problem comes when people say, "Well, I don't think it
    	OUGHT to offend you, therefore, I will KEEP DOING IT and it's
    	YOUR PROBLEM!"
    
    	In all the notes we've ever had about catcalls, etc., there
    	have always been a few folks that have disagreed with us about
    	our feelings (with the clear intent of thinking our feelings
    	were so unreasonable that the person REFUSED to adjust behavior
    	in spite of how much we said it upset us.)
    
    	In this topic, no one is saying, "Hell, you shouldn't be bothered
    	by the personal name so WE'RE GOING TO KEEP USING IT AND SCREW
    	HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT IT!"
    
    	What's happened instead is that the women who used the personal
    	name (with NO bad intentions) have discontinued the use of it
    	(and didn't even ARGUE about giving it up) but are now being
    	subjected to an endless barrage of name-calling about how
    	they were discriminating against men, etc.
    
    	Those women did NOT discriminate against men (and I don't care
    	if a moderator here is one of the people who has unfairly accused
    	them of that or NOT!)
    
    	The women may have played a joke that was less than kind (in
    	20/20 hindsight) but I do not consider every unkind thing done
    	to me by men as discrimination, and neither will I accept that
    	some less than kind joke by a group of women is discrimination
    	either.
    
    	I think that people have beaten up these women ENOUGH for this
    	one little error in judgment.  In fact, I think that these women
    	have been ABUSED FAR TOO LONG AND HARD in relation to the offense
    	(and I'm getting really tired of seeing this harassment continue.)

    Might I change a couple of words in your note, Sue?
    
    "I think that people have beaten up on men ENOUGH for the errors
    of past men. In fact, I think that men have been ABUSED FAR TOO
    LONG AND HARD in relation to their forefathers offences.
    (and I am getting really tired of seeing this harassment continue)
    
    Is this the same thing?  I think so.
    
    No doubt you disagree, correct?
    
    You see, the point I am trying to make is that people are taking
    things too far.  Always harping on past errors of others.
    
    "Well for 200 + years etc...."   Nevermind the past (not completely)
    lets work on the future.  Lets try to educate EACH OTHER WITHOUT
    HARPING on one another.  
    
    Of course, this is a mans opinion.        
    

    	RE:  .57
    
    	Al, not to invalidate your feelings or anything :-), but
    	when women talk about the past, we do not drag individuals
    	into it.
    
    	Show me where we say, "Al, you have got to stop raping people."
    
    	When we talk about things that have really happened, we are
    	talking about our own experiences (which is not the same thing
    	as saying, "Al, YOU did this to us!")
    
    	The thing is, it is perfectly valid for men to say, "My feelings
    	were hurt by the personal name."  No problem.
    
    	But to define it as discrimination (and to tell identifiable
    	individuals that they were personally discriminating against
    	men) really isn't fair.
    
    	If you said "Good morning" to me (and it hurt my feelings,)
    	my feelings would be valid for me, but I could never make a
    	case for discrimination because my feelings were hurt.
    
    	Do you understand what I'm saying?

       re .56:
       
       The irony-meter registered a new high score for the year for this
       note: the Damocletian specter of harassment is unsheathed for
       anyone who continues to express misgivings about the Name Game.
       That is, the author suggests that she considers it harassment when
       some people complain about what they perceive as ... harassment. 
       
       Suzanne: please stop your harassment of the people whom you accuse
       of harassing the people whom they perceive as harassers!
       
       --Mr Topaz 

    	RE:  .59
    
    	Donnie, dear...
    
    	You have probably been WAITING all year for the chance to say
    	that, too.  :-)
    
    	I wouldn't have wanted to disappoint you....
    

    Re: .56
    
    Suzanne, what magical power do you have that makes you so sure that
    I don't feel the same way about the insulting personal name conspiracy
    as you (or another) woman might about catcalling?  Aren't you
    simply telling me I have no right to feel that way?
    
    I said it bothered me.  I explained why.  My reference to the catcalls
    note was not intended to suggest a direct equivalence between the two,
    but that at the more abstract level, the activities are sufficiently
    similar to warrant comparisons of the reactions to the two.
    
    I don't think I could express my sentiments about this as well as
    Tracey did (you're two for two, tlh!), and I also am glad that Bonnie
    wrote her story, as I see the situation here similarly relevant.
    
    It isn't the so-called joke itself that upsets me, but the attitude
    behind it and the rationalizing of it which has occurred that really has
    me wondering.  Does being born a woman automatically convey a
    "double-oh" type "license-to-insult"?  Why are some women saying it's
    ok for them to demean men, but not ok for men to demean women?  And
    why do I find my feelings and emotions repeatedly invalidated in this
    forum?  It makes it all the more difficult to take seriously the
    women who complain about men's attitudes here.
    
    				Steve L.

    I am tempted to ask for an explanation of the in joke as
    it is insisted that it is harmless. If it is truly harmless
    and yet still cannot or should not be explained I might
    start to wonder about motives. But I'm not asking.

    			Alfred

    What I find so amusing is that some men find offense with the personal
    name joke and it is because it was a womans joke and they were
    excluded. Womankind has been excluded from birth from so much in
    the man's world, so that now that women are treating men as equals
    (or how women have been treated for ever)they take offense.
    I just can't help but chuckle, how amusing.
    
    vivian

    re: .61 (Steve)
    
    	   Chin up, lad.  While I am not a moderator of this conference
    	(and I'm sure you're all happy about that), I think I can explain
    	some of what's going on here based on my own experiences in
    	SMOKERS.  Allow me to spin a little analogy, then all can tell
    	me how close I am to hitting the mark.
    
    	   When I set up SMOKERS I wanted a conference in which smokers
    	could discuss issues of relevence to them, without the cujoling
    	and harassment that we receive from non-smokers on a daily basis.
    	In order to adhere to company guidelines and what-not, I was 
    	essentially forced to leave the conference open to all comers.
    	Inevitably, some radical non-smokers entered with the express
    	intent of stirring up trouble.  This caused a great deal of
    	consternation for myself and the other smoking members of that
    	conference.
    
    	   I see a similar situation in WOMANNOTES.  This conference was
    	mainly set up for women to discuss issues of relevance to women.
    	The male presence here is viewed as no less an intrusion into
    	'their turf' than the non-smoking element was on my turf.  When
    	certain among the male population of this conference get, er,
    	'out of hand' shall we say.
    
    	   Mind you, I'm not suggesting that the complaints that have 
    	levied against the male members of THIS conference are any
    	more or less valid than those that the smokers levied against
    	the non-smokers in the SMOKERS conference.  You see, when a
    	file (such as this one or SMOKERS) is set up specifically to 
    	serve a certain group, those not included in that group are
    	generally given lesser consideration (with regard to feelings,
    	attitudes or actions).
    
    	   So don't take it presonally if at times we men get lumped
    	into the amorphous group entitled "MEN!!!".  This can be 
    	viewed as a 'venting of steam' in a comparatively safe place.
    	That you personally do not fit the descriptions presented
    	when referrig to "MEN!!!" should tell you that you are not
    	the one they are complaining about (even if they are complaining
    	to YOU personally).  That's the way these special-group notefiles
    	work.
    
    	- Greg

    Re: .63
    
    >Womankind has been excluded from birth from so much in the man's
    >world, so that now that women are treating men as equals (or how
    >women have been treated for ever)
    
    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
    
    I don't find it amusing at all.  I don't think it's amusing to 'give
    men a dose of their own medicine' when you've been choking on that
    medicine for years.  I don't think it's amusing to play tit for
    tat.  I don't think it's productive, either.  How can you complain
    about injustice and then turn around and inflict injustice?  Doesn't
    that make you a flaming hypocrite?  Sure, maybe it feels good, but
    what are the long-term effects?  You've alienated supporters, weakened
    your position and added yet another piece of evidence against
    yourselves in the minds of those who already disapprove of you.

    Re: .43
    
    >1. Catcalls are perpetrated by members of the group IN power
    >   against the members of the group NOT in power.
    
    Since this is Womannotes, women are in power here.  Correspondence.
    
    >2. They are performed in a setting which allows for physical
    >   confrontation and violence
    
    Since this is a notes file, not true.  However, people have spoken
    of the psychic violence inflicted.  That is certainly possible here.
    
    >3. They are performed  by a larger group against a smaller, preferably
    >   one or two lone individuals
    
    Are not women the majority of members in this conference?  Correspondence.
    
    >4. The performers are almost always more physically (as well as
    >   socially) powerful
    
    Physical power doesn't apply here.  Social power, though, *in this
    notesfile* belongs to women.  Partial correspondence.
    
    So I'm seeing more of a connection than you do.  Consider, also,
    that men, not having been exposed to this sort of thing quite so
    often, might find the experience more traumatizing than you would
    expect.
    
    Being of the more privileged younger generation, I don't think in
    terms of sexism to the extent you do.  My first reaction to behavior
    like catcalls is "rude."  Not "sexist."  Given that rudeness is the
    most outstanding factor to me, it's far easier for me to distinguish
    a similarity.  And I did notice that Steve was using an analogy on
    the theoretical level.  He did not say that the two situations were
    the same.  He said that the behavior was much the same in terms of
    goals and motivation.  He did not say that the impact was the same.
    The relative impact is irrelevant.  What does it matter who suffers
    more?  The issue is that people suffer.  Whatever can be done to
    alleviate that should be done.
    
    Now then, if a small group of men got together and offended several
    women in this note with a little joke, I suspect the men would be
    expected to apologize for the hurt feelings.  However, it doesn't
    appear that the jokers are going to acknowledge and apologize for
    the hurt done to others.  Looks like a double standard to me.  Ah,
    equality -- we have the right to be just as immature as any man.

    re last couple, 
    no, I am not advocating tit for tat, I am saying that why do women
    have to explain whatever the joke was?  It was a private joke! 
    It has not even been established that the missing word is "men"!
    why get so emotional over a groups personal joke, if men take offense
    at the possiblility of the missing word being men, that still doesn't
    require an explanation.  give it a rest, a joke is a joke and I
    still find this terribly amusing. just because a man demands an
    explanation from women, doesn't mean women have to give one.
   

    vivian

       Since you asked for opinions Greg, I thought you made an
       excellent analogy. I know for myself that even when I'm thinking
       (in a derogatory manner) MEN!!! I'm not really meaning all the
       men I know, just the ones who seem so happy to fit the
       stereotype I'm screaming against.

       But then, I'm not a female separatist, and find myself prefering
       mixed company more often than not. liesl

    in re .65
    
    chelsea,
    
    I agree
    
    Bonnie

    Greg, your view that this conference was created 'for' women and that
    men are tolerated visitors is a common view, but one that I and I know
    others don't share.  It certainly didn't start that way.  But I don't
    see what the relevance is to this topic.
    
    Vivian, I don't know who you were referring to, but I ask no
    explanation of what the missing word is.  I already know, having
    been told by several friends of mine who were "in" on the insult's
    creation.  Are you suggesting I am mistaken?
    
    Chelsea, thanks.  I am delighted to see you and some other women
    speak out against injustice, no matter where it comes from.
    
    					Steve

    	RE:  .61
    
    	Ok, Steve, so you think that you can claim to have the same
    	feelings about the personal name that we have about catcalls
    	(and I would be invalidating your feelings if I disagree
    	that YOU have the right to equate what YOU are feeling with
    	how some WOMEN feel in a different situation.)
    
    	That means, therefore, that you are allowed to categorize OUR
    	feelings as being the same as what you feel (and we would be
    	insulting you if we deny you the right to state unequivocably
    	that you know more about how we feel than we know ourselves.)
    
    	Ok, how about this analogy:
    
    	   SHE:  I stubbed my toe really badly yesterday, and boy did 
    		 it hurt!
    	    
    	    HE:  What did it feel like?
    
    	   SHE:  Well, you know how it would feel to be playing baseball
    		 and have the pitcher throw a fastball right into your
    		 crotch?  Well, that is how my toe felt.  
    
    	    HE:  I seriously doubt that they are the same thing.
    
    	   SHE:  If you DENY that my stubbed toe felt like crushed
    		 testicles, then you are invalidating my feelings.
    
    
    			   LATER....
    
    	    SHE:  Why is that baseball player lying on the ground
    		  clutching his pants and screaming?
    
    	     HE:  He just had his testicles crushed by a fastball.
    
    	    SHE:  God, what is his problem???  I stubbed my toe again
    		  this morning, and I just said, "Ouch."  I didn't
    		  roll all over the ground for an hour screaming
    		  (even though my feelings about a toe being stubbed
    		  are exactly the same as a man feels when his testicles
    		  are crushed.)
    
    
    	The point, Steve, is that you cannot equate your feelings about
    	something as being the same as ours without some *ESP* of your
    	own!  If you are going to insist that you can characterize
    	our feelings (no matter how much we say that our feelings are
    	different,) then YOU are the one who is invalidating us.

    Re: .72
    
    Steve stated that he did not intend a direct equivalence.  The feelings
    can be the same.  The *intensity* might differ, but the feelings
    can nonetheless be the same.  A situation that is analogous but
    not equivalent.

    More to the point, Suzanne, I never said one word about relative
    "feelings" about catcalls versus the insult under debate.  I really
    don't know where you picked that up.  Please re-read replies .26
    and .32 and let me know if you don't now agree.
    
    			Steve

    Please.....can we just put an end to this? Otherwise I'm going to
    have to modify my "set seen/before" trick just so I can avoid this
    note. One comment though....sometimes a "joke" is allowed to go
    much too far....to the point of not being funny anymore. This note,
    I believe, is a perfect example.
    
    Dave

    Re .53:
    
    	"Have any of you ..."
    
    Yes, I have.  And you are right.

    re: .76 (Mike Z)
    
    	   Precisely my point, Mike.  You see, that's why my analogy 
    	works.  I showed that the spiteful remarks from the smokers
    	in SMOKERS are like those from the women here in WOMANNOTES.
    	In each case the majority opinion decided what constituted
    	harassment, based on their own standards. 
    
    	   Do you see what I mean?  
    
    	   When 'outsiders' invade a special-group conference, they
    	are often treated with less respect and consideration,
    	primarily because they offer the minority opinion.  Thus
    	there will be much support for their opposition, and little
    	for their causes.
    
    	   Also, as with the SMOKERS example, those in the majority
    	will often feel harassed by the sort of objective and 
    	sincere information you described, espeially if that 
    	information is contrary to the goals of the majority.
    	How much credence do you suppose would be given to an
    	objective and sincere analysis of why women should be
    	pregnant all the time?  It wouldn't matter if the surgeon
    	general himself recommended it, such an arguement would
    	inevitably draw heat in this conference.
    
    	   Certain subject matter is guaranteed to offend.  Other
    	more subtle material may offend, depending on the majority
    	opinion.  Remember that in closed little societies such as
    	SMOKERS and WOMANNOTES (and SOAPBOX for that matter), ideas
    	are often inflated to the realm of reality and words become
    	actions.  People often strengthen their resolve on certain
    	subjects when exposed to others with similar viewpoints.
    
    	   In either case I am not trying to defend the actions of
    	the majority, or inflate the cause of the minority.  I am
    	merely pointing out a phenomenon I observed (and actively
    	took part in directing).  You have seen the results.  You
    	were part of the experiment.
    
    	   I'd call this process Polarization.  As the discussions
    	grow hotter and hotter, and more cleverness is used on both
    	sides, each side grows farther from center, polarizing into
    	camps.  If you would like to see that process in action,
    	start a few notes which objectively and sincerely point out
    	that men are the superior gender, why we deserve higher pay
    	because we have bigger egos, and how to take control of your
    	wife.  If you state your opinions sincerely enough, some men
    	will side with you... and you will of course have a large
    	opposing force (including a lot of men).  As the discussions
    	move on, the two groups will separate farther and farther,
    	and the individuals will cluster around the two main camps.
    
    	   The effects will spill over into other notes then, as the
    	members of both camps carry the newfound hostility to other
    	topics.  Crude tactics continue, and the obectivity level
    	of either side is reduced to vitually nil.  
    
    	   This pattern has repeated itself time and again, not rarely
    	at my behest (as I'm sure you're aware).
    
    	   So, what we are seeing now is nothing more than a simple
    	and oft-repeated Notes Phenomenon.  Try not to take it too
    	personally, as that's usually what fuels these fires.
    
    	- Greg

	RE:  .74
    
    	> More to the point, Suzanne, I never said one word about relative
    	> "feelings" about catcalls versus the insult under debate.  I really
    	> don't know where you picked that up. 
    
    	Evidently you don't read your own notes very well.  This is
    	what you said in .61 (to which my .72 was referring):
    
    	.61> Suzanne, what magical power do you have that makes you
    	.61> so sure that I don't feel the *SAME WAY* [emphasis added]
    	.61> about the insulting personal name conspiracy [SIC] as you
    	.61> (or another) woman might about catcalling?  Aren't you
    	.61> simply telling me I have no right to feel that way?
    
    	Steve, if you aren't talking about your (and my) FEELINGS here,
    	then what in heaven's name *ARE* you referring to when you use
    	the word "FEELINGS"?
    
    	I'm not trying to tell you not to feel the way that you do.
    	What I'm saying is:  Don't tell me that YOUR feelings are like
    	mine when it is obvious that you have no idea in the world *HOW*
    	I feel.
    
    	.61> And why do I find my FEELINGS [emphasis added again] and
    	.61> emotions repeatedly invalidated in this forum?
    
    	There you go (using that word again.)  I wonder what you meant
    	by it THAT time, if you don't normally MEAN "feelings" when
    	you say it...
    
    	It is possible that you are talking about OPINIONS instead of
    	FEELINGS?  If so, then I have no obligation to validate them.
    	(Perhaps you keep using the word "FEELINGS" when you mean
    	"OPINIONS" so that you can keep accusing us of invalidating
    	your so-called "FEELINGS" whenever we have an "OPINION" that
    	differs from yours.)

    
    	Mike,
    
    	   Note the tone of .79.  From their side this is a very
    	reasonable statement.  From our side it might translate
    	into "you feelings are opinions, therefore I have no need
    	or compulsion to validate them or prevent them from being
    	invalidated."  Now if the our side returns with a twist
    	of the same logic, it will appear distorted to the ones
    	who used it first.
    
    	   Thus does the chasm widen.
    
    	- Greg
    

    Goodbye, and good grief!

    	RE:  .80
    
    	Greg, you bring up an interesting issue:  What is the difference
    	between feelings and opinions?
    
    	If I have feelings, they are valid for me.  Your feelings are
    	valid for you.
    
    	If you decided to tell me that my feelings and your feelings
    	were the same, that would be an opinion (based on your conjecture
    	that you know what my feelings are and can assert that your
    	feelings are equivalent to mine.)
    
    	I can't tell you what you are FEELING, because I can only know
    	how *I* feel.  However, I am free to have the OPINION that you
    	don't know enough about MY feelings to be able to make a case
    	for the fact that our feelings are the same.  (In other words,
    	I can contest your opinion about how our feelings compare without
    	invalidating your feelings, because all I am asserting is that
    	you don't understand my feelings and NOT that you aren't entitled
    	to yours.)
    
    	If you were to tell me that I am wrong (and that my feelings
    	ARE the same as yours,) I could say that you are invalidating
    	my feelings by the fact that you have decided that you can
    	describe my feelings better than I can (and can categorize my
    	feelings in ways that I do not agree with,) thereby denying
    	that I know my feelings better than you do.
    
    	When people use analogies to describe their feelings, it is
    	usually in the form of, "Imagine how you would feel if xxxx
    	happened to you.  That is something like I feel."  However,
    	analogies are based on OPINIONS about how different feelings
    	are alike.  Analogies are not FEELINGS unto themselves.
    
    	So, if I disagree with someone's analogy, I'm not invalidating
    	his/her feelings -- I am merely disagreeing with the opinions
    	that the person held about how those feelings could be *compared*
    	to something I might feel.

   	Hope that sheds a bit of light on what I was trying to say earlier.

	By the way, I seem to recall someone asking a question about
    	what would happen if a man used a personal name that was
    	insulting to women...  (Well, here's one...)
    
================================================================================
Note 260.21                       Who's hiding?                         21 of 84
CALLME::MR_TOPAZ "_____: best if barefoot & pregnant" 6 lines  30-OCT-1988 16:07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    
    	Well, what do you suppose *happened* after this "tit for tat"
    	message was used in our conference?
    
    		1.  no one claimed he was harassing anyone
    		2.  no one carried on for days about being offended
    		3.  in short, nothing much happened at all (until now)
    
    	I guess people could say that we didn't complain because we
    	KNEW he was only joking (except that "it's only a joke" wasn't
    	considered any kind of excuse for the OTHER personal name.)
    
    	People could say that we didn't complain because we were already
    	guilty of doing it first (except that "things like this have
    	been done for years to women" was considered as "trying to make
    	two wrongs equal a right.")
    
    	People could say that it isn't really harassment (but I thought
    	that personal names like this were *definitely* regarded as
    	discrimination and harassment by some, and that it's WRONG no
    	matter WHO it's done to or why!)
    
    	So why didn't we complain about it?
    
    	Well, probably because it is a zillion times less shocking to
    	see an insulting personal name against women, that's why.
    
    	However, in case anyone else brings up the question of what
    	would happen if the name was against women, we already have
    	the answer:  Nothing much.  :-)  :-)

re: .78 (and your previous one)

Nice notes Greg. I've been thinking about electronic communication and notes
for a while. You've crystalized a lot for me.
	Mez

    Greg, I hope you're gonna stick aroud here...what fine analyses!
    
    						=maggie

    re: .87 & .86
    
    	   Thanks.
    
    re: .84 & .85 (Suzanne)
    
    	   Your observations are essentially correct.  When one draws on
    	analogies of the type you described they are relegated to the
    	realm of opinions about feelings.  In a previous note you (at
    	least I think it was you) mentioned that nobody can know how
    	YOU feel about anything except YOU, which is obviously true.
    	
    	   However, we still try to evoke empathy in those we discuss
    	such matters with.  This we do by drawing parallels, or by 
    	evoking a similar response using similar tactics.  As you noted,
    	the first approach is rarely (if ever) successful when the 
    	other person's viewpoints are diametrically opposed to ours
    	since in such a case there would be very little common ground
    	on which such parallels can be drawn.  So we fall on the latter
    	tactic.
    
    	   Naturally, suffering the same injury upon the other person
    	is not likely to result in their developing much sympathy for
    	your message, especially when it is successful in evoking the 
    	negative feelings that were evoked in us.  In this situation,
    	hostility is increased, and even though the other side may
    	understand your point intellectually, they can rarely set aside
    	their now inflamed feelings and objectively analyze the logic.
    
    	   That is unless some third part is introduced that can bridge
    	the gaps, and objectively display the logic from both sides.
    	When this happens, it often turns out that the two opposing
    	factions were actually in violent agreement.  
    
    	   That's what I think is happening now.  It appears to me that
    	both sides of this discussion are in violent agreement on the
    	main point (that offensive language and insinuations are 
    	degrading and improper), the difficulty arises when they
    	try to focus on the lesser problems of how to express this
    	feeling such that the other side accepts and acknowledges it.
    
    	- Greg

    Re .85, I didn't complain about Mr. Topaz' personal name
    "_____: best if barefoot & pregnant" because it was obvious that
    he was doing it in retaliation and as a joke.  I thought it was
    pretty funny too.
    
    But, more than one person used "Set men hidden" or what was it?
     "Set ___ hidden", and then it was added to the announcement by
    one woman that she wasn't going to reply to any more notes by men.
     (Certainly nobody has to respond to any note they don't want to,
    but what's the significance in announcing it?)  I can see where
    some men might get the impression that some women would rather they
    didn't note here, and that might be offensive.
    
    Lorna
    

    	RE:  .89
    
    	Lorna, I'm quickly getting the impression that "retaliation"
    	and "it's just a joke" are valid, acceptable reasons to do
    	something (for some people and not others.)
    
    	For the record, I laughed at Mr_Topaz's personal name, too
    	(for the same reasons you did.)  It was a funny "tit for tat"
    	comeback (as retaliation) and I assumed he was just trying
    	to pull our chains after everything that had happened.
    
    	I didn't expect anyone to condemn Mr_Topaz for his joke the
    	way some folks condemned the women for theirs.  
    
    	It's just that I keep asking myself why that is (and I don't
    	like the answer that keeps popping up when I do.)

    Re .90, I'm sorry, Suzanne, but what answer keeps popping up?  And
    what were the women retaliating for?  And what was the joke except
    that maybe they thought it would be funny to set hidden all responses
    by men?  (Even if they just meant for a day or something)  And would
    that really be funny, and if so, why?  Is that supposed to hint
    that I should really always find all notes by women worthwhile,
    agreeable and/or interesting and all notes by men not?  Because
    I haven't been able to categorize notes I like/dislike or
    agree/disagree with by the sex of the writer and I'd rather have
    both men and women contribute here than have just women contribute.
    
    Re .91, I don't get it.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re: .90
    
    >I assumed he was just trying to pull our chains after everything
    >that had happened.
    
    Exactly.  And since it was so obvious what he was doing, no one
    decided to give him the satisfaction of knowing that their chains
    had been yanked.  No doubt the fact that many people are tired
    of this whole argument/situation reduced the likelihood of his getting
    a response.
    
    It was pretty obvious, given the context, that it was a matter of
    form, rather than content.  I don't seriously believe that his opinion
    is that women are best off barefoot and pregnant.  However, since
    the original joke had no such context, it is quite possible and not
    unreasonable to believe that those who used "Set --- hidden" really
    didn't want to see the opinions of men.  So while the situations
    appear similar on the surface, they are not, shall we say, analogous
    at any deeper level.

re: .91: Can I buy a vowel?

    	RE:  .93
    
    	Chelsea, the joke in the first personal name was obvious to
    	me (as much as Topaz's name was) because I didn't jump the gun
    	and think the worst about the people who wrote it.
    
    	Someone who doesn't know Mr_Topaz could *easily* have thought
    	that he honestly and truly thinks women ARE best if barefoot
    	and pregnant.
    
    	Do we judge right or wrong simply by whether or not we "got"
    	the joke?
    
    	As Bonnie said earlier, if this is discrimination, then it's
    	wrong no matter who does it (which means you can't say that
    	the women were wrong and Mr_Topaz was right at the same time.)
    
    	If you didn't catch on to the fact that the women in the first
    	personal name were "pulling someone's chain," then allow me
    	to enlighten you about it so that you can now judge them by
    	the same standards that you judged Mr_Topaz.
    
    	If you aren't willing to do that, then I have to wonder why.

    	RE:  .92 and .93
    
    	You both saw Bonnie Reinke say that she went along with the
    	joke and thought it was funny (and would have done it herself
    	if she had been at work that day.)  It wasn't until later that
    	she thought about it on a grander scale and decided it was
    	wrong.
    
    	Knowing Bonnie as you do, is it conceivable to you that she
    	would have gone along with it for a SPLIT SECOND if the intention
    	had been evil in some way?
    
    	Do you think the other moderators would have put themselves
    	in such a tight spot by using the name themselves if it had
    	been anything other than a silly Friday prank?
    
    	Are you so sure you can see inside their hearts that you can't
    	POSSIBLY give a few folks the benefit of the doubt?

    Suzanne, my goodness!, I'm quite fond of Bonnie but I certainly
    don't think I need to take her lead in all questions concerning
    right and wrong.  After all she may be a nice person but she's not
    Jesus Christ! :-)

    I never said anything about "evil".  I only hinted that there might
    actually be some women who contribute here who wouldn't mind if
    "set ___ hidden" were more than a joke.  Whereas I'm sure (as I
    can be of somebody I've never met) that Mr. Topaz really was only
    joking about women being best when their barefoot and pregnant.
     (If he really does think that then it's even funnier.)
    
    Lorna
    

CSC32::M_VALENZA "___ ____ ________ ____ ______"      5 lines   3-NOV-1988 09:57
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I _____ that _______ ______ are ______ this _____ ___ _________.
    Probably, the ____ ________ __ to ______ the _____ _____.  ___'_
    ____ ____ and ____ __.
    
Did I hear someone ask if he could buy a vowel?  Well, I'm a nut for
puzzles, so I can't resist giving this one a shot!  Let's see...
    
    * CSC32::M_VALENZA "Set this personal name hidden"
 	
    * I think that certain people are taking this thing too seriously.
    * Probably, the best solution is to forget the whole thing. Let's
    * just kiss and make up.
    
    
    			Works for me!  ;)
    
    		The kiss is in the mail .....

    RE: .53
    
    Bonnie, I too was the butt of many jokes during grade school and
    high school as I was so very tall (and still am).  I heard all the
    Jolly Green Giant, "How's the weather....", and "my goodness you're
    tall..." jokes and comments.  There were many a day that I came
    home from school and "locked" myself in my room and cried....I was
    born this way, I had no control over my height, why did people "hate"
    me 'cause I was tall?  My mother would always tell me to stand tall
    and be proud of who and what I was and to let it roll off my back.
    I learned to "grin and bear" it.  In my senior year of high school
    I basically told myself "sc*w them, I'm going to enjoy my last year".
    And I did.  I let me be me and let people "see" me.  It did get
    better, and at some point my height stopped being the butt of many
    jokes and I was now a human being.
    
    To this day, however, when I hear a snide remark about my height,
    or see/hear another person making fun of someone because they are
    tall, short, fat, skinny, black, white, handicapped or whatever,
    my blood boils.  What right do they have to make fun of someone
    for something they have no control over?  Are they themselves so
    perfect?  I know I'm not.  
    
    This "Set ___ Hidden" does remind me of when we were in grade school
    and we'd decide if you wore yellow on Thursday then you were a nerd.
    Sometimes we revert to childhood.  And as for the "cat calling"
    analogy, again it can be viewed as reverting to childhood....it
    is usually a group of men in a safe environment, one starts with
    "hey, look at that...", they all join in, 'cause God forbid if one
    should not join in, then he may be ostracized by the others.  This
    is not a comment against men as I enjoy men and their company and
    their ideas....it's one of the main reasons I read this file, for
    a man's point of view on womens issues. Whether male of female,
    we all have thoughts, feelings, opinions and aren't always going
    to agree....
    
    And a tit for tat for you "guys"...."Set ___ Hidden" could interpret
    into "Set Gal Hidden" :-)
    
    P.
    

    re .85:
    
    >  	However, in case anyone else brings up the question of what
    >	would happen if the name was against women, we already have
    >	the answer:  Nothing much.  :-)  :-)
     
    Do the smileys mean we're not to take this statement seriously?
    I.e. the answer is, instead of "nothing much", "the shit would hit 
    the fan"?
    
    That is exactly what I think would have happened if, on that fateful
    friday, a bunch of men had written notes about how abusive women
    are and used the personal name "_____: best when barefoot and pregnant"
    
    I seriously doubt that it would have be accepted as a "harmless
    little prank". 
                                                                          
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    
    

    Re: .95
    
    >(which means you can't say that the women were wrong and Mr_Topaz
    >was right at the same time.)
    
    Since I've never said any such thing, there's no problem.  I don't
    think he was right.  I think it was an immature response.  I don't
    think it should have been done, though I understand the need to
    do it.  Just as I understand the zing of pleasure that women who
    used "Set --- hidden" probably got when they were having their joke.
    Just as immature.  As I've stated before, sure, it probably felt
    awfully good.
    
    So why didn't people jump all over his case for it?  Probably because
    no one expressed hurt or offense.  As has been pointed out elsewhere,
    people have only so much energy and arguments like this, that become
    battles, take up a lot of it.  There are times when you prioritize
    and do what you can.  Since the people here, now, didn't seem to
    have a problem with it, seemed to realize that it wasn't an expression
    of discriminatory intent, it got left alone.
    
    But naturally, you don't have to believe me.  You can believe that
    it's a man's world, that whatever a man does is okay, that no one
    is going to criticize a man, that men will always be perceived as
    being in the right.  You can believe that you're always going to
    get the short end of the stick, that you're not permitted to be
    assertive, that you're not entitled to voice and hold your own opinion,
    that you'll always be the underdog.  In many ways, it can be a very
    satisfying picture.
    
    >Do we judge right or wrong simply by whether or not we "got"
    >the joke?
    
    Of course we do, to some extent.  If we don't get the joke, we're
    obviously going to consider it wrong.  I certainly had my doubts
    about whether it was all in just 'good fun.'

    	RE:  .101
    
    	You just demonstrated what I was talking about.  Look how
    	much you read into my questions -- you went on by yourself
    	for a whole paragraph to say what you *assumed* was in my
    	heart (and you were dead wrong!!!)  And offensive to boot!
    
    	That was my point.  People saw three little words written
    	by feminists and read a whole book into them.
    
    	People saw Mr_Topaz's words, and read a silly joke.
    
    	If you see 1,000 words where there are only 100, then you
    	are embellishing with thoughts from your own head.
    
    	That's exactly what people did to those women on Friday,
    	and I think it was a MORE OFFENSIVE action on their parts
    	than the three silly words were.

    Re: .95
    
    Getting distracted and going back is sometimes useful:
    
    >Chelsea, the joke in the first personal name was obvious to me
    >(as much as Topaz's name was) because I didn't jump the gun and
    >think the worst about the people who wrote it.
    
    Context rears its head again.  I don't think the opinion that women
    are best off barefoot and pregnant has been much expressed in this
    notes file, certainly not with serious intent.  Yet there has been
    a feeling that men should, in some cases, not be seen or heard from,
    particularly in the FWO notes.  When you've seen an idea discussed
    seriously, it's harder to take it as 'just a joke' when it crops
    up again.

    	RE:  .103
    
    	It was harder to take it as just a joke...
    
    	   ...and easier to just assume the worst (just as you did about
    	me a minute ago.)
    
    	There is a word for that, you know, when you pre-judge what
    	others are thinking because you think that you have their
    	group pegged.  (The group I'm talking about is "feminists,"
    	not women in general.)
   

    Re: .101
    
    >you went on by yourself for a whole paragraph to say what you
    >*assumed* was in my heart
    
    Actually, you're assuming that what I said was what I assumed you
    really believed.  Perhaps I should untangle that a bit.  I did not
    say that was how you thought.  I consider it quite possible that
    you don't think that way, that you have a much more balanced view.
    It was, in a way, hyperbole.  Take a position and exaggerate it.
    I considered it more of a warning.  That's how a lot of women, you
    included, start coming across to me in this notesfile.
    
    Think about it. "A man said something just as nasty.  Does he get
    jumped all over?  Oh, no.  Men don't get criticized like women do.
    Men are on top of the world and women are just out of luck."  That's
    what it starts to look like sometimes.

    Re: .104
    
    >It was harder to take it as just a joke...
    >
    >	   ...and easier to just assume the worst
    
    Exactly, because you've seen the worst already (several times in
    fact).  What's to say that this is any different?
    
    >There is a word for that, you know, when you pre-judge what others
    >are thinking because you think that you have their group pegged.
    
    What's the word for having heard people express an opinion in the
    past, seeing an expression of that opinion again, and believing
    that they're saying the same thing?

    	RE:  .105
    
    	You considered it a warning?  What does that mean?  Did you
    	think I would be intimidated by having a bunch of stereotypes 
    	about feminists thrown at me?

    	Or did you mean "warning" some other way, too?
    
    	And you said all those things to me NOT because you think I
  	really have those beliefs, but because you wanted to address
    	all of "us women" whom you have cast into a mold (as if we
 	all look alike to you somehow and are no longer individuals
    	but live as a single organism?)
    
    	You were talking to "the collective me," as it were.  Right?

    Does anyone know the origin of "tit for tat?"  Is there a relevant
    significance in that first word????
    

    Re: .108
    
    In this genteel medium, shouldn't that have been:
    
    > Does anyone know the origin of "t*t for tat?"   :-)  
    
      Alan

    re: .91
    
    My sediments exactly, Mike; couldn't have said it better.
    
    Steve
    

	
    	RE:  .106
    
    	> Exactly, because you've seen the worst already (several times in
    	> fact).  What's to say that this is any different?
    
    	So you admit that you wrote the whole manuscript for the extensive
    	meaning behind three little ambiguous words from your own pre-determined
    	mindset (instead of current facts.)
       
    	> What's the word for having heard people express an opinion in the
    	> past, seeing an expression of that opinion again, and believing
    	> that they're saying the same thing?

    	The word is ASSUME, Chelsea, when you decide ahead of time what
    	they mean by even the most obscure phrase that they utter.

    Alan,
    
    A Tit is a small bird like the chickadee, it is also
    a term used in making lace...it is my recolection that
    the expression is derived from one or the other.
    
    Bonni
    
    (imagine a look of pained exasperation, like a teacher with
    a young boy giving her a frog, or something :-} )

    Welll, I didn't USE it first, I just thought it a bit ironic in
    this context...
    
  

    
    >My sediments exactly,
    
    How did geology get into this?

    Re: .114
    
    Nancy (I think I remember your name from another note), I hope
    you don't think I was either serious *or* offended.
    
    Bonnie Jeanne, you do remember my "hey p*isswit" at Liz's party last
    December, don't you?   :-) 
    
      Alan

    Alan,
    
    Vividly....you are the only person in my whole life that I can
    remember what the very first thing they ever said to me was.
    
    Bonnie :-)

    >>My sediments exactly,
    
    >How did geology get into this?

Some people got rocks in their head?

    	I already stuck my 2� in here earlier about how I felt, but
    now having read all the way through, I think I have a little more
    of an idea why it didn't bother me...
    
    	"SET ___ HIDDEN" has only the context you wish to place on it.
    If, as Martin said, you are male and don't feel completely welcome
    in this conference, then ___ must surely mean "Men".  I actually
    thought about the word ALL, or someone's initials (probably someone
    who signs with their initials), or ~e~...  but *I* never felt any
    malice.
    
    	If a bunch of men were to start using Mr Topaz's example, well
    the phrase "barefoot and pregnant" has a lot of historical context
    and everyone would just *know* that the missing word was "women"
    and not "ducks"...
    
    	I don't always feel welcome in this file, but I don't feel like
    I'm constantly under attack either.
    
    						--Doug

    in re .53
    
    Thanks Pat, you make me think of my best friend in 6th grade. She
    was the tallest girl and I the shortest, we were both 'out of its'
    and forged a close friendship as a result. (Tho we must have looked
    a bit silly walking together to other people) I also spent time
    in my room crying over not being accepted. So far (knock on wood)
    none of my kids have.
    
    Bonnie

re: .119
    	"SET ___ HIDDEN" has only the context you wish to place on it.
    If, as Martin said, you are male and don't feel completely welcome
    in this conference, then ___ must surely mean "Men".

Minor point of correction: at the time I wrote my note, I knew for
certain (having been told by some of the participants at the dinner
where this was concocted) that it referred to men.

Martin.

    	RE:  .120
    
    	Bonnie, I'd like to tell you (first off) that I really sympathize
    	with you for the way the people in your High School treated
    	you.  It sounds to me as though it is still a big emotional
    	issue for you, and I empathize with the pain that you must still
    	feel over this.
    
    	My own situation was a little different.  I had no problems
    	in High School, but I was somewhat of an outcast (at times)
    	in grade school because I had two very serious health problems
    	that made it difficult for me to participate in many of the
    	same activities as the other children (so I was considered an
    	outsider, and often received ridicule for the visible effects
    	that my health problems created that made me "different" from
    	everyone else.)
    
    	The two main things were that I had a number of orthopedic
    	surgeries that left me "learning to walk" over and over and
    	over all through my early years in school.  Also, I had serious
    	kidney failure (which meant that I had to make an inordinate
    	number of trips to the restroom during school, to which I made
    	slow journeys because I could barely walk.)
    
    	During those years, I was often sporting some kind of huge cast,
    	or in the hospital getting some new operation, or at home with
    	a 105 degree temperature (with my Mother working desperately
    	to keep me from going any higher.)  As a result, I made one
    	of the neighborhood Moms so uncomfortable that she refused to
    	allow her children to talk to me or play with me (which at
    	one point, when I was 10 years old, ended up getting me boycotted
    	from my whole neighborhood play group for a matter of months.)
    
    	By the time I hit 12, my various health problems had been
    	resolved and I became the outgoing person that I had always
    	wanted to be (but I never sat still while others poked fun at
    	people who were different.)
    
    	Even while I was in the popular crowd in high school, I tended
    	to befriend people who didn't have a lot of other friends.
    	I saw something unique in all kinds of people (and I had a
    	varied circle of friends, many of whom did not know each other
    	at all except through me.)
    
    	I think that the reason I was able to overcome my early years
    	of being an outcast was because I kept a sense of humor about
    	it (and because my Father taught me how to be feisty.)  :-}
    
    	When I complained to Dad about how some of the kids (in 2nd
    	grade) made fun of me because I had very small feet that barely
    	moved, he told me to tell them, "I can't hide my little feet
    	but you could hide your little brain by keeping your mouth
    	shut!"  (I never actually said that to anyone, but I laughed
    	for WEEKS after he told it to me.)
    
    	I guess you could say that it was a private in-joke that I
    	played on the people who made fun of me (because every time
    	they said something that humiliated me, I would think of my
    	Dad's line about their little brains and there was NO WAY
    	I could continue to feel badly about anything!)
    
    	My Dad had a LOT of funny ways to take my mind off my troubles
    	when I was little.  The line about the little brains was only
    	one thing that he used to help me to smile about my difficulties
    	and move forward.
    
    	I never hated the other kids at school, but I spent considerable
    	time wondering why they were so intolerant of someone who was
    	different.  In the end, all I could really do was to laugh it
    	off (laughing at both them AND myself) and keep on keeping on
    	until things got better, which they definitely DID!
    
    	When I got to Junior High and High School, my life turned around
    	(and I think that my sense of humor about the relationship between
    	me and my earlier tormentors had a lot to do with it.)  Instead
    	of carrying around the baggage of resentment that lasted decades,
    	I got it out of my system by laughing with my Dad over the way
    	that HE made funny remarks about THEM sometimes.
    
    	It was a way to release my feelings in a healthy manner (without
    	collecting the hurt feelings in a knot in my stomach that would
    	have to find a way OUT someday.)

    	I think that there are many, many shunned people (the "outsiders")
    	who use humor to get themselves through the rough spots (and
    	sometimes the humor can seem a bit tasteless or just outright
    	silly.)  Sometimes, the sillier it is, the more it helps.
    
    	Perhaps silly humor can be MORE distressing to others than if
    	we sat quietly and cried, but I always get more out of looking
    	at the funny sides of things (even if the funniest predicament
    	around is my own.)
    
    	If we tell disenfranchised people that their humor against
    	the mainstream is forbidden (because it somehow becomes a symbol 
    	for things that unkind members of the mainstream have done to us,) 
    	then we are doing some people a HUGE disservice if this silly
    	harmless humor is their best source of release for the kinds
    	of feelings that can bite you very hard later if you let them
    	collect and fester.

    Well Suzanne, that is really pretty much old history to me now.
    The business about the reunion didn't really hurt, I felt sorry
    for them that they were so petty. What that experience did for
    me was to make me determined as I grew up not to put other people
    in the same place I had been. I am very comfortable now with who
    I am and feel validated and liked by my close family and my
    friends.
    
    Interestingly enough, tho, humor was the tool that I used to
    deal with the situation. The more I could use humor the less
    I would be hurt by insensitive people.
    
    Bonnie

    Re: .107
    
    >You considered it a warning?  What does that mean?  Did you think
    >I would be intimidated by having a bunch of stereotypes about
    >feminists thrown at me?
    
    Suzanne, I'm going to say this once, so listen carefully.  I don't
    think of you as a feminist.  Got that?  I'm not stereotyping feminists
    because that's not a label I use.  What I'm doing is collecting
    my impressions of various individuals in this notes file who seem
    to have common attitudes.  They certainly seem to express the same
    attitude.  I am allowed to have my own perceptions and interpretations
    of what I see and read.  This is not based on some imaginary
    stereotype.  This is based on reality, or at least what I have
    perceived of it.
    
    I tried to explain once before that my opinion was based on what
    I had read in this notes file.  Perhaps you missed that.  But it
    looks like you're bound and determined to believe that I'm out to
    label you a feminist and attribute all sorts of bad characteristics
    to you.  Nope.
    
    Now then, as to warnings.  No, I didn't expect to intimidate you.
    I was hoping to get you to stop and think a bit about how you sound
    and what you mean.
    
    >And you said all those things to me NOT because you think I really
    >have those beliefs, but because you wanted to address all of "us
    >women"
    
    No, just you.
    
    >whom you have cast into a mold (as if we all look alike to you somehow
    
    You do.  Well, you sound similar -- you express similar opinions,
    similar points of view.  Some variations, of course, but a strong
    similarity.  Perhaps it's difficult for you to see because you're
    in the midst of it.  From where I sit, however, there's definitely
    a group of like-minded people on various subjects.  How odd is that?
    
    There's a group of people who think abortion is murder.  There's
    a group of people who think the mother should have absolute control
    over her body.  There's a group of people who are uncomfortable
    with abortion but find allowing it preferable to banning it.  Am
    I stereotyping anyone yet?  Now then, suppose someone I've seen
    arguing in the first group (abortion is murder) has a personal name
    with a quote from Bush about the death penalty for those who have
    had or have given abortions.  Am I to believe that they find this
    funny until proven otherwise?  Is it stereotyping to believe that
    they take the point with some seriousness?  If so, then what I am
    doing here with a mind that is capable of analyzing and distinguishing
    and thinking?  I'm not allowed to draw conclusions from past experience
    because that's stereotyping.  Then what's the point of gathering
    experience?  What's the point of learning to think?
    
    >and are no longer individuals but live as a single organism?)
                  
    There is, in fact, a medium between those two extremes.  A group
    is a collection of individuals who, for the purpose of simplicity,
    is believed to identical for some criterion or criteria.  This does
    not mean that they are identical in all respects, simply those aspects
    that are relevant to the situation at hand.

    re: .124
    
    Curses. . .beaten to the punch (line) again.
    
    Steve
    

Re:  .65 by COGMK::CHELSEA

>  I don't think it's amusing to 'give men a dose of their own medicine'
>  when you've been choking on that medicine for years.

Brava.  Well spoken.

					--Q

Re: .128

>    - men talking to men
>    - women talking to women
>    - and Eagles talking to themselves ...

Where does my .127 fit?

					--Q

     
            >>>My sediments exactly,

        >>How did geology get into this?

    >Some people got rocks in their head?

    You guys are igneous!  Er... ingenious!

    
     Well, how do I start this one? I have been a "read only" noter
    for about 2 months (in this conference). One thing stands very clear,
    And by the way I have run this very thought by a women I trustand
    one who thinks and believes in the womens movement, that there is
    a segment of women in this conference who give the impression, at
    least to me and I would guess other men,that men are NOT welcome.
    I see this in the FWO vs FGD idea. Now,PLEASE, I am NOT trying to
    invalidate anyones feelings, just expresing my own. I have also
    seen this attitude in the way "some" in this conference apear to
    pick apart each and every word and coma and sometimes even thought.
    Is it not possible to take what one says at face value? Now if you,
    as a group, decide you don't want men involved just say so. I am
    sure we will all leave. If not then please give the same thoughtful
    consideration to our notes that you demand for yourselves.
                       
    Dave

    In reply particularly to Suzanne,
    
    I long ago lost the context of this discussion.  My recollection of
    the facts may be blurred.  But my impression is that no one is
    calling for the pillorying or vilification of anyone for a minor
    joke involving personal names.  I don't think anyone sees the whole
    affair as having been anything more than a basically trivial joke.
    
    However, intentionally or not (presumably not), that little joke was
    hurtful to some men, and when they expressed that fact, they were
    told *why they shouldn't feel that way*.  I don't recall *any*
    response in this topic from someone saying "I didn't mean to hurt
    your feelings and I'm sorry I did; I made a mistake and wouldn't do
    the same thing again" (except for Bonnie Reinke, who didn't actually
    participate). 
    
    I think that that is why there are 130 replies in this string:  not
    because of the joke, but because of the refusal to admit that it
    might have been a mistake.
    
    	-Neil

    
    	   If people are so sensitive as to be truly offended or
    	incensed by such an oblique reference as this, then I weep
    	for mankind.  Have our skins really gotten so thin that we 
    	cannot take something as completely insignificant as this
    	in stride?  
    
    	   Perhaps I should show you what a really offensive note
    	looks like so we can all begin discussing something more
    	significant than whether an ambiguous personal name can
    	be considered offensive.
    
    	   Or maybe I should point out that real men don't have 
    	feelings, just to distract that portion of our community
    	that seems so adamant about proving we do.
    
    	   I sincerely hope I am not forced to resort to these last-ditch
    	tactics.  They seem rather extreme measures for so silly a
    	problem.
    
    	- Greg

    re:.133
    
    What is silly and insignificant to one can mean the world to
    another.
    
    There is *nothing* silly and insignificant about someone's
    hurt feelings. Regardless of the cause.
    
    --- jerry

    	RE:  .132
    
    	You are right.  Your recollection of the facts *is* fuzzy.
    	I went back through this whole topic a day or so ago, and
    	AGAIN just now, and what I saw was definitely **NOT** a
    	bunch of men saying, "I was hurt" (and women saying, "You
    	shouldn't have been for these reasons...")
    
    	What I saw (and you can see if you go back and look) is a
    	long series of assumptions, accusations, name-calling and
    	vicious attacks against the women for what those (some)
    	men perceived to be a deliberate insult.
    
    	Go back and look at the language in the first 20 or so notes
    	alone.  The notes from men are filled with words like 'vicious,'
    	'malicious,' 'nasty,' 'sticking their collective tongues out,'
    	etc.
    
    	The vicious accusations that have been written (about the women
 	who used that personal name) have gone *far* beyond the degree
    	of the perceived offense.  It was only a personal name, for
    	God's sake, and it didn't even say any group's name!
    
    	If people have been inadvertently hurt by the personal name
    	in question, it is very unfortunate (and I sympathize with
    	what they are going through.)  Obviously, the personal name
    	isn't being used anymore (and I think it will be a cold day
    	in hell before women feel safe in playing pranks involving
    	men in this conference again.)  I think we have learned that
    	it is one of the worst things that can possibly happen to
    	this file (and I'm sure all of us will remember this for some
    	time to come.)
    
    	However, I don't see where an apology is necessary for something
    	that was not intended to hurt anyone (and the lack of an apology
    	does not mean that anyone's feelings are being invalidated.)
    
    	If men feel hurt, it's unfortunate.  However, they are perfectly 
    	entitled to feel that way (and I find it most regrettable that 
    	women inadvertently contributed to it with a prank.)  Rest assured 
    	that the personal name in question won't be used again.
    
    	At this point, an apology from these women would be an admission
    	of guilt, though (for the many crimes of which they have been accused
    	in this topic,) and I see no reason in the world why they should
    	be bullied into admitting wrongs that they did not deliberately
    	commit.  
    
    	Even Bonnie hasn't directly apologized for her part in it (despite
    	your impression that she had.)  She changed her mind about the
    	prank later and felt it was wrong, but she hasn't actually apologized
    	(so far.)
    
    	In all the notes where women have talked about the wrongs done
    	to them, I don't ever recall a DEMAND for an apology for things
    	that men did NOT know would hurt us when they did them.  I've
    	seen notes where we ask, "Please don't do that again" (in relation
    	to the way women are treated in general,) but if men say they
    	refuse to stop the behavior, there is nothing we can do about
    	it.
    
    	If you are wondering why this note has gone on so long, take
    	a look at the way some men responded to this incident (from
    	the beginning.)  Perhaps some men need to work on expressing
    	their feelings (so that it comes out, "I am hurt" instead
    	of "You deliberately performed a malicious and vicous insult
    	against me as a way to abuse me.")
    
    	There is a huge difference between those two statements (and
    	between the kinds of responses that can be expected from
    	those two approaches.)

	RE:  .125
    
    	> Suzanne, I'm going to say this once, so listen carefully. 
    
    	Chelsea, I've *been* listening to you carefully (perhaps
    	more so than you would have liked.)  In our discourse
    	yesterday, you made it obvious that your main objections
    	in this issue were based on assumptions you made (rather
    	than actual statements that had been written.)  Your
    	perceptions about the people involved in this incident have
    	been quite mistaken (which is understandable since it is
    	often so difficult to know what lies in the hearts and minds
    	of others when they discuss their personal philosophies.)
    	That's why people spend so much attempting to communicate,
    	and it's also why such communications can often be frustrating.
    
     	> I don't think of you as a feminist.  Got that?  I'm not 
    	> stereotyping feminists because that's not a label I use.  
    
    	Well, I *am* a feminist (regardless of what you choose to
    	call me.)  And yes, I got it (although I'm trying to figure
    	out why you keep using such obvious posturing to emphasize
    	the points you are making.)  Lonesome for Soapbox?  :-)
    
    	> What I'm doing is collecting my impressions of various 
    	> individuals in this notes file who seem to have common
    	> attitudes.  They certainly seem to express the same
    	> attitude.   ^^^^
    
    	Why do feel the need to collect the "they's" (using whatever
    	private label that you *do* use, if not "feminist")?  Why
    	not just judge each reply on its own stand/merit?  I've often
    	heard it said that no two women agree on EVERY single issue
    	(which is why we don't have collective political power.)
    	If you try to collect people into groups, you will often
    	become induced to make erroneous assumptions (which may
    	account for the assumptions of yours that I addressed in earlier
    	replies to this topic.)
    
    	> I am allowed to have my own perceptions and interpretations
    	> of what I see and read.  
    
    	Yes, you *are* allowed to misinterpret what others say because
    	you have pre-judged them from earlier notes.  I am also allowed
    	to suggest to you that you read notes with a more open mind
    	about people, but you are allowed to refuse.  No problem.
    
    	> This is not based on some imaginary stereotype.  This is based 
    	> on reality, or at least what I have perceived of it.
    
    	Well, your perceptions earlier in this string (about me) were
    	shown to be wrong.  You are entitled to your misconceptions,
    	once again, but the persons whom you are misinterpreting are
    	the only experts on what is in their OWN minds and hearts, so
    	it might benefit you at some point to work at allowing your
   	misconceptions to be addressed (and corrected) by those various 
    	folks.
    
    	> I tried to explain once before that my opinion was based on what
    	> I had read in this notes file.  Perhaps you missed that.  But it
    	> looks like you're bound and determined to believe that I'm out to
    	> label you a feminist and attribute all sorts of bad characteristics
    	> to you.  Nope.
    
    	Chelsea, let me know if you would like me to requote your note
    	where you *DID* attribute all sorts of attitudes to me that
    	were not mine.  No matter what you call me, you DO attribute
    	certain attitudes to me incorrectly.  I'll be happy to go over
    	this ground with you again, if necessary.
    
    	> Now then, as to warnings.  No, I didn't expect to intimidate you.
    	> I was hoping to get you to stop and think a bit about how you sound
    	> and what you mean.
    
    	Would you like me to tell you how you sound to me in all this?
    	If you hold such stock in outside perceptions, perhaps my view
    	would be of help to you.  
    
    	>>whom you have cast into a mold (as if we all look alike to you 
    	>>somehow
    
    	> You do.  Well, you sound similar -- you express similar opinions,
    	> similar points of view.  Some variations, of course, but a strong
    	> similarity.  Perhaps it's difficult for you to see because you're
    	> in the midst of it.  From where I sit, however, there's definitely
    	> a group of like-minded people on various subjects.  How odd is that?
    
    	Chelsea, if I sound so similar to certain people (other feminists,
    	by my definition,) then I wonder how you would account for the
    	fact that I had to write to a woman back east to find out what
    	"Set ___ hidden" meant.  I had no idea what it could possibly
    	be about (and it didn't even OCCUR to me that the three dashes
    	might stand for a missing word.)  The phrase was a complete
    	mystery to me (even though some of the women I am closest to
    	in this file were the ones who coined it.)
    
    	From where I sit, that means that either 1) my ideas are not
    	as close to theirs as I thought, or 2) the behavior of writing
    	the personal name was atypical of them (and therefore, should
    	not be subject to your pre-set ideas about their points of view.)
              
    	> A group is a collection of individuals who, for the purpose of 
    	> simplicity, is believed to identical for some criterion or
    	> criteria.  This does not mean that they are identical in all 
    	> respects, simply those aspects that are relevant to the
    	> situation at hand.

    	At what point do you decide to stop reacting to people as
    	individuals (especially in a situation like NOTES where each
    	contribution is from a single user)?
    
    	If you are assuming more than you are currently reading in
    	any given notesfile, how can you expect your perception to
    	be anything OTHER than seriously distorted?

    Let me beat this dead horse once more.
    
    I am a mostly read-only member in this file because I tend
    to react on emotion rather than logic.  I would however,
    like to respond to this note.  Since there is no admittance
    to the 'set --- hidden' being 'men', let's do something
    constructive about it.  First of all, let's assume that
    a group of people got together and decided that they would
    change their personal names.  And no one couold decide what
    it should be, but it couldn't be more than three letters
    long.  Now, out of maybe 50 people, 40 had different names.
    So no ONE name could be agreed upon.  This group probably
    decided to use the '---' in place of it, and everyone
    would know what their own personal name meant to them.
    
    Now, if this same group of people said among themselves,
    'let's just keep this to ourselves, it'll be sort of a
    bonding process for us'.  Nice touch.  Now, if someone
    left this event, and went outside of the group and told
    someone else, who told someone else, etc., this group
    has been betrayed.  I don't think I'd feel too good
    about that.
    
    So, in light of all those assumptions, let me be the first
    to say that I apologize to all the male members of this
    file who sincerely take the time and effort to get to know
    what makes the superior race (female) (put the rocks down,
    I'm just kidding!) tick, if your assumption was that the
    'set --- hidden'  meant 'men'.
    
    Comments anyone?  (who am I kidding, I'll get blasted for this one!)
    
    L&H
    Paula
    

        Re .138,
        
        You're not reading very closely then - it's been mentioned in a
        couple of notes that the '---' means MEN; .121 for example.
        

    re: 139
      excuse me...but I did read it.  
    
    

    Is a cooldown period needed here?
    
    						=maggie

    
    
    I really do feel sad if some of the men in this file who saw the
    "Set --- Hidden" Personal names felt wounded by it.  And since
    when it comes to hurt feelings, intentions (good or bad) really
    *don't* matter, I won't theorize here about what may or may not
    have been the intentions of the users of that personal name.
    
    As I've read these last 100+ replies in this note, I've been
    unable to shake from my mind the notion that maybe what's really
    upsetting to some of the men and women in this file is that
    a fairly large group of women (with a range of attitudes and
    backgrounds) took a stand, took some power.  Admittedly, it was
    a rather silly thing to spend that kind of energy on.  So I feel
    torn.  I'm sad that feelings were hurt, but I feel proud that for
    just a tiny part of one day, there was a feeling of solidarity and
    power among a lot of the women in the file.  My hope is that as
    we women become more comfortable with our power, we will choose
    important goals, and we will avoid harming those who are our friends.
    I see this as an early attempt at flying; we didn't make it around
    the world, but we didn't crash in a fire ball either.  My sense
    is that our friends will recognize and applaud the attempt at flight
    if not the results.
    
    Justine               
    

.138>                        ...    Since there is no admittance
.138>   to the 'set --- hidden' being 'men', let's do something
.138>    constructive about it.                                      
.138>                       ...   if your assumption was that the
.138>    'set --- hidden'  meant 'men'.

.139>    You're not reading very closely then - it's been mentioned in a
.139>    couple of notes that the '---' means MEN; .121 for example.

.141>    re: 139
.141>    excuse me...but I did read it.  
    
    

        

    Re: .136
    
    >Why do feel the need to collect the "they's"
    
    Because it's difficult to carefully consider 20-30 individuals,
    holding all differences in mind no matter how subtle.  It is a natural
    human tendency.  The mind cannot continuously cope with the level
    of complexity in life.  Collecting people into groups according
    to the relevant attributes is not stereotyping.  Extrapolating from
    experience is not stereotyping (or else all learning is stereotyping,
    take your pick).
    
    >Chelsea, let me know if you would like me to requote your note
    >where you *DID* attribute all sorts of attitudes to me that were
    >not mine.
    
    If your reference is to the 'warning' then no, I didn't.  And as
    you have pointed out, no one should know that better than me.  You
    are free to misinterpret the situation, of course, but I know that
    you are wrong.
    
    >Chelsea, if I sound so similar to certain people (other feminists,
    >by my definition,) then I wonder how you would account for the
    >fact that I had to write to a woman back east to find out what
    >"Set ___ hidden" meant.
    
    It illustrates the point we have both made:  that similar != same.
    Now then, once you found out what the personal name meant, would
    you describe your feelings about it as similar to the feelings of
    those who used it, based on what you've seen them write here (which
    is the only evidence I have to go by)?  Would you describe your
    attitude as similar?
    
    >At what point do you decide to stop reacting to people as individuals
    
    Possibly when they stop acting as individuals.
    
    >If you are assuming more than you are currently reading in any
    >given notesfile, how can you expect your perception to be anything
    >OTHER than seriously distorted?
    
    Note or notesfile?  If my assumptions are based on past experience,
    I can expect my perceptions to be as based in reality as any of
    my perceptions are.  Assumptions are less reliable between different
    notes files, though, because the atmosphere changes; people will
    often present themselves differently.  Within a notes file, though,
    I expect a reasonable amount of consistency.

re: < Note 260.121 by BOLT::MINOW>
                        -< Why think when you can ask? >-
    
    	Ah, my fault Martin.  I was trying to explain my perspective,
    and I did it badly, possibly putting words into your mouth/fingers.
    
    	*I* didn't feel that "Set ___ Hidden" had any context.  You
    mentioned that some men felt unwelcome.  Based on that, a man feeling
    unwelcome could see "men" in that context.  I looked at it differently.
    Without going back and re-reading a hundred replies, I obviously
    hadn't realized that you had the inside scoop when I wrote .119.
    
    	I didn't ask about it, because it didn't seem important, and
    as I'd already said, I found the variations amusing.  I wasn't
    attempting to say anything about how others should/did/would feel,
    just how I didn't see malice from the context, while "barefoot &
    ..." had potentionally threatening context.
    
    	Again, apologies for possibly misrepresenting your words...
    
    						--Doug

	RE:  .146
    
    	>>Why do you feel the need to collect the "they's"
    
    	>Because it's difficult to carefully consider 20-30 individuals,
    	>holding all differences in mind no matter how subtle.  
    	>...The mind cannot continuously cope with the level
    	>of complexity in life.  Collecting people into groups according
    	>to the relevant attributes is not stereotyping.
    
    	Chelsea, do you find individual replies so complex that you
    	are unable to read each one on its own merit without relying
    	on some sort of mental 'cribsheet' (indicating what sort of 'label'
    	you have given the person, based on the group into which you
    	have 'collected' the author?)
    
    	Do you have a serious problem with the idea of reading what
    	each new note/reply actually says (instead of setting up pre-
    	conceived ideas of what they are "probably" saying because of
    	the things that they "did" say in the past)?
    
    	It is entirely possible that you set up your judgments about
    	people WAY before you completely understood their position on
    	certain issues.  As one continues to read the writings of certain
    	authors, it is important to make corrections on one's impressions
    	of a person as one takes in more information about the point
    	of view of that person.  If you are not continuing to make
    	such adjustments as you continue your participation in any
    	given notesfile, then you are reading with a somewhat closed
    	mind (in relation to certain people) and very little of what
    	you have to say about those people will ever be correct or
    	meaningful in discussions about those individuals and/OR their
    	positions on current issues.
    
    	>>Chelsea, let me know if you would like me to requote your note
    	>>where you *DID* attribute all sorts of attitudes to me that were
    	>>not mine.
    
    	>If your reference is to the 'warning' then no, I didn't.  And as
    	>you have pointed out, no one should know that better than me.  You
    	>are free to misinterpret the situation, of course, but I know that
    	>you are wrong.
    
    	So!  Then you agree that only the author of a given note
    	can know the true meaning (and that an interpretation which
    	opposes that of the author could necessarily be called a
    	misinterpretation.)  
    
    	If you have collected (and judged) noters based on interpretations
    	of their notes which are in direct opposition to the 'true meaning'
    	(as explained by the authors,) then your 'collections' (and judgments)
    	are based on fallacy and should be discarded.
    
    	>Now then, once you found out what the personal name meant, would
    	>you describe your feelings about it as similar to the feelings of
    	>those who used it, based on what you've seen them write here (which
    	>is the only evidence I have to go by)?  Would you describe your
    	>attitude as similar?
    
    	Most of the impetus behind the personal name in question came
    	from enthusiasm that the women gained from having been together
    	the night before in a social setting.  I was not at the social
    	gathering, so I approached the personal name from the point
    	of view of having a "similar philosophy" (but NOT having had
    	the experience of being with those women in person at the social
    	event where this idea came up.)  Therefore, although I had the
    	*opportunity* to use the personal name, I chose not to use it
    	(not because I thought it was wrong, but because I felt certain
    	that some people would jump to the worst possible conclusions about
    	what it meant and would write very hostile notes to express
    	their unhappiness with the misinterpretation of the phrase.)
    
   	>>At what point do you decide to stop reacting to people as individuals
    
    	>Possibly when they stop acting as individuals.
    
    	When they stop acting as individuals according to YOUR perception
    	(which, as has been suggested already, is grossly distorted.)
    
    	If you want to choose not to see the richness of individuals
    	(and the words they have chosen to write AT THAT MOMENT about
    	A PARTICULAR TOPIC,) it is your right.  However, you are missing
    	a lot (and may have doomed yourself to a permanent state of
    	distorted reality where other people's points of view are
    	concerned.)
    
    	>>If you are assuming more than you are currently reading in any
    	>>given notesfile, how can you expect your perception to be anything
    	>>OTHER than seriously distorted?
    
    	>Note or notesfile?  If my assumptions are based on past experience,
    	>I can expect my perceptions to be as based in reality as any of
    	>my perceptions are.  Assumptions are less reliable between different
    	>notes files, though, because the atmosphere changes; people will
    	>often present themselves differently.  Within a notes file, though,
    	>I expect a reasonable amount of consistency.

    	If you don't read the individual entries of individual people,
    	then you will obviously MISS it when they go through changes
    	in personal philosophy (as has happened in this conference.)
    
    	Had you made up your mind about ME two years ago, for example,
    	you would have decided that I was very nearly ANTI-feminist
    	(and you would have missed the gradual changes that I went through
    	over the period of a year until one day I wrote in the file,
    	"I am a feminist" for the first time.)
    
    	Many other women in this file *did* notice how my philosophy
    	adjusted (so obviously, many people DO read entries one at a time, no
    	matter who the author is, without making permanent judgments
    	about people early on and without assuming that their point of view
    	is completely incapable of the slightest change/adjustment.)

    	You can do whatever you like, of course, Chelsea, but it sounds
    	to me as if you will limit your enjoyment of notes quite a
    	bit if you read all entries with pre-conceived ideas about what
    	the author is trying to say.
    
    	Live a little.  Try reading what each new note REALLY says instead
    	of making up your mind what it "probably" says ahead of time.

>    Will Soapbox be back on the E-Net soon ?
    
    	RAHAB::SOAPBOX is back. Now perhaps people who did a 
    MOD ENTRY SOAPBOX/FILE=RAINBO::WOMANNOTES-V2
    will change it back.
    
    		Alfred

    Cheap shot Al, cheap shot....
    
             REK

	Sheesh! 8{)   Some _people_ are showing signs of being




				Kbear

    Re: .148
    
    >Chelsea, do you find individual replies so complex that you are
    >unable to read each one on its own merit without relying on some
    >sort of mental 'cribsheet' (indicating what sort of 'label' you
    >have given the person, based on the group into which you have
    >'collected' the author?)
    
    I actually don't use labels, so there isn't a cribsheet.  I read
    each one on its own.  I notice, as I proceed through replies, that
    some express a similar point of view and the authors appear to have
    similar opinions.  The process remains dynamic.  It's not a matter
    of seeing an author and thinking, "Oh, I don't have to read this;
    I already know what it's going to say."
    
    >So!  Then you agree that only the author of a given note can know
    >the true meaning (and that an interpretation which opposes that of
    >the author could necessarily be called a misinterpretation.)  
    
    In general, yes.  (There's always the argument that any individual
    is not always aware of the motives or meanings behind all of their
    actions, but it's not worth getting into.)
    
    >If you have collected (and judged) noters based on interpretations
    >of their notes which are in direct opposition to the 'true meaning'
    >(as explained by the authors,) then your 'collections' (and judgments)
    >are based on fallacy and should be discarded.
    
    The explanations were made after my original interpretation, so
    there is no conflict there.  After the explanations were made, I
    have never claimed that the women who used the personal name were
    *intending* anything other than a joke.  However, I still question
    the wisdom of their actions and I still recognize the harm in their
    action.  I have stated, twice now, that I can understand why they
    did it.  However, I do not agree with their actions.
    
    To go back, the reason we are arguing the matter of grouping people
    is:  I have claimed it was easier to believe the personal name a
    gibe because of some of the past notes that (at least some of) those
    using it had written.  There was some evidence existing to support
    the notion that it was a serious sentiment (if perhaps expressed
    in a non-serious fashion).  There was no contradictory evidence
    to say "This is just a joke."  People believe what they have reason
    to believe.  If you don't find those reasons convincing, that's
    your business.
    
    >(not because I thought it was wrong, but because I felt certain
    >that some people would jump to the worst possible conclusions about
    >what it meant and would write very hostile notes to express their
    >unhappiness with the misinterpretation of the phrase.)
    
    This raises a number of questions:  Did the women who did use the
    personal name recognize this possibility (or probability)?  If not,
    why not?  If so, why choose to do something that will have such
    a negative impact?
    
    >If you want to choose not to see the richness of individuals (and
    >the words they have chosen to write AT THAT MOMENT about A PARTICULAR
    >TOPIC,
    
    As explained above, I do see their words.  You've misunderstood
    the process, possibly because you still think of it in terms of
    stereotyping.                                              
    
    >Try reading what each new note REALLY says instead of making up
    >your mind what it "probably" says ahead of time.
    
    I do.  Nothing I have said is inconsistent with that.  I have never
    said that I judge the contents of the note ahead of time.  I have
    ideas about what the author's philosophy or approach is, but I do
    not have preconceived notions about the contents of the note.  So
    it is quite possible for me to recognize changes.  I have never
    said that my opinion cannot be changed.  That is one of the main
    reasons I know that I'm not stereotyping.  We have here a case in
    point.  When I saw a mini-movement of personal names, I suspected
    the sentiment was serious.  When those who used it said it was just
    a joke, I believed them.  I find them lacking in either foresight
    or good judgement and I still believe I have reasons to disapprove
    of their actions.  Different reasons than before, but no less valid.

    re .148:
    
    Since this topic and the R*E*S*P*E*C*T note seem to be pretty tightly
    coupled, I was struck by the difference in tone between this reply
    and those in the other. Specifically, take .148 and replace the
    name Chelsea with Laura:
    
        Laura, do you find individual replies so complex that you
    	are unable to read each one on its own merit without relying
    	on some sort of mental 'cribsheet' (indicating what sort of 'label'
    	you have given the person, based on the group into which you
    	have 'collected' the author?[i.e. male/female])
    
    	Do you have a serious problem with the idea of reading what
    	each new note/reply actually says (instead of setting up pre-
    	conceived ideas of what they are "probably" saying because of
    	the things that they "did" say in the past)?
    
    	It is entirely possible that you set up your judgments about
    	people WAY before you completely understood their position on
    	certain issues.  As one continues to read the writings of certain
    	authors, it is important to make corrections on one's impressions
    	of a person as one takes in more information about the point
    	of view of that person.  If you are not continuing to make
    	such adjustments as you continue your participation in any
    	given notesfile, then you are reading with a somewhat closed
    	mind (in relation to certain people) and very little of what
    	you have to say about those people will ever be correct or
    	meaningful in discussions about those individuals and/OR their
    	positions on current issues.
        ...
        If you want to choose not to see the richness of individuals
    	(and the words they have chosen to write AT THAT MOMENT about
    	A PARTICULAR TOPIC,) it is your right.  However, you are missing
    	a lot (and may have doomed yourself to a permanent state of
    	distorted reality where other people's points of view are
    	concerned.)

                                                     
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
        

	I'll probably be accused of being vindictive or something, but there 
was so much talk about how many people were in on this "joke" that I was 
curious to see exactly how extensive it was. So I extracted all the notes 
written on 28-OCT-1988 and sorted out all the "set --- hidden" and its 
variants. Below is the list of all the notes that used that personal name, 
sorted by author. 
	Frankly, I am surprised by 2 things: (a) there are 14 names here
(more than I expected), and (b) one of those names is RAINBO::TARBET.
Also, it seems clear to me that it is only due to note 258.0 that this prank
caused such a stir.

CADSE::FOX "Set --- hidden!" 		
	Note 258.10 FWO: R*E*S*P*E*C*T find out what it means to me
CIVIC::JOHNSTON "set___hidden" 		
	Note 222.202 Sound bites for Dukakis
	Note 257.24 =wn= lite: what's your fashion statement?
	Note 259.15 FGD: R*E*S*P*E*C*T
CTCADM::TURAJ "set ___ hidden" 		
	Note 256.5  SHYNESS as an obstacle.
DECSIM::HALL "Set --- hidden" 		
	Note 257.13 =wn= lite: what's your fashion statement?
HOYDEN::BURKHOLDER "set ### hidden" 	
	Note 257.25 =wn= lite: what's your fashion statement?
LEZAH::BOBBITT "set ___ hidden..." 	
	Note 256.1  SHYNESS as an obstacle.
	Note 257.5  =wn= lite: what's your fashion statement?
METOO::LEEDBERG "set hidden" 		
	Note 258.11 FWO: R*E*S*P*E*C*T find out what it means to me
	Note 4.31  Responses to Intros
MEWVAX::AUGUSTINE "set --- hidden" 	
	Note 112.50 Sexism in Language
	Note 257.9  =wn= lite: what's your fashion statement?
PRYDE::ERVIN "set --- hidden" 		
	Note 251.41 Dressing For Sex-Cess?
	Note 251.46 Dressing For Sex-Cess?
	Note 251.52 Dressing For Sex-Cess?
	Note 257.14 =wn= lite: what's your fashion statement?
	Note 257.33 =wn= lite: what's your fashion statement?
	Note 258.0  FWO: R*E*S*P*E*C*T find out what it means to me
	Note 258.6  FWO: R*E*S*P*E*C*T find out what it means to me
	Note 259.0  FGD: R*E*S*P*E*C*T
	Note 259.11 FGD: R*E*S*P*E*C*T
	Note 260.4  Who's hiding?
	Note 260.6  Who's hiding?
PSYCHE::SULLIVAN "Set ___ Hidden" 	
	Note 257.28 =wn= lite: what's your fashion statement?
RAINBO::IANNUZZO "Set --- hidden! "	
	Note 251.43 Dressing For Sex-Cess?
	Note 202.49 Sexual Molestation
	Note 257.0  =wn= lite: what's your fashion statement?
	Note 258.3  FWO: R*E*S*P*E*C*T find out what it means to me
RAINBO::TARBET "Set --- hidden!" 	
	Note 251.40 Dressing For Sex-Cess?
	Note 251.49 Dressing For Sex-Cess?
	Note 251.51 Dressing For Sex-Cess?
	Note 254.21 SEDUCTION!   FGD, please
	Note 257.4  =wn= lite: what's your fashion statement?
SALEM::LUPACCHINO "Set ___ HIDDEN" 	
	Note 257.17 =wn= lite: what's your fashion statement?
VINO::EVANS "Set ___ hidden" 		
	Note 199.171 Worst Songs Ever
	Note 254.27 SEDUCTION!   FGD, please
	Note 254.29 SEDUCTION!   FGD, please
	Note 255.11 Non-Verbal Communications 
	Note 255.12 Non-Verbal Communications
	Note 256.4  SHYNESS as an obstacle.
	Note 257.20 =wn= lite: what's your fashion statement?
	Note 257.27 =wn= lite: what's your fashion statement?
	Note 258.4  FWO: R*E*S*P*E*C*T find out what it means to me
	Note 259.6  FGD: R*E*S*P*E*C*T
	Note 260.5  Who's hiding?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

These two seem to be "copy cats":

CLBMED::WOLOCHOWICZ "Set WHO hidden??" 	
	Note 256.0  SHYNESS as an obstacle.
SKYLRK::OLSON "Notes> Set Green Chile Hidden" 
	Note 257.16 =wn= lite: what's your fashion statement?

    I've stayed out of this discussion for a few days, partly because
    others (primarly Chelsea) were doing such a good job of expressing
    feelings similar to mine, and partly to clarify my thoughts and
    see if I could put some perspective on the whole thing.

    The first thing I want to say is that in no way do I think any less
    of the women who participated in the joke - each of them had their
    own reasons for going along or supporting it.  Some of my dearest
    friends agreed to it.

    I even think I understand WHY it was done - it gave the participants
    a feeling of power and "solidarity", which in itself is good.  But
    power expressed against whom?  Against "men" - once again, that
    faceless, nameless enemy that oppresses all women.  And who was
    it directed at?  Clearly the men who participate in this conference
    - no one else could see it.  And the sentiment it expressed was
    one all too familiar to the men of the conference.  No wonder some
    of us took it seriously.

    I don't expect to change anyone's mind.  But if what I've written,
    and what Martin and Chelsea and Tracey and Bonnie and Pat and others
    wrote have made some of you stop and think for a moment about it,
    and perhaps cause you to wonder if you've exhibited exactly the
    sort of behavior you decry in men, then it will have been worth it.

    There has been one extremely positive result from this discussion.
    For the first time in my recollection, and that goes back to the
    beginning of the conference, I have seen women stand up and
    object to discriminatory and insulting behavior by other women
    against men.  I think this is wonderful and hope it continues.
    Only by exposing such actions to the light will we have a chance
    of getting rid of them.

    Lastly, I want to thank the women who started this "joke" for giving
    me an idea - the notion of using a specific personal name string in
    this conference to make a point.  In other conferences, my personal
    name string reads "Ad Astra", Latin for "To the Stars" - which shows
    my eternal optimism.  But here, I have chosen "One Voice", taken
    from the words spoken by Barbra Streisand to introduce her benefit
    concert in 1985:

	"Sometimes we forget the importance of one voice, of each
	of all of our voices, and the enormous difference it can
	make in all our lives - in history."

    Nobody will every pay $5000 per ticket to hear me sing, but I am
    an individual with one voice, and if I don't speak up for what I
    believe in, and against what I feel are injustices, I can't expect
    anyone else to do it for me.  I'm not here playing for points -
    I'm here because I care.

			Steve

	RE:  .153
    
    	>...  I notice, as I proceed through replies, that
    	>some express a similar point of view and the authors appear to have
    	>similar opinions.  The process remains dynamic.  It's not a matter
    	>of seeing an author and thinking, "Oh, I don't have to read this;
    	>I already know what it's going to say."
    
    	Perhaps not, but you have stated elsewhere in this topic that
    	you used your system of 'collecting people into groups' to make
    	a determination of the meaning behind three VERY ambiguous words
    	(so you must have thought, "Oh, I don't have to find out what
    	these words really mean; I can simply *decide* what they mean
    	by the judgments I have previously made about these particular
    	women.")
    
    	>The explanations were made after my original interpretation, so
    	>there is no conflict there.  After the explanations were made, I
    	>have never claimed that the women who used the personal name were
    	>*intending* anything other than a joke. 
    
    	Thank you.  I hadn't realized that at some point you admitted
    	that your interpretations had been mistaken.  I appreciate
    	your pointing that out to me (because I wholeheartedly agree
    	that you were mistaken, as were a LOT of people early in this
   	topic when the accusations against these women started.)
    
    	It appears that we have found some common ground here at last.
    
     	>However, I still question the wisdom of their actions and I still 
    	>recognize the harm in their action.  I have stated, twice now,
    	>that I can understand why they did it.  However, I do not agree 
    	>with their actions.
    
    	Well, I seriously question the wisdom of so many people having
    	assumed the worst at the beginning of this incident.  I can
    	understand why they did it, but I do not agree with their actions
    	in launching such a vicious campaign against a group of women
    	without first seeking to ascertain the facts.
    
    	In my opinion, the degree of vindictiveness against some women
    	in this file (for the relatively minor affront involved) did
    	FAR more harm than the original prank.

    	RE:  .155  Steve Marshall
    
    	Listing the names of the women who are being persecuted in this
    	topic was pretty insensitive, Steve.
    
    	I would like to request that you delete your note.  If anyone
    	(besides you) is nosy enough to go looking to see who wrote
    	the controversial notes in question, they are as capable as
    	you are of doing an extract (or else I'm sure they will think
    	to ask you for your expose through mail.)
    
    	I think that the listing of names in a controversy such as this
    	is the stuff tabloid publications are made of...
    
    	Delete your note (and leave the list of names out of this.)

    Actually, Suzanne, I can't say that I mind Steve's compilation:
    it is after all a reflection of what really occurred.
    
    What's puzzling to me is that although Steve expresses surprise at my
    having taken early and enthusiastic part in the joke, he doesn't
    then examine the implications of that fact. 
    
    Why were you surprised to find me on the list, Steve?  The only reason
    I can think of offhand are that my participation shattered your image
    of me as (a) fair-minded, (b) humorless, or (c) both.
    
    						=maggie

    re .159:
    
    > Why were you surprised to find me on the list, Steve?  The only reason
    > I can think of offhand are that my participation shattered your image
    > of me as (a) fair-minded, (b) humorless, or (c) both.
      
    a.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    		Wow!  Suzanne!
    
    	You don't want anyone to tell you what you "should" think or
    feel but you when the cards are down you sure will order someone
    around won't you!  

< Note 260.158 by NEXUS::CONLON >
        -< Don't set your note hidden.  Deleting it would be better... >-
    
   >     	Delete your note (and leave the list of names out of this.)

                          
        Steve, 
    	 	
    		I appreciated your putting that note in.  I was about
    to go look up that information myself.  And, no, Suzanne, I am not
    "nosy" (or at least if I am, this is not a symptom of it).  You
    yourself said to judge notes  and people on what they have said
    and not what you think they have said or some amorphous grouping.  
    So now when someone goes back and looks to make sure that they are
    judging what was said by whom and not what they thought was said, 
    that's "nosy"?  I don't buy it.  Bear in mind that not everyone
    has Steve's expertise in notes.  There are people that come in and
    don't know enough about notes to "reply"  and not "write" or to
    not SHOUT all the time.  I feel that Steve did a service to those
    who are not Notes-adept.  I feel that he did nothing immoral by
    extracting and placing this information here.  (If he'd taken it
    to another notefile without permission of the authors that would
    be another story.)  If those who used this name, don't want to be 
    associated with what they wrote, perhaps they should slow down a bit 
    and not enter it.  We're all adults here, we can all go away and
    cool down before entering a note.  I believe it was one of the
    moderators who said that they wished that you couldn't delete a
    note after it had been replied to.  I agree with that.  The ability
    to sling out anything, rile everyone up and then delete it with
    a simple "del" command makes some people too quick on the keyboard.
    
    	Steve,                     
    
    	Thanks for putting that note here. Do what you wish, but I'd
    appreciate it if it would stay.
       
    	I'm going to have to come back atfer I cool down, (the reason
    I've been absent from this note is that I keep imposing cool-down
    on myself, coming back, reading the backlog, and heating up again,
    so that I have to go cool down again :-) ) but before I go I want to
    point out a few things:
    
    	I think I see what Chelsea was saying and I think you vastly
    misinterpreted her a few notes back.  She said that she never doubted
    that the intentions were benign.  That does not mean that she thought
    she was mistaken as to what the ___ stood for.  That means she realizes
    that when they put "___" for "men", they didn't *intend* to hurt or
    discriminate.  As for assuming what the "___" stood for.  Several
    people have said, but you don't seem to hear us is that we DID NOT
    assume what the "___" stood for.  They were TOLD by people who
    participated in the "joke".  Until I was TOLD what ___ stood for
    I had no opinion about the personal name.  Even AFTER I was told
    about it, I wasn't highly upset.  As others before me have said
    it's not the "joke" so much that is the problem but that once the
    "joke" was exposed and some people expressed hurt, that it was
    "excused" as being "just a joke" and "we didn't mean anything by it".
    Well that may be true.  But when men have attempted to use that
    defense here, watch the fur fly!!!!
    
    	I'll be back to address some points you've made throughout this
    note but for now I'll leave you with a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon.
    
    Frame 1 - Calvin: I called Susie a Gooberhead at school today.
              She went home crying.

    Frame 2 - Hobbes: Sounds like you hurt her feelings.
    
    Frame 3 - Calvin : I didn't mean to.
    
    Frame 4 - Calvin : I didn't know she'd take the insult *personally*.
    
tlh
    

       re .159:
       
       Without trying to speak for Steve M, maybe some people thought it
       inappropriate for moderators to be a part of that particular bit
       of gamespersonship at that particular time.  While it's sometimes
       expected that moderators be the soul(s) of discretion, it's also
       worthwhile to remember that they are, in most instances, human and
       occasionally given to enjoying themselves as noters (as in this
       case) or flexing their moderatorial muscles without cause (as when
       they hide notes with which they disagree). 
       
       As for La Suzanne, I'm tempted to demand that she stop immediately
       her vicious attacks, unrelenting treachery, and heartless
       persecution of the boredom level of the people who read this
       conference, but, since I reluctantly recognize that she has the
       right to inflict terminal ennui on those who choose to read her
       limply lugubrious loquaciousnesses, I shall not so insist.
       
       --Mr Topaz 

    Steve, that's interesting; I don't know whether to say thanks or not (a
    couple of us woulda bet on (b) :'). 
    
    Does that mean that even a single act, no matter how ambiguous in
    motivation, is sufficient to wipe out someone's ethical "credit" with
    you?  Or am I somehow a special case?  Or is it that the motivation you
    ascribe to my act is unquestionably bad? 
    
    (I expect you can appreciate why I'm hesitant to say thanks)						
               
    						=maggie

	RE:  .162  Tracey
    
    	> Wow!  Suzanne!
    
    	Wow! Tracey!  What?
    
    	> You don't want anyone to tell you what you "should" think or
    	> feel but you when the cards are down you sure will order someone
    	> around won't you!  

    	Well, first off, if I were going to order someone around, I
    	would at least take the trouble of using an exclamation point.
    	(I rarely use declarative sentences when issuing orders.  Take
    	my word for that.)
    
    	Second, what in the world does my not wanting to be told what I
    	think or feel have to do with my alleged "ordering" another
    	person to remove a note?  I don't see the contradiction.
    
    	> You yourself said to judge notes and people on what they have 
    	> said and not what you think they have said or some amorphous 
    	> grouping. So now when someone goes back and looks to make sure 
    	> that they are judging what was said by whom and not what they 
    	> thought was said, that's "nosy"?  I don't buy it.  
    
    	The issue is the use of the personal name in question (and whether
    	or not that SPECIFIC PERSONAL NAME had meaning beyond the three
    	ambiguous words that were actually used.)
    
    	Since we all KNOW what those three words were by now, there
    	was no point in listing the names of the people who used them
    	(except for the sole purpose of having people see the actual
    	NAMES of the people involved.)
    
    	*NONE* of the notes that they wrote that day discussed the issue
    	of the personal name AT ALL, so if you go back to them looking
    	for such information, you're going to end up confusing the
    	current issues even more.
    
    	Be fair!  Those people are NOT part of this discussion (except
    	for Maggie.)  Dragging their actual names through this serves
    	NO PURPOSE AT ALL (especially since we have all agreed by now
    	that their intentions were not malicious.)
    
    	> If those who used this name, don't want to be 
    	> associated with what they wrote, perhaps they should slow down a bit 
    	> and not enter it. 
    
    	When I asked Steve to delete his note naming names, I was voicing
    	my own opinion alone (because I am offended by the fact that this
    	whole thing has turned into a witch hunt.)  If you've read the
    	named names, you know that my name isn't on the list.  
    
    	None of the women whose names *ARE* listed have protested the
    	list publically.  You have no justification at all for heaving
    	insults/arguments against those people as if they have.  You
    	are dealing with me alone (so heave your insults at ME and
    	not at them.)  I think they've taken enough unfair treatment.
     
     	>Several people have said, but you don't seem to hear us is that 
    	>we DID NOT assume what the "___" stood for. They were TOLD by 
    	>people who participated in the "joke".  
    
    	You haven't been listening to what I've been saying.  Except
    	for my first note in this string (way back around .10 or so,)
    	my contention NOT been that people misunderstood what the
    	actual LETTERS stood for (but rather what the INTENT was behind
    	using that word in the sentence.)  Let me know if you need
    	another refresher on this, because I certainly wouldn't want
    	you to continue to be misinformed about this.
    
    	>But when men have attempted to use that defense here, watch the 
    	>fur fly!!!!
    
    	I'm watching the fur fly right now (and I didn't even USE the
    	name.)  Fur doesn't only fly in one direction, obviously.	
    
    	>I'll be back....
    
    	Yeah, I've heard that before.
    
    	I'll be waiting.

    um, a little more calmness folks?  Please?  It would be a shame
    if we had *two* substrings in which motives and characters were
    being impugned.
    
    						in Sisterhood,
    						=maggie

    re .164:
    
    > Does that mean that even a single act, no matter how ambiguous in
    > motivation, is sufficient to wipe out someone's ethical "credit" with
    > you?
    
    This is quite an accusation, and I wonder how you arrived at it. 
    Saying that I was surprised to see you on that list does not mean 
    that your "ethical credit" is "wiped out".
    
    That list was a compilation of fact. It was not a condemnation of
    everyone on it. I commented that I was surprised by two things.
    "Surprise" means something unexpected. I did not expect so many
    names on the list, and I did not expect yours. I did not say what
    effect that had on my opinion of you, why do you expect the worst?
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    First, I have no problem with seeing my name listed as a participant
    in this Great Conspiracy.  I would hope that those hurt by my
    participation in this would take the time to read what I have had
    to say over the years, because:
    
    Second, I do not feel personally persecuted by The Men in this file,
    and I would hate to see male voices squelched in this forum.  I
    believe that, for the most part, my notes have not advocated any
    exclusionary rule.
    
    I like men.  As they say, 'Some of my _best_ friends are men.' And
    even face-to-face when a man in my world is seemingly pontificating
    on something I cannot help but think he has little practical experience
    with, I tend to let him know.
    
    I suppose in light of recent events 'Set Reactionaries Hidden' would
    have been more appropriate for me, as that would express my true
    sentiments.  [Please note that the R-word is not a direct substitute
    for '___', R-Persons cross all gender,class,ethnic lines].  Even
    so, it would be an expression of my personal sentiments and not
    a reflection of my belief in their right to be heard.
    
    I thought it was funny. I was surprised that it hurt anyone. I am
    sorry that it did.  [In much the same way that my neighbor was sorry
    that the tree he took down ruined my chimney, but was not sorry to have
    taken the tree down]
    
      Ann
    

    <--(.167)
    
    Steve, it wasn't an accusation, it was a question ("Does that
    mean...?"). I was *asking* you how I should interpret what you'd
    said.  
    
    This happens a lot, I think.
    
    						=maggie 

    	One thing I'd like to add here is that when I have used the
    	word "persecuted" in reference to the women who used the
    	personal name in question, I am talking about *this topic*
    	alone (and not necessarily anything/everything else in life
    	and/or notes.)
    
    	I just think that people (some men and some women) have judged 
    	the folks that used the name way too harshly, and I have been
    	very bothered by that (even though *I* didn't know who most
    	of the women were *either* until the names were published.)
    
    	As far as naming names goes, there were plenty of women 
    	(including me) who were VERY bothered by the idea that some
    	men's names might actually be listed in the note that asked
    	for examples of abusive notes written by men.  People refrained
    	from even HINTING at notes (rather than take the chance that
    	some individual man's identity might by recognized by the
    	community.)
    
    	If we (generally) agree that it isn't fair to single out individual
    	men by name (whether they were aware of being abusive or not,) then
    	it *surely* isn't fair to single out individual women by name
    	(especially when we've already mostly agreed that they did NOT mean
    	to hurt anyone.)  

    re .169:
    
    If you wanted to ask "just" a question, you wouldn't have loaded
    it. You could have just asked "So how does that affect your opinion
    of me?"
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

Steve,
I thought your calling out of Maggie was loaded. This is fyi; maybe you'll
understand Maggie's reaction a little better too (understanding can't hurt, I
guess :-). Now that I know Maggie is not a god[dess]head, I tend to notice when
others seem to (have I been ambiguous enough? :-).

Suzanne has made an interesting point, and I'd like to echo it. In general, if
you can keep from naming names, pointing fingers, tit-for-tatting, and
quoting-and-attacking-the quote, this notesfile might be a little more
interesting, open, and positive. Now I know there are times when naming names
is worthwhile [see above], but _please_ think about it.

Your sometimes-comoderator-sometimes-person,
	Mez

I'll probably regret getting back into this but, ...

I was somewhat suprised to see two or three of the moderators among
the participants in the great personal name controversy.  As with
Mr. Topaz, I have the feeling that, for better or for worse, the
moderators set the tone of a file.  So, I suppose Maggie's lost a bit
her "standing" with me.  So what? She's still a friend, and she has
quite a bit of surplus in that account and I have a short memory
for silliness.

In one of her previous notes, Suzanne Conlon commented on the "viciousness"
of the attack on the personal names.  As a card carrying member of
the attacking contingent, I would appreciate hearing from others, (not
from Suzanne), why our disagreement would be seen as "vicious" by the
participants in this discussion.

Martin.

    <--(.171)
    
    Steve, since you appear to be claiming that my motives are not as I
    state them to be, would you please tell me whether you think me
    duplicitous or merely lacking insight?  And explain what supporting
    evidence you have for your interpretation?   Thanks.
    
    I'd like to feel clear about what's going on here. 
    
    						=maggie

    I agree that it feels like this thing has gone on long enough.  
    I would like to make a request like ones that have been made in 
    this file before.  To the women who joined in the fun the other 
    day and to the women and men who saw it and giggled over it: please 
    consider avoiding the temptation to respond to those who would use
    this as an excuse to dump all over the women in this file.  It's 
    unfortunate that the joke has had this kind of result.  What makes me 
    saddest is that now a few men seem to feel that finally after 2+ years 
    of baiting the women in this file, *they* now have a legitimate 
    gripe.  Well, in hindsight I can see that if we'd stopped to consider the 
    implications of women taking even a small step of power in a file called 
    "_Woman_notes," we would have dismissed the idea out of hand.  it feels to 
    me like it is not safe for women to take risks in this file.  We can't be
    silly, make errors in judgement.  We must be beyond reproach, on our guard
    at every moment.  If we slip... even a little, men will always be there to
    pounce on us and to try to turn us against each other.  I think that the 
    most frightening thing to members of the patriarchy is the idea that some 
    of us might refuse to participate in it.  I think the reaction to the small
    step that 14 women took supports that idea - it certainly brings it home 
    for me.  So, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind.  Each of us must 
    choose for herself how to respond.  But I hope that those of you who
    agree with me will consider moving on to other issues of importance to 
    women.

    Justine                  

    Re: .157
    
    >Perhaps not, but you have stated elsewhere in this topic that you
    >used your system of 'collecting people into groups' to make a 
    >determination of the meaning behind three VERY ambiguous words
    
    After I had seen them crop up in several different places, yes.
    The first time I saw it, it was a clever trick.  Repetition implied
    meaning.  Based on previous experience, I made an educated guess
    as to what the "---" stood for.  Based on previous experience and
    on the 'minimovement' aspect of it, I interpreted it as a serious
    or at least semi-serious (joking tone covering serious opinion)
    sentiment.
    
    >(for the relatively minor affront involved)
    
    I believe the severity of the affront is best judged by those who
    felt it.
    

    Re: .175
    
    >it feels to me like it is not safe for women to take risks in this
    >file.  We can't be silly, make errors in judgement.  We must be beyond
    >reproach, on our guard at every moment.  If we slip... even a little,
    >men will always be there to pounce on us
    
    If you switched the genders about, I wonder how well this would
    hold?
    
    I think Womannotes is particularly susceptible to the 'paragon'
    requirement because noters here express how things should be and
    what changes should be made.  There is an atmosphere of higher
    expectations because there is an atmosphere of hoping to bring about
    change for the better.  I think there's an expectation for participants
    to be more 'enlightened' here and a corresponding expectation for
    their behavior.

    Re .174:
    
    .159> Why were you surprised to find me on the list, Steve?  The only reason
    .159> I can think of offhand are that my participation shattered your image
    .159> of me as (a) fair-minded, (b) humorless, or (c) both.
      
    .160> a.

    .164> Does that mean that even a single act, no matter how ambiguous in
    .164> motivation, is sufficient to wipe out someone's ethical "credit" with
    .164> you?  

    .167> This is quite an accusation, and I wonder how you arrived at it. 
    .167> Saying that I was surprised to see you on that list does not mean 
    .167> that your "ethical credit" is "wiped out".
    
    .169> Steve, it wasn't an accusation, it was a question ("Does that
    .169> mean...?"). I was *asking* you how I should interpret what you'd
    .169> said.  
    .169> This happens a lot, I think.

    .171> If you wanted to ask "just" a question, you wouldn't have loaded
    .172> it. You could have just asked "So how does that affect your opinion
    .172> of me?"
    
    .174> Steve, since you appear to be claiming that my motives are not as I
    .174> state them to be, would you please tell me whether you think me
    .174> duplicitous or merely lacking insight?  And explain what supporting
    .174> evidence you have for your interpretation?   Thanks.
    .174> I'd like to feel clear about what's going on here. 
          
    I think both of us are reading the worst into each others words.
    I said I was surprised to see you in on this plank because I had
    a very high opinion of your fairness. You then asked if this meant
    that I no longer respected you at all. But it was the way the question
    was worded that made me interpret it as more accusation than question.
    When I tried to explain why I thought it was more accusation than 
    question, I wrote it in such a way as to be interpreted as an
    accusation as well. 
    
    I think the problem started with my answer to your multiple
    choice question. By only responding with one of the choices, I
    validated the assumption that my image of you was "shattered". I
    should have explained that that was not the case. The question that
    I answered was a little different than what you wrote; I left out
    the "shattered image" phrase, and did not use the past tense:
     
    	Why were you surprised to find me on the list, Steve?  The only 
    	reason I can think of offhand is that you have an image of me as 
    	(a) fair-minded, (b) humorless, or (c) both.

                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
                                     

re: .177

Actually, my latest theory was that some women _really_really_ want
'womanspace' in womannotes, and some women _really_really_ don't (ie - want
womannotes to reflect their 'real life' instead). An acceptable compromise
_might_ be that FWO is the former, and everyplace else is something like the
latter, only it's for topics of interest to women.

waddayall think?
	Mez

    re .172:
    
    > This is fyi; maybe you'll understand Maggie's reaction a little
    > better too (understanding can't hurt, I guess :-). Now that I know 
    > Maggie is not a god[dess]head, I tend to notice when others seem to 
    > (have I been ambiguous enough? :-).
                                                 
    Yes, Mez, that was so ambiguous as to go right over my head. :-)
    But I think I get the gist of what you're saying.
    
    Yes perhaps, calling out maggie as I did *was* loaded. Maybe someday
    I'll be able to explain that I sincerely meant it as a kind of
    compliment. 
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
                
                

    Re: .155, My personal name was, "Set "who" hidden".  I somehow 
    made it on your list.  You stated, "And this one is a copycat".
    
    There are a couple of points I'd like to make.
    
    1. I was the first to use that variation of a personal name - therefore
       I don't understand the logic behind implying that I am a "copycat".
       (Gosh - no one has called me that since third grade - and even
       then it was from misunderstandings and hasty conclusions...)
    
    2. Since you have no idea who I am and since I seldom contribute
       to this notesfile - what makes you think you know what my motives
       are?
    
    3. Speaking for myself and my motives, I would like to point out
       that I have more indepth knowledge of *my* intentions that you,
       a stranger would have.
    
    4. I would appreciate it if you requested permission prior to 
       extracting any portion of my notes, be it title, content, or
       any portion of the personal profile.
                                           
    

    RE: .183
    
    See #3 and #4.
    

    <--(.178)
    
    Okay Steve, fair enough and thanks for the compliment.  But in some
    sense your surprise is a "self-inflicted wound", y'know: it was because
    you presumed that no other interpretation is possible for what went on;
    that I was indeed betraying my principles by acting in an unfair way.
    Which of course was not at all the case from my perspective. 
    
    To me it was, at worst, teasing and I enjoy teasing, un-pc though it
    be.  Like Ann Johnston (.168) I don't regret my participation; if
    people did genuinely feel bad about being on the receiving end (i.e.,
    this whole weeping-and-gnashing-of-teeth thing is not some elaborate
    and better-hidden comeback) then I do indeed regret their unhappiness
    ...but I don't regret planning, doing, or enjoying it (and would do it
    again with similar glee, simpleminded person that I am); I sleep well
    at night, my conscience is perfectly clear about my motives: I know
    what "fair" means. 
                                                            
    Have we exhausted the episode's potential for instruction yet, folks?
                                        
                                   		=maggie

    	Well, Suzanne we reached the same conclusion at about the same 
    time.  While your point is well taken about the "logical" reason that 
    we seem to be talking at, over, around and through one another, may 
    I point out another possible reason for misinterpretation?

    < Note 260.165 by NEXUS::CONLON "Long live obscure personal names!" >
    
>    	    	Well, first off, if I were going to order someone around, I
>    	would at least take the trouble of using an exclamation point.
>    	(I rarely use declarative sentences when issuing orders.  Take
>    	my word for that.)
                                                                      
    	I don't need to take your word for that.  By definition, you
    would not use a declarative statement to give an order.

        In English, a declarative sentence is a statement of something
    such as a fact or opinion.  Examples are:
    
    	o That flower is pretty.
    	
    	o I am being pedantic.
    
    	o I think you should delete that note.
    
    An imperative is a stament that urges, exhorts or demands an action.
    Examples:
    
    	o Give Aunt Grace a kiss.
    
    	o Give me a break.
    
    	o Delete that note.
    
    Whether or not the sentence ends in a period or exclamation point
    is irrelevant.  It is the structure of the sentence that determines
    whether the mode is imperative or declarative.  What an exclamation
    point *does* determine is whether or not a declarative or imperative
    statement also happens to be an exclamatory statement as well.
    Exclamatory staments express stong emotion or provide emphasis.
    As in:
    
    	o Wow! Suzanne!  (Exclamatory fragment expressing surprise.)
    
    	o That flower is pretty! (Declarative statement with emphasis.)
    
    	o Delete that note! (Imperative statement with emphasis.) 
    
    	Now if you wish to redefine declarative to mean somthing entirely
    different for you that's your prerogative.  But there will always
    be a communication gap between us, since you are using the language
    in a "non-standard" manner.  Language changes with use and it
    may be that over time, my use of imperative and declarative will
    become the "non-standard" one.  In the meantime, if we can't agree
    on a simple thing like whether or not "Delete this note." is a
    declarative statement, who knows what atrocities of misinterpretation
    we are doing to each other's words based solely of differing basic
    rules of grammar.  Add to that your point about logic and this
    discussion is indeed pointless.  
    
    	For myself, I am setting this note, nowrite/noread.
    
    tlh
    
    

    Chelsea,

    In your reply .177, you suggested that the reader switch genders in
    a paragraph.  I did that; here it is.

    "... it is not safe for men to take risks in this file.  Men can't be
    silly, make errors in judgement.  Men must be beyond reproach, on their
    guard at every moment.  If they slip... even a little, women will
    always be there to pounce on them."

    You wondered how well this would hold up.  Well, I'll tell you: Very
    badly.

    You probably haven't realized this because it is very difficult to
    spot an absence.  However, I have noticed when men do silly things in
    this file, and when they make errors in judgement -- and errors of
    fact -- that these little incidents are generally ignored.  I will
    give you some examples.

    In 183.355, the last two lines (lines 10 and 11) make a jolly silly
    statement that I'm sure a lot of women beyond myself could take
    issue with.  Yet no one has commented on it at all, although the
    note it is in is one of the most emotional we have.

    The last line of 3.55 just begs for calling out as an error in
    judgement; in fact, it proclaims (to me) that that is what the
    author intends it to be.  No one seems unhappy with it.  The other
    women probably just think it's silly, as I do.

    The last line of 260.160 could be condemned for not showing
    "enough" integrity, especially in the light of his .167 and .171,
    but no one has taken that tack.  Why not?  Men (and you) in that
    very note were complaining that women were not being prescient
    enough and sensitive enough.  Now, we Deccies are not all expected to
    have precognition or sensitivity, but we are all expected to have
    integrity, so that complaint could have been made.  It wasn't.

    In 260.156, lines 13 through 16 of the second screen make a false
    statement.  The occasion referred to is not the first occasion for
    that sort of event, as you well know, because you personally have
    done that several-to-many times before.  That was a slap in the face
    to you, disguised as a pat on the back, yet you didn't protest.
    Nor did anyone else.  Why not?  I think it is because we all know
    that the most likely response is an airy, "Well, maybe it isn't
    *strictly* true, but I felt like it was, and I felt like saying it."
    I've seen that sort of response from men here before, and it is hardly
    the mark of someone who feels he "must be beyond reproach" and on
    his "guard at every moment."

    Perhaps it is time to find a copy of "Silver Blaze" and reread
    the words of the Master.

    							Ann B.    

    I was wondering if anyone else thought that "if [men] slip...even
    a little, women will always be there to pounce on them."
    
    
    guess I though no-one refuted it since it was so obviously false
    (IMHO) that we didn't bother to pounce!!
    
    but, I think .187 did a marvelous job of calmly refuting this concept

    	RE:  .186
    
    	Tracey, I have good news.  You and I have no disagreements and/or
    	misunderstandings when it comes to the points of grammar that
    	you raised in your note.  It's good to know that we can agree
    	on something, isn't it?  :-)
    
    	However...  It wasn't really necessary to explain all that to
    	me because my statement about not using a "declarative" sentence
    	to issue an order was just a bit of facetiousness on my part.
    	I wasn't trying to bring up a serious issue there.  I was just
    	"funning" you a bit because I couldn't believe that you were
    	serious when you described my note .158 as "ordering" someone
    	around.  
    
    	You missed a "play on words" aways back (when you accused me
    	of ordering Steve Marshall to delete his note.)  You see, the
    	title of his note had been "set reply/hidden" (so, being
    	facetious earlier as well,) I responded to him with the title
    	"Don't set it hidden (it's better to delete it.)" or some such.
    
    	In the text of my note, I said "I would like to request that
    	you delete the note" (which, in my book, is *far* from ordering
    	someone to do something.)
    
    	At the END of my note, I said something along the lines of:
    	"Delete the note (we don't need to list names.)"  It absolutely
    	AMAZED me that anyone could see that as an order (anymore than
    	one might see a campaign slogan as an order when someone comes
    	on TV and says, "Vote for John Jones (we need him now.)"
    
    	It seems possible to me that you didn't catch the play on words
    	when I wrote the title to my note to Steve Marshall (which is
    	why I ended up changing the title later.)  However, it would
    	have been nice if you had noticed the words "I would like to
    	request" (and had acknowledged that a request is a request,
    	while a demand is something else.)
    
    	As often as I see the words "I demand that..." in notes, it
    	seems that there is usually a clear difference between requesting
    	and demanding.
    
    	Oh well.  Thanks for your recent comments, anyway.  Communicating
    	over the net does get sticky sometimes (and not just in this
    	particular conference, either.)  
    
    	Take care.

    re .187:
    
    > The last line of 260.160 could be condemned for not showing
    > "enough" integrity, especially in the light of his .167 and .171,...
      
    Really, Ann, I didn't exactly "get away" with the poor judgement
    shown in .160.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    re .182:
    
    Suzanne, the following is in no way intended to invalidate the basic
    conclusions of .182, I just want to ask a question about symbolic
    logic.
    
    >	If we drew up a *partial* TRUTH TABLE for this argument, it would 
    >	come out roughly like this:  
    >
    >		A is discrimination.          True   True   False
    >		B is discrimination.          True   False  True   
    >		Discrimination is wrong.      True   True   True
    >
    >		conclusion:  If A is
    >	  	   wrong, then B is wrong.    True   FALSE  FALSE
                                   
    To *try* to avoid associating my question with the question of 
    discrimination and moral right/wrong, let me rewrite this truth
    table.
    
       	"A" and "B" are propositions.
    	P = if "A" then "B"
    
    	Now your truth table works out to be:
    
    		A	True     False    True
    		B       True     True     False
    		P       True     FALSE    FALSE
    
    	But as I understand Symbolic Logic, this is incorrect. The correct
    	table is:
    	
    		A	True     False    True	 False
    		B       True     True     False  False
    		P       True     *TRUE*   False  *TRUE*
    
    	Basically, "start with a false premise and you can 'prove'
    	anything".
        
    	Perhaps "P" should be "If and only if A, then B", then P will
    	*only* be true when *both* A and B are true.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Re: .188
    
    >guess I though no-one refuted it
    
    Nit with a point:  You can't refute a question.

    Gee, I got into this late. I wanted to say something on the original
    hot topic, "Set ___ hidden." I assumed it meant "Set sex hidden."
    A fine sentiment as long as sex is a noun and not a verb... For
    others who automatically assumed it meant "men", I have a list
    of possibilities:
    
    I personally like "Set IBM hidden." :-)
    
    Cheers! 
    -- Charles
    
    P.S. Some of you folks who are so hot at each other should use the
    phone. It's amazing how quickly things can be settled when you have
    vocal cues to use as well as printed words. Face to face is even
    better.
    
    1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th ABA abc Abe Abo ace ACM act Ada add
    ado aft age ago aid ail aim air ala alb ale all alp AMA ami amy ana and
    ani Ann ant any A&P ape apt arc are ark arm art a's ash ask ass ate Aug
    auk Ave awe awl awn axe aye bad bag bah bam ban bar bat bay bed bee beg
    bel Ben bet bey bib bid big bin bit biz BMW boa bob bog bon boo bop bow
    box boy b's BTL bub bud bug bum bun bus but buy bye cab Cal cam can cap
    car cat caw CBS CDC chi CIA cod cog col con coo cop cos cot cow cox coy
    CPA CRT cry c's cub cud cue cup cur cut dab dad dam Dan Dar day Dec Dee
    Del den Des dew dey did die dig dim din dip Dis DNA DOD doe dog don dot
    Dow dry d's dub dud due dug dun dye ear eat ebb EDT eel eft egg ego eke
    Eli elk ell elm Ely end Eng EPA era ere erg err e's EST eta etc Eva eve
    ewe eye FAA fad fag fan far fat fay FBI FCC FDA Feb fed fee few fib fig
    fin fir fit fix Flo flu fly FMC fob foe fog fop for fox FPC fro fry f's
    FTC fum fun fur gab gad gag gal gam GAO gap gar gas gay gee gel gem get
    gig Gil gin GMT GNP gnu Goa gob god gog GOP got GPO g's GSA gum gun Gus
    gut guy gym gyp had Hal ham Han hap hat haw hay hem hen her hew hex hey
    hid him hip his hit hob hoc hoe hog hoi hop hot how hoy h's hub hue hug
    huh hum Hun hut IBM Ibn ICC ice icy I'd Ida iii Ike ill I'm imp Inc ink
    inn ion Ira ire irk IRS i's Ito ITT ivy jab jag jam Jan jar jaw jay Jed
    jet Jew jig Jim job Joe jog Jon jot joy j's jug jut Kay keg ken key kid
    Kim kin kit k's lab lac lad lag lam Lao lap law lax lay lea led lee leg
    Len Leo let lew lid lie Lin lip lit Liz lob log lop Los lot Lou low loy
    l's LSI LTV lug lux lye Mac mad Mae man Mao map mar mat maw Max may MBA
    Meg Mel men met mew mid mig MIT mix mob Moe moo mop mot mow MPH Mrs m's
    mud mug mum nab nag Nan nap Nat nay NBC NBS NCR Ned nee net new nib NIH
    nil nip nit nob nod non nor not Nov now NRC n's NSF nun nut NYC NYU oaf
    oak oar oat Oct odd ode off oft ohm oil old one opt orb ore Orr o's Ott
    our out ova owe owl own pad pal Pam pan pap par pat paw pax pay Paz PBS
    pea pee peg pen pep per pet pew PhD phi pie pig pin pip pit ply pod Poe
    poi pol pop pot pow ppm pro pry p's psi PTA pub pug pun pup pus put PVC
    QED q's qua quo Rae rag raj ram ran rap rat raw ray RCA R&D reb red rep
    ret Rex rho rib rid rig rim Rio rip rob rod roe Ron rot row Roy RPM r's
    rub rue rug rum run rut rye sac sad sag Sal Sam San Sao sap sat saw sax
    say SCM sea sec see sen set sew sex she Shu shy sib sic sin sip sir sis
    sit six ski sky sly sob sod Sol son sop sou sow soy spa spy Sri s's SST
    St. sub sud sue sum sun sup Sus tab tad tag tam tan tao tap tar tat tau
    tax tea ted tee ten the thy tic tid tie til Tim tin tip tit TNT toe tog
    Tom ton too top tor tot tow toy TRW try t's TTL TTY tub tug tum tun TVA
    TWA two TWX ugh urn u's USA USC use USN van vat vee vet vex via vie vii
    vis viz von vow v's WAC wad wag wah wan war was wax way web wed wee Wei
    wet who why wig win wit woe wok won woo wop wow wry w's x's yah yak yam
    yap yaw yea yen yet yin yip yon you yow y's yuh zag Zan zap Zen zig zip
    Zoe zoo z's

    re: .194
    
    you forgot TLA
    
    FWIW, i can't STAND the damn things, IMO.
    
    this is all FYI, y'understand.
    
    re: .all
    
    this is going to make a lot of you mad at me, but
    
    IT WAS JUST A JOKE, FOR GOODNESS SAKE!
    
    Sure, people may have hurt feelings over this, so somebody please
    apologize to somebody else and let's get over it, okay?
    
    I think that Suzanne Conlon made an attempt way back (when she solved
    that puzzle) but nobody else was paying attention, so down the hole
    the note went.
    
    oh, sorry, i'm not sensitive enough to have my feelings hurt, so
    i'm not qualified to reply to this note.  please disregard anything
    i may have said that may have serious content.
    
    ...........................................jonathan
    
    p.s.  i like using formfeeds since somebody taught me how
    
    it gives me time to beat a hasty retreat to conferences where
    i know what i don't know what i'm talking about.
    
    like the feelies, as opposed to feelings.

    I also left out VMS.
    
    Oops! Please! It was a joke! OUCH! I'm sorry! OWWW! EEK! Really,
    I was only kidding. Oof! I *LOVE* VMS. Erk! Umph.
    
    	:-)
    	-- Charles
    
    P.S. Set :-) hidden! :-)

    
    > I also left out VMS. Oops! Please! It was a joke! 
    
    S'ok, Charles, I'll laugh....
                                                       

    I read thru about 50 of these replies to find out what "Set ____
    Hidden" meant, just to satisfy my curiousity.  But is it worth it?  No.
    I read thru I don't know how many notes, that didn't answer the
    question.  Can't anybody just ask a question and get a direct answer?
    If it was answered in one of the replies (I finally just said, who has
    the time to read all these?) please just point me to it.  If not,
    will someone who has "Set ___ Hidden" as their personal name please
    answer the question and then you can resume your rat hole
    conversations.  
    
    Thank you.
    
    Suspense is making me cranky!
    
    LN
    

Re:  .199

>   So...will someone please answer the ?

As the author of the base note I'll try to summarise much of the essence of
this discussion:

   1.	It appears that at a dinner get together a group of the noters
	from this file decided to set their personal names to "Set ---
	hidden" (or a minor variant thereof).

   2.	The "---", as it was originally conceived, did indeed refer to
	"men".

   3.	It seems likely that no major offense was intended by the per-
	petrators of the original prank.  Unfortunately, however, almost
	none of them have chosen to comment here, so this remains a bit
	speculative.

   4.	When the original question was not answered promptly, some people
	(mostly men) felt uneasy (and perhaps a bit threatened).

   5.	There were some women who felt that it might be fun to give men
	a taste of their own medicine by turning the tables on them.
	Others have pointed out that that defeats much of what women have
	fought for.

   7.	And other tangents have surfaced as well.

See reply 121 for the confirmation of "men" as the original intent.

I am a bit sorry that this whole thing went as far as it did.  I like a prank
as much as the next noter; I think they are most fun when the joke can be
shared with a larger community.  I am sorry that the original hidden personal
name folks didn't choose to share it themselves.  But in the larger context
of things here, I don't think this entire incident was terribly important.
(And I was not among those who felt uncomfortable.)

>    Suspense is making me cranky!

Hope you can feel better now!

							--Q

    i might add that while the changed personal names lasted less than
    24 hours, discussion about them has raged on for over two and a
    half weeks!
    
    liz

    RE: 201
    
    Excellent point, Liz.
    
    I'm surprised that I'm surprised at that.
    
    --DE
    

    re: .201 & .202
    
    Ditto.  Perhaps, as has been stated in several other replies in
    this string of 200...does this now qualify as a dead issue?
    

... on what you mean by "issue" -- the issues of respect, community,
and feelings certainly remain.

Martin.

re: .200

I would like to reiterate that none of the "confirmations" of the
"original intent" of this incident were participants thereof, and 
therefore their understanding is based on hearsay and/or speculation.

It is interesting that such a trivial action should have caused such an 
amazing controversy.  Imagine what would have happened if something of 
real political significance had been done, instead of a little female 
bonding over a shared joke.  It is an indication of the dread men have 
of women united in an act of self-determination,  however insignificant.
In the future, if women are going to be chastised for acting together
it seems it should be for something that really counts.

To me, the saddest outcome of the incident has been the way in which
male disapproval has been used as a tool to divide women into the "good"
(e.g. pleasing and non-threatening to men) and the "bad" women (those
nasty separatists, who no doubt led the poor good girls astray by the
clever use of mob psychology).  It is a common tactic of patriarchy,
leading women to distrust one another more than their oppressors. 
I grieve for the division, but I am not sorry that for a little while a 
few women felt a moment of giddy solidarity.

>< Note 260.201 by MEWVAX::AUGUSTINE "Purple power!" >
>                                  -< comment >-
>
>    i might add that while the changed personal names lasted less than
>    24 hours, discussion about them has raged on for over two and a
>    half weeks!
>    
>    liz


That is because the note with the personal name is there long after the personal
name is gone.  So, the personal names lasts longer than 24hrs.  They will last
(and make people want to read this note for explanation) for as long as this
file is readable. 

Thanks for the explanation.

Yes...I feel better.

:)

    re .205:
    
    > Imagine what would have happened if something of real political 
    > significance had been done, instead of a little female bonding 
    > over a shared joke. 
      
    No need to imagine, look at what went on (and is still simmering)
    over the issue of FWO notes.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    I agree with .205 whole-heartedly. a little solidarity over something
    so trivial was a powerful example of what women could accomplish in
    sisterhood. 
    
    vivian
    

    re: .208 (Vivian)
    
    	   Yes, but one has to wonder at the goals to which such
    	a conspiratorial sisterhood would ascribe.
    
    	- Greg

    
    
    
    	Wonder			Wonder			Wonder
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    Was it trivial? Yes.

    Was it worth all this fuss? No.

    Do the same answers apply to other "issues" which create equal amounts
    of heat, such as the "invalidating my experiences" one? Yes.

    Do we all have better things to spend our time on? I hope so.

Ms Iannuzzo:

	Really!  Might I suggest you recognize the sharpness of the
two edged sword you are swinging?  The "Set ... hidden" "prank" did
not bother me at all - and I hope it didn't bother many people.
However, I can't say the same for some of the responses to 260,
most especially yours.

	Sections of your .205 are grossly insulting and border on
approval of sexual segregation.

<                             It is an indication of the dread men have 
<of women united in an act of self-determination,  however insignificant.
<In the future, if women are going to be chastised for acting together
<it seems it should be for something that really counts.

	The above is quite insulting since I am a man and have no dread
of women united in an act of self-determination.

<To me, the saddest outcome of the incident has been the way in which
<male disapproval has been used as a tool to divide women into the "good"
<(e.g. pleasing and non-threatening to men) and the "bad" women (those
<nasty separatists, who no doubt led the poor good girls astray by the
<clever use of mob psychology).  It is a common tactic of patriarchy,
<leading women to distrust one another more than their oppressors. 
<I grieve for the division, but I am not sorry that for a little while a 
<few women felt a moment of giddy solidarity.

	The above can be read as a statement in favor of sexual segregation
since it does suggest the solidarity of one sexual group at the expense of
another sexual group is positive.

	As I have stated in many other notes, all people deserve equal
treatment and any person who does not treat people with equality is
perpetrating inequality.  Your note, as I read it, supports one group
acting collectively against another.  Females looking down on males
is just as bad as males looking down on females.  A man implying 'all 
women are ...' is no worse than a woman implying 'all men are ...'

	Women, in general, have not received fair or equitable treatment
in any society of which I am familiar.  However, as true as this might be 
it does not justify anything less than fair and equitable treatment of
any other group of people.  

	Would you accept a group of men conspiring to accomplish against
women the goal of the group of women with whom you conspired?

	WOMANNOTES is bordering on becoming a monument to tripe, partly 
because of the rantings of some underdeveloped males and partly because
of the inability of some women to recognize this immaturity.  The 
ignorant should be taught the errors of their ways or, when education 
proves to impossible, simply ignored.  Do any women or men really believe 
they accomplish anything, save for seeing their words on a video screen, 
when they argue with people whose words show them to be functional 
illiterates?  Do any of us really believe the way to eliminate inequality 
is to develop more separate but equal groups?

	Enough of arguments about whose god/bonding rituals/basic 
philosophies/etc. are best.  These arguments remind me of the locker
room days of boys arguing whose penis is the biggest or girls
arguing whose breasts are the biggest.  Childish arguments should be 
left to children.

	Set men hidden.  Set gods hidden.  Set women hidden.  Set what
ever in hell you want hidden.  Don't set understanding and compassion
hidden, please.

Douglas

  I recently read a report on some of the Stone Center activities and
  came across a striking metaphor that might bear on this discussion
  (I've deleted the report and so can't give credit -- if anyone
  recognizes the original information/author, _please_ supply it).

  The subject of this metaphor was the apparent inconsistency of women
  who, after years of decrying male-only clubs, immediately press for
  a women-only space for the furtherance of "woman power" (for want
  of a better term).

  The metaphor compared this to the taking of penicillin for an
  illness.  The goal is _not_ to take medicine for the sake of having
  penicillin in your body.  The goal is to overcome the disease until
  the body is strong enough not to _need_ penicillin.  So, we can
  all look forward to that day of Equality when the very thought of
  men-only or women-only "spaces" will seem silly.  But we will never
  get there without taking some kind of medicine.

  This may or may not make sense to you -- after all, metaphors are
  slippery things.  But it makes sense to me.  And I think Catherine
  Iannuzo was right on in her analysis.

  I suspect that there are very few men who have not at one time or
  another said or thought something like, "Women.  Can't live without 'em
  and you can't shoot 'em."  I suspect that there are very few women who
  haven't thought the same thing about men.  So what?  I'd be willing
  to bet that such thoughts have been around as long as there have been
  thoughts.  So why all the excitement over "set ___ hidden?"  I think it
  is as Catherine says...

  JP

    Re: .205
    
    >It is interesting that such a trivial action should have caused
    >such an amazing controversy.
    
    Possibly because the consequences were not so trivial.  The feelings
    engendered were not so trivial.
    
    >Imagine what would have happened if something of real political
    >significance had been done, instead of a little female bonding
    >over a shared joke.
    
    The immediate reaction would have been the same.  The long-term
    effects would have been more devastating.  Remember, from where
    you sit, it was all along obvious that this was a joke.  From where
    other people sat, for a while it looked like something of real
    political significance.
    
    Where do we go from here?  While the issue has been resolved, I
    don't think the damage has been healed.  I would think that women,
    having long been the targets of gibes and taunts 'all in fun,' would
    have empathy for those who felt themselves victimized.  Even though
    the intent here was not to wound, I would think they would understand
    the pain.  Saying, "No, you misunderstood me" doesn't do much to
    ease that pain.  I don't agree with Suzanne.  I think that you owe
    an apology to those you hurt, even if it wasn't intentional.  (But
    perhaps we should defer to Ms. Manners on the question.)  So, on
    that note, I'm sorry if I hurt anyone.  I still don't approve/agree,
    but I think I understand and I don't mean to condemn.  (My writing
    style is a lot more forceful than I am.)
    
    Throwing this incident back at those who participated is not going
    to accomplish anything other than making them feel defensive and
    probably misunderstood.  I think we all know where we stand on the
    matter.  The question is, what are we looking for?  I think those
    who were hurt would be interested in an apology or at least an
    acknowledgement that they weren't being hysterical cry-babies. 
    I think those who used the personal name would like an acknowledgement
    that they meant no harm, even if it takes the passive form of allowing
    the issue to drop.  I could be wrong, so correct me if you don't
    agree.

    
    
    I'm glad John mentioned the Stone Center report especially
    as it speaks to the issue of woman-space as a healing thing.
    I remember hearing that same point at a Stone Center presentation
    I went to last year.  I think I'd prefer to think of something
    nicer than penicillin, though.  I think of it more like a soothing
    massage; it has healing properties, but it's also a pleasant experience
    and not necessarily one that we need to outgrow when the world's a
    better place.  To extend the analogy: some folks might use massage to
    recover from an injury;  others might use massage as an ongoing
    method of relaxation.  I say that both uses of massage are valid
    just as I see the value of women choosing (with varying frequency)
    to spend time in the company of other women.  
                                            
    Justine
                                                

    This is not meant to stir up a gigantic controversy, but in .214,
    there was a mention of the fact that an apology to people who were
    hurt (even if that hurt was unintentional) would be A Good Thing.
    
    What about people who have been very hurt by other topics of
    conversation in this file (even if the hurt was unintentional)?  
    
    Do they deserve an apology, too?
    
    -Jody
    

    Re: .216
    
    >What about people who have been very hurt by other topics of
    >conversation in this file (even if the hurt was unintentional)?  
    >
    >Do they deserve an apology, too?
    
    I would think so, though it might be more appropriate to handle
    the discussion through mail.  Also, something to keep in mind is
    that some people might need time to work through a defensive reaction
    before they can reach the stage where an apology is both forthcoming
    and sincere.  I don't think anyone here *means* to hurt (unless
    perhaps they're striking out in anger).

	Don't some of you are programmers see that "---" means an
	indefinite number rather that just the three illustrated.
	So one can put anything in place of the "-"'s.

	As for those gentlemen who got offended or upset, what you
	need is to go to Disney World and have some laughs, especially
	in Fantasy Land. Then maybe you can return to learn what is
	really offensive and what needs to be laughed at.

	Since there is already a note on Feminist Humor - that contains
	very little "Feminist" humor - I thought that this string was
	trying to explain it by example.

	Such as: The famous coven plus 1 has taken off on Holloween
		for a little trick-or-treating - hee hee hee cackle
		cackle - on their brooms.

		The response - "Oh how could you do this to us. whine
		whine whine

	Well I guess this means I had better not patch mail again this
	year on April 1st.  I can just imagine what would happen.

		_peggy

			(-)
			 |
				I'd need the Goddess's guiding hand
				to get it to run on VMS V5 MAIL anyway.
				Or maybe a VMS DEVO or 13.


		

    Re: .213 (John Parodi)
    
    The Stone Center report you saw was written by Joyce Roop.  See
    note 247 for a pointer to the report and recommendation files.
    
    				Steve

    
    Wow! 
    
    Hey, Mike V... Did Suzanne really solve the puzzle? Is that the
    real answer? I'm really impressed. D*mn, I was going nuts!
    
    Good job Suzanne!
           
    Roberta

    Re: .223
    
    Roberta, can you explain what reply you are referencing?
    
      Alan

	> CSC32::M_VALENZA "___'__ _____ _________ ____!"
    	> ______________________________________________
    	> __: .___
    	
    	> ___, ___ ___ _____ ___ ______.  ____ ____ ____ _
    	> _____ _____.  ___'__ _____ _________ ____ ___,
    	> _____.
    
    	Translation:
    
    	CSC32::M_VALENZA "She'll never translate this!"
    
    	re: .223

    	Yes, she did solve the puzzle.  Must have been a 
    	lucky guess.  She'll never translate this one, 
    	though.
    
    	[Nya ah ah!!!! Did it again, like .98!]  :-) :-)

    re: .226 (Suzzanne)
    
    	   I'm hip to your game now... you and CSC32::M_VALENZA 
    	are THE SAME PERSON!  You're not fooling me.  Let's see
    	how long it takes you to solve a puzzler written by 
    	someone other than yourself.
    
    	    __ ___ ___ _____ ____ ___, _'__ ________ __ ____
    	__ ________ ___ ______ _ ____ __________!
    
    	____ ____.
    
    	- ____
    
    

    
    ___!
    
    __ ______ _____ ___ ___ _____ ____ ___. _____ _____ __ 
    _ ___ ____ _______ __ ____ __________!
           
    
    _______

    ____, ___, ____ ____ ____ __ ___, ___ ___ __________ ____ ______
    ____ ____. _ ______ __ ____ ____ ____ ___ _______ ___ __'_.
    
    --- jerry

    -- --- --- --, ---- -- ------ --- -- ----.
    
    ...................................--------

    	RE:  several notes filled with blanks
    
    	Um, if you folks are waiting for me (or someone else)
    	to translate your notes, I guess it is time to reveal
    	the secret of how I translated Mike Valenza's blank
    	notes.
    
    	See, he works in my building and sits in a cubicle that is
    	very nearly on the exact opposite side from *my* cubicle.
    	After he had dental work done (around the same time that
    	a new Ethernet tap was drilled in the Enet segment that
    	runs almost directly over my head,) we discovered that
    	if he tilted his head the right way (and the Enet traffic
    	in my quadrant wasn't too busy,) he could type BLANKS on
    	his screen and the ACTUAL TEXT would appear on mine!

    	It helps if the parking lot outside is roughly 87.7153827%
    	filled, too.  Otherwise, it's more difficult to do.
    
    	So, obviously, it's going to be hard for me to translate
    	anyone else's messages unless you write them from Mike's
    	cubicle (and pay a visit to his dentist sometime real soon.)
    
    	Sorry.  :-)

    
    
    Hey!
    We should write all our notes this way. There would be
    a lot less arguing in this conference!
    
    
    Roberta