Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    I regret the necessity of hiding the basenote, but did so because of an
    objection made to its content.
    
    							=maggie

    Eric,
    
    The heading of your base note asks for Supportive Responses Only.
    You make some good points, and I feel I have a better understanding
    of you than I had before.  I am still unclear on what your note is
    asking for support about.  My difficulty in understanding is that
    I am used to seeing a question or a request for input on a specific
    area in SRO basenotes, and I did not see one here.  Would you be
    willing to give it another shot to help me understand what you need?
    
    Thanks,
    Beth

re.0

Eric,

  Your request [by title, anyway] is for 'Supportive Responses Only.' I do not
think what I have to say is precisely that, but I shall try to clarify
something.

  You have stated repeatedly that to ask to know the person before accepting
his/her opinions and utterances is discriminatory.  I do not agree.  While I
do find justifying or explaining myself repugnant; I believe that some
credibility and value is added to what I say when people know a thing or two
about me.  It doesn't need to be much, and can be very situational -- say for
instance, I may get a more receptive hearing on my environmental opionions
vis-a-vis Alaska when people know that I spent several years living there.

  While I can accept what you, or anyone else, might say on any topic; my
choice to listen or believe is coloured by my own experience and by what I
know of the speaker.  This is not to say that I assign less value to the 
speaker; it's just that lacking context the words often lack depth.

  I've seen and heard many people say things that I 'know' are wrong, yet they 
'know' are right.  It is natural to seek clarification, and this often includes
a question on where and how these alternative views were formed.  Should the
person whose view is different from my own decline to engage in clarification,
I am faced with the choice of imputing motives and context or walking away from
further discussion [my first choice].  Walking away is not discriminatory; and
is judgemental only insofar as I a judge that person unwilling to engage in any
further useful dialogue with me.

  Ann

    I am a new noter, relatively, and I am really confused....what is the
    topic and where is it?  Why is this blank? and How can some people
    respond to something that is blank?  How do they know what the topic
    is?

    Dear new noter,
    
    I don't know what the topic is.  Where it is is "hidden"; i.e., it
    is Note 1071.0, but only a moderator (in moderator mode only) and
    its author can read it.  Thus, it is blank, so we do not automatically
    1) sneer at the person so unfortunate as to have hiddenness called
    down upon her or him or 2) understand the exact nature of the, um,
    difficulty.  We can't respond to a blank.  The people who did so
    presumably did so before the note was hidden.  Or someone who had
    extracted a copy of it before it was hidden Mailed the responder a
    copy.  Or someone who read it gave the responder a synopsis.  (You can
    tell I'm guessing by this point, right?)
    
    						Ann B.

    in re .4
    
    The note was set hidden by the moderators in response to a complaint
    by another member of the community. We have requested that the
    base note author and the person who entered the complaint work to
    resolve their differences so that the basenote may be read and
    responded to by the community. It is standard procedure in =wn= that
    if a noter complains about a note that note will be set hidden
    until the issues are resolved to the satisfaction of all parties
    involved. We first request that the author and the person who raised
    the complaint try to resolve the issues between them. If this is
    not successful then the moderators will lend their advice and
    expertise.
    
    Bonnie J
    =wn= comod