Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    hmmmmm
    
    Sounds a lot like "Daughters of a Coral Dawn"....
    
    -Jody

This is fascinating.

   Whatever it may sound like, 316.0 has got to be the most insulting and 
offensive note that has ever been entered into this Notesfile.

   I find it amazing that a Moderator allowed it to be placed in here at 
all, not to mention actually entering it for someone. It says a lot about the 
state to which this file has fallen.

                                                    -Robert Brown III

    Du sollst ein Electriker werden, Du hast so lange eine Leitung.  :-)
    
    ...and in any event, Robert, you've got your directions mixed I think: 
    it's "risen", not "fallen".  

    Robert,
    
    Before you protested against this note, I had just skipped it, as I had
    over 2000 unread notes to catch up with. I have just gone back and
    read it and I fail to see where it's insulting, and against whom.
    
    I realise I may be playing into your hands by raising to the bait (if
    it is one) or failing to see the irony (if your note is sarcastic), but
    I really don't see a problem with the base note.
    
    As far as I'm concerned, it's just yet another Bible-type parabole, or
    maybe something that could be used as an intro to a science-fiction
    book... I am not saying there isn't more to it than that, but to
    qualify it as "the most insulting note, etc.." strikes me as fairly
    bizarre, to say the least!
    
    Joana

Referencing 316.3 (Maggie):

   Please trust me, Maggie: this Notesfile really has FALLEN if it has
allowed such an insulting entry to be placed here. I see your node address
on the basenote; my statements about it are not meant to reflect on you,
because I doubt if you would have allowed the basenote to be entered,
anonymously or otherwise, if you really knew what it was about. I am going
to assume that you didn't, because based on disappointments in our dealings 
in the past I do not believe that you would even passively endorse the insults
contained in 316.0.

   And assuming that your quote is german (a language which I don't speak),
could you please give me a translation? I am infinitely curious; it is 
best for me to know what someone is saying when hir "talks" to me.

Referencing 316.4 (Joana):

   There is no "bait" here, nor am I being sarcastic. I am very serious.

   It appears that you are correct in calling it a parable. The way I read it,
based on what the author said in the introduction, it is a kind of symbolic
history of this Notesfile. The individual who had it entered (I assume, based 
on the wording in the introduction, that the person was female) was conveying
a message which was very insulting, and the parable conveys it in a very
offensive manner.

   The offensiveness of this entry -- and the biases that this entry 
exposes-- are fascinating!

                                                    -Robert Brown III

    Robert
    
    It seems to me that the biases and the offensiveness may well be
    in the mind of the viewer..
    
    I found it an interesting parable on different types of people
    (not sexes as you appear to be implying)...
    
    Bonnie

    I found the so-called parable pointless and boring. As a matter of
    fact, I fast forwarded through it the first time, and had to go back
    and reread it (yawn ...) to see what all the fuss was about. 
    
    Of course, this is just one opinion, and it comes from a nerdy,
    over-the-hill, head-in-the-clouds male.
    
    Bruce

    Hmm. I'm not insulted. I guess that's because it's impossible to insult
    me or else I'm to dumb to know when I've been insulted. 
    
    I'm not sure just how to be offended. If the author is male, then the
    parable is offensive, because it assumes that this is typical behavior
    from the majority of the members of this conference and possibly by
    extension, all women or men-who-support-equality. If the author is
    female or male-who-supports-equality-and-what-this-file-promotes, then
    the parable is offensive because it assumes that the people who don't
    agree with what is being said in this file are all nasty, vile,
    creatures that are out to destroy them and their file. 
    
    Neither viewpoint is true in and of itself. They both have some
    elements of truth and some elements of falsehood. Both mostly center
    around the more vocal people in here (I'm not one, just semivocal) Some
    people come in here and feeling threatened by what they read, become
    verbally violent. They threaten, whine, and scream like my kids did
    when they were 2-3 years old. They threaten to run to personel if
    everyone doesn't change to their viewpoint or else just rant and rave
    on and on ad infinitum. 
    
    The other type in this file sees the intruder as a threat to what they
    are trying to build in this file. They try to answer the 1st type
    mentioned with calm reasoning, and when that doesn't seem to work
    increased verbal violence. This escalates on both sides until finally
    either everyone gets sick of it and just lets things calm down for a
    while or else stops talking to each other. (I joined THE LIST also)
    
    Either way, I don't think I'm offended. I am saddened that someone has
    to resort to this and I hope that if the author is type two that they
    realize not everyone who disagrees with what is said in here, screams
    violently about it. If the author is type one, they must feel awfully
    threatened by what goes on in here. Well pahdnuh, I'm here to say that
    what goes on in here is the most positive, joyful, kind, sharing, and
    wonderful flow of ideas and love that I've ever been priveliged to be
    allowed to be a part of. We will go to any lengths to protect it.
    
    Of course a lot of the above is generalisation and as always IMOHO.
    
    Phil

    G'day,
     Without knowing where R_Brown III is coming from, I can understand
    that _any_ text which is a PARODY, not a parable of the Bible,( and
    clearly this is)  can be offensive to some. I ignored it for this
    reason. Whether I agree or otherwise with whatever sentiments it may be
    trying to express is another issue. I  happen to dislike the mechanism.
    
    Derek

	Hummmm, are some individuals taking "A Story" to personally?
	Of course I am biased, but I read it (after having passed
	over it due to backlog) last night and it seems to me to be
	address behaviour not bodies.  We can all modify
	our behaviour, but for the most part we can not change the
	physical characteristics we were born with.

	I was not insulted (but then I am not male though I am 
	Her Fieldmarshall Ma'am Sir) and I am not sure if there is
	anything to be insulted about (other than the previously
	mention of a paradoy of a biblical story).

	The names and places are not really identifable (that is 
	unless one see oneself as the center of the universe, which
	is okay as long as one admits to oneself that that is what
	one is doing) and the situation is one that has been a
	re-occuring theme though out recorded history.

	So I ask, quite honestly, Just what is the problem?

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			I find anything that I did not write
			tedious and boring anyway....

Greetings, all:

   Frankly, I must admit to being suprised by the responses that have
been entered here since I entered 316.5. They are certainly not what
I expected.

    Certain individuals, who usually tended to make assumptions
about what I say regardless of my attempts at clarification (no names mentioned 
here for obvious reasons) didn't really do so this time. Even a certain bird we
know, who had of late been making feeble (mostly ignorable) attempts at 
personally attacking me, actually asked for more information! 

   I am truley impressed. Does this mean that I can engage in an intelligent
discussion this time? I hope so.

   My only disappointment is that Maggie did not translate her german (I
think it is german, at least!) quote that she entered in 316.3. I am still
very interested in what it means.

   Enough of this. Please understand that I inadequately expressed the nature
of my "protest" in my previous entries. For one thing, it wasn't fully a
"protest" at all, though there are some issues raised by my interpretation of 
the basenote that I did, indirectly, have problems with.

   I, personally, did not feel insulted by the basenote, because after looking
closely enough at the basenote I became aware that it was not intended to
be insulting to me or men at all.

   What bothered me about the basenote is that it is, actually, an insult to 
the women of this Notesfile. It doesn't matter what it appears to talk about,
and it doesn't matter what sex the author is (though I maintain, for various
reasons, that the author must be female). The fact is that when I
translated some of the terms used in the basenote, I realized that it is an
insult to every female who participates in this Notesfile, as well as the
Notesfile itself.

   This is why I was so suprised that a Moderator actually entered it -- 
and now that I think about it I was also suprised that it was entered by the
Moderator that it was entered by.

   But since so many of you who have read it apparently miss the insulting
contents of 316.0, I now understand why this entry was allowed and why no 
female WOMANNOTERs protested against it. I had assumed that some of them
(especially those familiar with ancient history) would have known the things
that I did, and would have seen what I saw in the basenote. Obviously, I was 
in error.


                                                          -Robert Brown III

    "You should be an electrician, you have such a long wire"
    
    (Said, mutatis mutandis, to me by my landlord in Wemewaarden whenever I
    was slow on the uptake)

    Unless the bona fides of the author are in question, or the content of
    the note violates our policy, the mods will post any note.

>   What bothered me about the basenote is that it is, actually, an insult to 
>the women of this Notesfile. It doesn't matter what it appears to talk about,
[...]
>   But since so many of you who have read it apparently miss the insulting
>contents of 316.0, I now understand why this entry was allowed and why no 
>female WOMANNOTERs protested against it. 

Well, Robert, if you are so convinced that it is insulting, and that we
are missing something by not interpretting it as insulting, why don't you...
GASP!...tell us what you consider insulting about it.  You've gone on
about how we should be insulted but have yet to say why.  

So I am asking you...why?  Pray tell, *what* is insulting about the story?

D!

    
    	Well, it seems to me that if no one is personally insulted after
    	all, then all's well that ends well.
    

Referencing 316.15 (Maggie):

   Personal attack from a moderator? Interesting...

Referencing 316.17 ("D!"):

   Before launching into a description of how insulting the contents of the
Basenote really are, please note that at no point have I suggested that anyone
"should" be insulted about anything. At first I expressed suprise that what, to
me, was an obviously insulting entry was (a) allowed to be placed in this
Notesfile, and (b) allowed to remain without protest. When I later realized
that others missed its insulting contents, I realized why there had been no
protest and acknowledged my error in assumption (though I was, admittedly,
suprised that certain noters here did not recognize the insults that I saw).

   It is not my policy to tell others in this Notesfile how they "should" feel
about anything.

   Suzanne may be correct in saying that as long as no one feels insulted,
perhaps the whole matter should be dropped. Ignorance may, in fact, be bliss in
this instance.

   Maybe. Unfortunately, what is not known can, indeed, be harmful. The best
way to mock a person, or a group of people, is to do so in a way that others
can recognize and laugh at, while the group being mocked totally misses the
point. The female who entered this basenote is apparently very good at mocking
people.

   But some may desire a "happy ending", so I have placed my explanation in the
next entry. The primary purpose of this entry is to act as a buffer for those
who may be inclined to disbelieve that I have reason for 3calling the basenote
insulting -- yet who may be less- than- willing to discover how insulting it
really is. It is a warning to those who want a "happy ending": if you haven't 
already, hit NEXT UNSEEN here. 

                                                         -Robert Brown III

   As I stated in my previous entry, the way to mock someone most effectively
is to insult them in such a way that others get the joke, while those being
insulted miss the punchline. The writer of 316.0 does this very effectively.

   This was done in much the same way that Maggie did when she spoke german to
me ( except that Maggie's was relatively gentle and on a much smaller scale):
by speaking in a language that the reader does not know.

   When I saw the title of the "story", I was struck by the words "Hem" and
"Hemutlund". Something about them seemed familiar. The familiarity bugged me
for a while, but it was only later that it hit me: the word "Hem" was something
that I had encountered when studying ancient Egyptian heiroglyphs.

   One of my many interests is in ancient languages. I have a number of
references at home, though some of them are old and are by no means complete.
Without going into too much detail into how I did so, I will simply say that
after checking a number of my references I determined that the names and places
mentioned in 316.0 are derived from bad ancient Egyptian and even worse Hebrew.

   Hem, for example, is sort of egyptian for "woman" (the heiroglyph actually
describes the female organ, though it also seems to mean woman), and "hemut"
is plural (the ancient Egyptians, according to my sources, used "ut" and "th"
in much the same way that we use "s" for plurals). "Hemutlund", therefore, must
be a fancy way of saying "women's land", while Hem is a slightly insulting way
of saying woman (I say slightly insulting because the Egyptians had other and
better ways of saying "woman" than to use a word which also talks about the
female organ!).

   Conversely, the "evil" Reth, who invaded Hemutlund, is ancient egyptian for
"men" (ret meaning "man", reth plural).

  At this point, one can say that the "story" is an insult directed at men,
since the "People" of Hemutlund (women) are being plagued by the "evil" Reth
(men) who do not respect the "Great One". But then, the particularly bad Hebrew
makes things even more "interesting".

   The name of the narrator, priestess Hedyut'a, is derived from the word
"Hedyut", which describes an ignorant, uneducated person.

   The names of some of the goddesses and their agents are corrupt forms of
the names of Klippoth (those familiar with Jewish mysticism may know of them),
which are liars, poisoners, and bringers of strife and cruelty.

   Other names come from words which mean "hatred", "illusion", "wrath", and
"ignorance".

   And most insulting of all, the name of one of the "gods" of the Reth is
derived from Egyptian words meaning "light and truth" -- words when put
together also describe an important ancient Egyptian GODDESS. The name of the
other "god" is another Egyptian word meaning "Light".

   Because the introduction to the story speaks of an "old tradition" (parables
being originally a vehicle used by "wise women" or "crones" to teach lessons to
people) which gives a message to all of "us here", my feeling is that the story
is a parable, written by a female, to describe something about this Notesfile.
I could be wrong (only Maggie knows for sure), but I do not believe that a man
writing this parable would have made reference to that tradition, and would
ghave used the word "you" instead of "us". In this Notesfile, women tend to use
"us" more than men.

   Based on all I've said above, I interpreted the basenote as follows:

   The People of Hem (women) came to Hemutlund (WOMANNOTES) to find a place
where they can communicate with each other in peace. Certain priestesses heard
of this place and brought "goddesses" (attitudes, maybe?) of ignorance, hatred,
unfairness, and anger. They "built temples" to the "Great One" (built up
attitudes based on the accumulation of all the bad qualities) and ruled
Hemutlund (WOMANNOTES), "teaching" the "people" the True Word (of hatred and
intolerance). But then the blaspheming Reth (men) came, bringing different ways
which endangered the status quo (truth and light, I imagine, would threaten
those who promoted ignorance and hatred), and so "goddesses" like Aurphel'a
("Aurphel" means Darkness, Fog, Ignorance) rose up to fight the "evil" Reth.
That the "People" as a whole (those left after the priestesses took over.
Section 9 of the basenote mentions people with "sin and violence" in their
hearts who were made to leave. In the context of the rest of the story, this
section is a particularly sarcastic statement, especially since the narrator
making it has a name which means "an ignorant person"), suggests that the
inhabitants of Hemutlund (the women of WOMANNOTES) agree with and support the
regime of hatred and ignorance imposed on them.

   This is why I considered 316.0 to be insulting to the women of this
Notesfile. This is also why, in the erroneous belief that others saw the
insults I did, I expressed amazement that no one protested the note (as certain
other notes had been protested about in the past).

   There are other satiric elements of 316.0 that I saw and can describe, and
there are more details I can give about certain names. I believe, however, that
I have given sufficient information to prove my contentions.

   This discussion -- indeed this entire Topic -- has been very instructive to
me. I have learned a great deal which will be very useful to me in future
discussions.

                                                  -Robert Brown III
         

    Hm.  I had no concept of what the names were, I thought they were just
    made up.  Interesting interpretation.
    
    I thought it was highly similar to the science fiction book "Daughters
    of a Coral Dawn".  I still don't choose to be offended by it, but I
    understand how if that is the way you interpret it you might be.
    
    -Jody

Robert,

    So what "says a lot about the state to which this file has fallen"
    is that most/all of us don't recognize it when we've been insulted
    in Ancient Egyptian?  Robert, this is Womannotes, not a conference
    of experts in Middle Eastern linguistics.  There is no reason to
    be condescending just because we do not share your specialized 
    knowledge. (reference: "ignorance may, in fact, be bliss...", .19.  
    I interpret this as saying that those who don't understand why this 
    parable might be found offensive are ignorant).

    You find it objectionable that Maggie uses German to you, and yet,
    by entering repeated notes about the offensiveness of this note
    and how shocking it is that no-one is objecting to it -- *without*
    explaining *why* you find it offensive, you are in effect doing
    the same thing to the readership of this conference.  By stating
    your conclusions (such as "the biases that this entry exposes are
    fascinating") without providing either evidence or reasoning to
    support them, you're playing an elaborate game of cat-and-mouse
    with your reader.  If intelligent conversation is indeed your goal, 
    you may want to rethink this sort of noting etiquette.

    I also think that it is inappropriate to speculate on the identity
    of an anonymous noter, even in such a broad realm as gender.

    That said, thank you for the explanation.

	Sharon

Well, if the author was indeed using Egyptian and Hebrew words to insult
us, then the insult was sufficiently obscure as to be pointless.  I am
not insulted...rather, given this interpretation, I am bemused that someone
took the effort to write it.  I mean, surely, even if s/he was trying to
be insulting, is does seem strange to insult someone so that (virtually)
no one knows it was an insult.

I don't really care one way or another, don't object to the note.  You
analysis, though, was very interesting.  Thank you, Robert, for providing
it.  Like Jody, I had no idea the names meant anything and so didn't
even think twice about it.

I'm curious though...given that the naming *is* so obscure, and that is
the real root clue that it was intended as insulting, and that even you
had to go look up obscure words in obscure tomes, why did you consider the
implied insult "obvious"? Why did you expect that we should get it?

D!

Mythinks I smell a fish.

Maybe I'm being paranoid here, but I have an honest question to which I would
appreciate an honest answer:

Robert, did *you* post the base-note?

It just seems strange that you were the only one to say anything about
this note; that you recognized so many obscure references in it; that
you seemed so insistent on discussing the note when no one else was
paying attention to it and kept bringing it up; that you were evasive
(and continue to be so) in explaining why you considered the base-note
"obviously insulting"; that you keep making vaguely threatening
references to "what this has taught you about the file" and how you
are going to "use what you have learned", without mentioning what you've
learned or how you plan to use it.

I just reread all the notes in the string, and in retrospect, find some
of the things you said, and how you said them to be *very* *odd*.

Care to illuminate us as to, for instance, why on one hand you said you
had to look up references in old book and on the other hand were so shocked
that we didn't recognize the implied insult?  Or what exactly it is that
you have learned about the community and how you plan to "use" that
information?

D!

    
    	RE: .24  D!

    	Don't mind Robert - he really *is* a bit slow on the uptake here.

    	He doesn't understand that people are deliberately avoiding being
    	baited by all the Gee_what_insults! and No,_YOU_were_all_insulted
    	and the Well,_I_guess_ignorance_is_bliss_if_you're_all_too_stupid_
    	to_realize_when_you're_being_insulted (even though HE had to do a
    	tremendous amount of research to DIG UP these insults.)

    	The fish you smell is just the bait.  ;^)
    

    No insult intended, Robert.  I certainly never found an insult in it
    when directed at me (which it quite often was :-) and I tend to do my
    insults in whatever the insultee's native language is, not much point
    to insulting someone if they don't know it's happening.  I used german
    in this case mostly because that's the language of the original and it
    sounds klutzy in translation if you don't *know* it's a translation.
    
    Trust me, I've got better things to do with my time and energy than
    toss obscure insults at you.

    	By the way, another valid way of looking at the names used in the
    	Story is to note that what is clearly defined as "love" by the
    	story-teller bears obscure, but decidedly FALSE labels of hate, 
    	etc. (bestowed, no doubt, by a civilization that finds such love 
    	so very threatening.)

    	Thus, I find the story insulting to our culture.  ;^)

Fascinating.

   I honestly did not expect responses to my entry 316.21; my assumption was
that it would only be read by the curious and that any others who would be
inclined to be angered by this discussion would, like Suzanne suggested, "avoid
being baited" -- despite the fact that it was never my intention to "bait"
anyone.

   Obviously, considering all the responses, both Suzanne and I were incorrect.
Equally obviously, I am not as "slow" as Suzanne prefers to believe; if I was,
this discussion would, indeed, have ended without my having to enter 316.20 in
the first place. 

   But if it is easier for some to believe that I am "baiting" or otherwise
trying to cause trouble, so be it. Believe what you want. I was asked questions
by a number of people, but it was suggested that others may not need/want to
"hear the answers. I tried to accomodate all by creating a "buffer" reply. That
some chose to read my reply and use it as a platform for their attempts to bash
me simply weakens their own moral position. I shall address their concerns
if/when they are ever ready to have a civilized discussion with me.

Otherwise:

Referencing 316.22 (Sharon):

   First of all, I did not find it "objectionable" for Maggie to use German. I
stated twice that I was curious, that's all. Second, I am sorry that you were
offended by some of my statements in previous entries in this discussion;
please understand that they were not directed at you. The fact is, however,
that I am as condescending to others as they are to me; I had previously (in
another Topic) been insulted and condescended to by certain noters here. Until
I feel that I can say something in this File without having people be rude,
disrespectful, and condescending to me, then I will continue to defend myself
by being rude, disrespectful, and condescending in return. For future
reference: I DO NOT direct any general statements I make at EVERYONE in this
Notesfile.  General statements I make are really directed at certain people
here, since the guidelines in this file prohibit me from properly responding to
personal attacks directed at me (such as 316.25), and I have no adequate means
of insuring that such attacks will not be performed again. So again: I am sorry
that you were offended. I truley apologize to you, and to everyone else who has
not behaved offensively towards me.

Referencing 316.23 & 316.24 (D!):

   First, I must as gently as possible suggest that you are, indeed, being
paranoid. Believe me: if I had posted this note anonymously, I would have no
reason to expose its insulting contents. To do so would be incredibly stupid;
after going through so much nonsense having to deal with people who have
accused me of attacking this Notesfile when indeed I wasn't, the last thing I
would do is deliberately attack this Notesfile, then talk about it when people
missed the insults! Such an action would only give the bashers here ammunition
to use against me in the future ("Robert Brown attacks the women here! Need
proof? Check out 316.0!"). 

   I'm sorry: I am not the person who sent Maggie the basenote. I wish I was
that subtle! If I had, I would have congratulated myself and shared a laugh or
two with certain friends of mine telling them how easy it is to mock the women
here. I would have given the information in 316.20 to anyone EXCEPT members of
this community, and you probably would have gotten it thirdhand from one of
this file's enemies while they laughed at you.

   As for your other questions: once I knew where to look the effort wasn't
that great at all. Some of my referenes were old, but that is simply because I
have been too lazy to update them. You can get the information I have easily by
going to certain bookstores -- one source of which is the New Words bookstore
in Cambridge, which contained information on ancient Goddesses whose names I
recognized (such as Ma- At, which is Maat, the Goddess of Truth and Light) in
the story. I'm also a little absent- minded; I didn't immediately recognize the
word "Hemut" because unless something is visual I usually depend on references
for memory. But like a UNIX function, the word rang a bell with me, and once I
remembered it was Egyptian all else fell into place.

   In other words, it was, indeed, obvious to me that words in ancient
languages were being used to mock this Notesfile. But I made the mistake of
assuming that the Goddess- names (like Maat) would be recognized by the women
here who have shown familiarity with (and sometimes preferences for) the
ancient goddesses and their worship. That the women who know of ancient
goddesses did not protest the entry at first angered me because I assumed that
their biases towards women (I still maintain that the author was female.
Despite Sharon's protests the politics of this notesfile make the gender of the
author important) prevented them from responding to the insult while allowing
them to attack me for even SEEMING to insult this file. That is why I reacted
the way I did. That this Notesfile's Goddess- worshippers and others who are
familiar with the ancient female deities ("the many forms of the Goddess")
would miss the mocking references to ancient goddesses and ancient matriarchal
civilizations never occurred to me. As I stated before: my assumptions were
incorrect;  otherwise I would not have said anything in the first place.

   Also: I didn't need to know the ancient languages or goddesses to recognize
the insulting contents, though I chose those references here because they left
absolutely no room for doubt that what I had to say was true. Anyone familiar
with satire (and there are, I understand, many literate noters in this
community) will recognize the sarcastic elements in the basenote. In fact,
after my initial protest I did a sanity check by directing others to the
basenote. To a person they recognized the satiric elements in the story -- I
only dug into my references afterward.

   In other words, my initial protest was related to the satiric elements in
the story; though before then I had recognized the word "Hemut", I didn't
bother to check my references. Before I entered 316.13, I was sure
that it was an insult directed against the women here, but I decided to check my
references because based on what some others were saying, I realized that I
could have been wrong. After checking my references, however, I had enough not
only to say that, indeed, it was insulting to women here -- but that it was
even more insulting than I originally thought! With that knowledge, I entered
316.13.

   And believe me: I wasn't "insistant" on discussing this. You've reread all
the replies; after my initial protest all my other replies were responses to
questions asked and statements made. As I once told Ann Broomhead (in my entry
91.80): my policy here is to give a little information initially, then expand
on it when others express interest in more information. This enables me to
"screen out" those who choose bashing over discussion, and have real
discussions with those who want them. All that I have entered in this reply
and in the previous ones are within this policy.

   And I wasn't the only one to notice that the basenote was insulting. After
my initial protest (316.2), and after other entries, I discovered that others
noticed the insulting contents of the Basenote. I simply happened to be the
only one who said anything.

   And as for what I learned: quite a lot. Some of what I learned I will not
tell you. I will, however, tell you one thing I did learn: that in this
Notesfile, once you are pegged as being  "anti- WOMANNOTES", then no matter
what you say your words will be interpreted that way. I notice, for example,
that initially I was called "slow" and was semi- condescended to because I was
thought to be protesting something that insulted me. When I made clear that it
was women being insulted, and showed how, now I am being semi- condescended to,
and even insulted, because I am supposedly "baiting" or making a big deal over
"obscure" references. I am in a no- win  scenario; no matter what I say, I'll
always be the "bad guy". This knowledge will have a great influence on my
future entries in this conference; the Frankenstein Principle applies greatly
to my relationship to this community.

Referencing 316.26 (Maggie):

   Thank you for your clarification, such as it is. If I've angered you, my
apologies. But the fact is that whatever you intended, being called "slow" is a
great insult to me when it comes from someone I respect like you. I may have
misinterpreted your intent, but I'd prefer it if you didn't say things like
that to me again -- in ANY language.

Peace, all!
                                                           -Robert Brown III

	Intresting.  I've read the parable several times,  and each time
	end up with the same meaning.  That by the end of the story, I'm
	no longer sure *who* is telling the *truth*,  and *who* is telling
	the lies & propaganda.  In fact,  it leaves me pondering the 
	exact meaning of *truth*, realizing anew that each of us have
	our own version.

	How this applies to this file & it's community?  I'm not sure.
	But the controversy is *very  intresting*.


	m

    Robert,
    
    The Cambridge, Massachusetts radical feminist organization is
    Wildly Independant Thinking Crones and Hags.  Do you think
    that it has not occured to them that "Crone", "Hag", and their
    acronym are usually considered to be terms insulting to women?
    No?  Good.
    
    Now perhaps you could try looking at the basenote in another light.
    It is written by a humble and unworthy servant, as the standard
    formula goes.  The names of the women and the agents of the
    Goddess are the usual names given to such `uppity' women by men.
    For Ma- At, substitute Minister of Enlightenment and Persuasion,
    meaning the head of the propaganda and torture department.  Try
    reading it again.  (I'll wait.)
    
    
    Well, are your feelings about it the same?  Or do you find it
    insulting to men -- or, rather, to some men?  Or do you think that
    what the story means depends on what you bring to it?  Or have
    you stopped having any opinion of it at all?  :-)
    
    							Ann B.

    	RE: .28  Robert

    	Poor Robert.

    	Did you think I meant "bait" in a bad sense?  Must have, I guess.
    	I only meant it in the sense that you seemed to want a discussion
    	and there were few "takers," so you tried a number of different ways
    	to attract attention to this topic.

    	Also, saying you're "slow on the uptake" is not the same thing as 
    	saying you're "slow."  It only means that you haven't "caught on" 
    	in spite of hints or clues.  It has nothing to do with anyone's
    	level of intelligence.

    	If you don't understand what someone means by a certain expression, 
    	it is more polite to ask them than to start launching false accusations 
    	about being bashed.

    	Meanwhile, YOU DO NOT KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THE BASENOTE WAS MEANT
    	AS AN INSULT TO WOMEN, unless you wrote it (and you say you didn't.)

    	So, your lengthy analysis of all this is completely meaningless,
    	except as opinion.

    	This is why no one seems shaken up or upset at the thought of being
    	insulted.  It's just your take on the basenote.  So what?

    	By the way, Robert, about another mistake you made in this topic...

    	When I wrote my note about "the happy ending" (that no one seemed
    	to be worried about being insulted,) you translated my words as
    	"ignorance is bliss" (meaning that the women here are ignorant in
    	this situation.)  You couldn't have been FARTHER from the real
    	meaning and intent of my note.

    	Thus, your ability to discern the meaning of notes is in serious
    	question, as far as I'm concerned, so I have even less reason to
    	accept your interpretation of the basenote than I did before.

    	However, this isn't an insult to you.  Not everyone can interpret
    	another person's words accurately, so I don't consider it insulting
    	to point out your apparent failing in this area.

    	Peace.

Chortle.

This made my evening.  I've had to wipe the tears of laughter off my
face twice.

Heh heh.  Hee hee.

D!, highly bemused

    re:.19
    
    	� Personal attack from a moderator? Interesting... �
    
    No, personal attack (if indeed that's what it was) from a noter
    who sometimes also happens to be a moderator. Note that Maggie's
    subsequent reply had "Moderator Response" at the top, whereas her
    "personal attack" didn't.
    
    re:.22
    
        � I interpret this as saying that those who don't
    	understand why this parable might be found offensive
    	are ignorant). �
    
    And that's exactly how it *should* be interpreted. Robert's use of
    "ignorance" here is not a veiled insult. "Ingorance" is not a
    synonym for "stupid". "Ignorance" simply means "lack of knowledge"
    or a state of being "unaware" or "uninformed". It's the same as
    in the phrase "Ignorance of the law is no excuse [for a criminal
    act]", which does no presuppose that the person who is ignorant
    of the law is stupid.
    
    Anyone who does not understand the allusions in the parable (and
    I count myself in thi) *is* ignorant. That's simply a statement of
    fact, not judgment.
    
    re:.31
    
    I'm in total agreement, Ann. After reading Robert's "explication
    de texte", my first reaction was, "Is *he* now missing the obvious?
    That perhaps the nomenclature was intended as *irony*?"
    
    --- jerry

    
    
    I'm one who missed a lot of the deep inner meaning of the story in .0,
    and so I didn't feel insulted by it.  I did feel insulted, however,
    by the way in which Robert insisted that we *ought* to be insulted.
    I felt that Robert took delight in having this "knowledge" that the
    rest (or many) of us didn't have, so I mostly tuned out.  I think that
    if someone cared about me and were outraged because I had been
    insulted, he wouldn't use a tone and language that hurt me more than or
    as much as the original "insult."  I think whoever wrote .0 is very
    clever, but I didn't see a direct reference to Womannotes.  I think
    the reference was to the world, which, I think, was a peaceful place 
    when nature (as personified by woman's ability to give birth) was 
    worshiped instead of the more modern gods that seem to glorify violence 
    and warfare.  It made me want to learn more about goddess-worshiping 
    cultures.  
    
    Justine

    From the following excerpts, although at one point he states he does not
    mean to tell us what to feel (in the excerpt from .19 below), it STILL 
    feels like he's rubbing our noses in it and telling us how insulted we
    should all be.  Can you see how we could feel that, despite his
    statement that he does not mean to make us feel that?
    
    -Jody
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    
from 316.2

   Whatever it may sound like, 316.0 has got to be the most insulting and 
offensive note that has ever been entered into this Notesfile.


                                                    -Robert Brown III

from 316.5

   Please trust me, Maggie: this Notesfile really has FALLEN if it has
allowed such an insulting entry to be placed here. I see your node address
on the basenote; my statements about it are not meant to reflect on you,
because I doubt if you would have allowed the basenote to be entered,
anonymously or otherwise, if you really knew what it was about.

                                                    -Robert Brown III

from 316.13

   What bothered me about the basenote is that it is, actually, an insult to 
the women of this Notesfile. It doesn't matter what it appears to talk about,
and it doesn't matter what sex the author is (though I maintain, for various
reasons, that the author must be female). The fact is that when I
translated some of the terms used in the basenote, I realized that it is an
insult to every female who participates in this Notesfile, as well as the
Notesfile itself.

                                                          -Robert Brown III

from 316.19

   Before launching into a description of how insulting the contents of the
Basenote really are, please note that at no point have I suggested that anyone
"should" be insulted about anything.


from 316.28

   Also: I didn't need to know the ancient languages or goddesses to recognize
the insulting contents, though I chose those references here because they left
absolutely no room for doubt that what I had to say was true. Anyone familiar
with satire (and there are, I understand, many literate noters in this
community) will recognize the sarcastic elements in the basenote.

 After checking my references, however, I had enough not
only to say that, indeed, it was insulting to women here -- but that it was
even more insulting than I originally thought! With that knowledge, I entered
316.13.

    
    Eric,
    
    I said how Robert's replies to this topic have made me feel, and I
    offered an opinion or two, carefully preceded with the words, "I think"
    so that everyone would know I was stating an opinion.
    
    Why don't you let Robert stick up for himself, if he feels the need to
    do that, instead of asking us to apologize to him?  
    
    Robert, the thing I do want to apologize to you for, though, is for
    referring to you in third person instead of directing my comments about
    your notes right to you.  If you'd care to respond directly to me 
    (or about me), feel free -- here or in mail.  
    
    Justine

    I'm never insulted by people who talk over my head. If someone
    wants me to be insulted they should come up in my face (and use
    short words :-) )

    
    	Considering how little concrete information we have about the intent
    	and meaning of the basenote, I think Robert has been doing a gross
    	misrepresentation of it and owes the basenote author an apology.
    

    "the case"???
    
    ahem!  and WHO, ah said, WHO made you the judge and jury?

    
    	"Case" has more than one meaning - your assumption that I meant
    	a "court case" is a gross misrepresentation of what I said.
    
    	You owe me.... Oh, never mind.  :)
    

    I found "the story" in .0 to be very tedious and boring reading.  I
    have also found many of the replies to be tedious and boring as well. 
    I guess the "the story" went way over my head because it didn't seem to
    me to be at all relevant to anything.  Obviously, there's no way that I
    could be insulted by it under these circumstances.
    
    I guess the main thing that I don't understand, Robert, is why you made
    such a big deal out of it?  Why do you even care whether somebody
    insults this conference, since my impression is that you don't think
    much of it yourself?
    
    EDP, not to speak for Justine, because she's certainly more eloquent
    than I am, but it seems to me that all she did was state the way she
    feels, and I don't think she owes Robert an apology, for the way she
    honestly *feels*?  Why should she apologize for how she *feels* about
    something?
    
    BTW, I do think notes have a "tone."
    
    Lorna
    

    
    	If I were given the option of having all cultural insults against
    	women delivered in Ancient Egyptian instead of English, I'd go for 
    	it in a hot minute.
    
    	It would be so much closer to "equality" than our society is now 
    	- what an improvement!
    
    	(Not that I think the basenote meant to be insulting to women, of
    	course.)
    

    
    	Robert said (quite specifically) that the basenote insults all the
    	women of Womannotes, and the conference itself.
    
    	The basenote didn't say a single WORD about the parable applying
    	to Womannotes, so Robert committed a gross misrepresentation of
    	it (by describing something that was NOT in the basenote in any
    	way, shape or form.)
    
    	Robert misrepresented.  This is an undeniable fact.
    

    
    OK, Eric.  I believe I understand your point, but I have decided
    to stand by my opinions as I stated them.  If you would like to talk
    more about this with me, let's take it to MAIL.
    
    Justine

         I actually went back and re-read the base note and thought
         about it quite a bit.  What follows is my thought process and
         how *I* feel about the basenote.


         If I apply the story as a reflection on the world today then
         I, as a woman, am actually offended by the stereotype it
         portrays of women.

         I do not feel that I, by virtue of being a woman, am
         blameless in the quest for equality.  I feel that in certain
	 cases the oppressed are guilty (maybe not AS guilty, but still
         guilty) of allowing themselves to be oppressed....for not
         fighting, for allowing such oppressive thoughts to ever take
         root.

         My interpretation of the basenote portrays "women" to be
         totally blameless in seeking their "peace" from oppression. 
         However, it never addresses why they had to seek that peace
	 to begin with.

         Basically, I feel that if women had never "allowed"
         themselves to be oppressed to begin with, we wouldn't be
         where we are today.  Remember, please, that I will never
         condone the oppression of women, I will NEVER say that I feel
         men are blameless in this.

         I feel that while a very large percent of the blame goes on
         "the man's" shoulders, I will always feel that a certain
         amount of blame resides with the "woman" as well.  Women have
	 not "become strong" in the last century, they always had that
	 strength within them, but rather chose not to use it.

         So, basically what I guess I'm saying is that I don't
         appreciate being portrayed as blameless in anything because
         that makes me feel that I have no power over any situation
         which I find myself in.

	 Maybe my view is much to "simplistic" as well....I don't
	 know (but I'm sure I'll get shit for voicing it).

	 k
	 

    
    

    Kath,
    
    When I read the first few paragraphs or your reply, I did feel
    angry.  And I didn't want to "give you sh*t," but I did want to
    disagree strongly, but in a way that would be respectful of you.
    
    Then I read this part:
    
    >     So, basically what I guess I'm saying is that I don't
    >     appreciate being portrayed as blameless in anything because
    >     that makes me feel that I have no power over any situation
    >     which I find myself in.

     
    This is something I can understand.  I think there comes a point where
    taking some responsibility is a way of moving past the pain of
    oppression and victimization.  So I'm uncomfortable with the idea
    of women being somehow to blame for their own oppression, but I agree
    that taking responsibility is a good way to become empowered.  For
    example, I think of survivors of rape and incest who have learned to
    defend themselves or battered wives who go back to school and start
    a new career.  This is not self-blame, but it does require focusing
    on yourself instead of on the oppressor.  
    
    Justine	 

    	Robert's suggestions about the basenote did not (in fact) appear
    	in the basenote.  They were mere "guesses" about the meaning and
    	intent of a note he did not write.
    
    	Robert made claims about the basenote that were not stated in
    	the basenote.
    
    	He clearly misrepresented, per your original definition, edp.  
    
    	Let's agree to disagree on this, though, since I doubt we have
    	the life spans to survive the decades it would take for either
    	of us to convince the other of these points of view.
    

    There is, of course, the problem fomented by the language, English.
    
    "I think" and "I feel" are often construed as meaning the same
    thing.  However, if I were to say "I feel the Copenhagen
    Interpretation of Quantum is correct.", I would be expected
    to back my "feeling" -- actually meaning my carefully thought
    out line of reasoning with mathematical backing -- with facts.
    Equally, if I were to say, "I think _Dahlgren_ is a great book.",
    I would expect to hear back, "Well, that's your opinion, and I
    suppose you're entitled to it."  (For the record, I know too little
    about either subject to make any statements about them.)
    
    The trap of equating the validity of emotion-triggered "feeling" <A>
    with the validity of chain-of-thought-summary "feeling" <B> is an
    easy one to fall into.  I'm sure I've done it myself.
    
    						Ann B.

    
    	RE: .57  edp
    
    	Reply .39 made a case for the idea that Robert was "insisting"
    	that women should be insulted.
    
    	This is beside the point, though.
    
    	Robert made unsupportable claims about the basenote (adding
    	material that was NOT PRESENT in the basenote.)
    
    	Robert misrepresented.
    
    	Now, let's drop it.  If you live to be 1000 years old, you'll
    	never find an argument that will convince me of something I
    	know to be false.  Let it rest.
    

    	Robert made no case whatsoever about why we should assume that
    	the parable was written to apply to Womannotes instead of our
    	society at large, so it simply isn't possible to insist that
    	this claim was supported.
    
    	The basenote itself did not say the parable applied to =wn=
    	and in the absence of any evidence or argument in support of
    	the idea that the parable *is* about =wn=, his claim amounts
    	to misrepresentation.
    
    	However, we obviously agree to disagree, so I guess we'll have
    	to be satisfied with an impasse.
    
    	See ya 'round.

    Suzanne and edp I would like to request that the two of you agree
    that you disagree and drop the subject or else take the discussion
    to mail.
    
    Thankyou
    
    Bonnie J
    =wn= comod

	re: 316.52  (Kathy Gallup)

  >  So, basically what I guess I'm saying is that I don't
  >  appreciate being portrayed as blameless in anything because
  >  that makes me feel that I have no power over any situation
  >  which I find myself in.

	Wow, Kathy.    That says a lot.

	I think I have to read if over a few more times to
	really understand _what_.  

	Did you see Harrison Ford's latest, "Presumed Innocent"?

	You know how in the ending where


	YES, THIS IS A BIG SPOILER COMING UP!!



	he removes _all_ responsibility from his wife for killing
	the detective and kind of accepts it himself?  I thought that
	was a really sexist thing to do, but I couldn't really
	decide why.    

	Like you said above, he was essentially removing all 
	responsibility / power etc., from her with that statement...
	hmmmm.
						nancy b.

			

    re .63, I think that Kathy's statement, if carried to the extreme,
    becomes dangerous, especially taken out of context as Nancy has.  If I
    read it at surface value I could assume that children who are sexually
    abused are not blameless, that women who are raped at knife or gunpoint
    are not blameless, that women who beaten by their husbands are not
    blameless, that gays who are beaten up by straight men are not
    blameless, that blacks who are lynched by the KKK are not blameless,
    that people stabbed to death by gangs in the NYC subway are not
    blameless....and on and on.  It completely does away with the concept
    of someone being a victim of the violent actions of others.  I think
    that the scary fact is that there are times in our lives when we do not
    have any power over the situations we find ourselves in.  I don't have
    anything against self-defense or positive thinking, but when carried to
    the extreme it becomes ridiculous.
    
    Lorna
    

    	RE: .64  Lorna

    	> I think that the scary fact is that there are times in our lives 
    	> when we do not have any power over the situations we find ourselves 
    	> in.  

    	True.  Kath made a point about how being "blameless" seemed to imply
    	to her that she would have no power in any situation in her life
    	(or some such.)

    	Her feelings are valid for her, of course, but I'm having trouble
    	seeing the connection between blame in one situation and presence
    	of power in all other situations.  

    	Even the most "powerful" person on Earth can be over-powered in a
    	moment.  Presidents of the United States have been shot, for example
    	- does this mean that no future Presidents will ever have power in
    	any situation?

    	As human beings, we're all capable of being put in situations where
    	we are the targets of abuse/murder/robbery/etc.  Admitting that we
    	were caught in a powerless moment (or, in the cases of women and
    	some minorities, a powerless few hundreds or thousands of years)
    	doesn't mean we can never have any power in any situation (ever).

    Could someone start a new topic for power/blame/control/etc please if
    you're going to continue to discuss it?  I think it has a lot of
    potential for discussion and has grown beyond the basenote here...
    
    thanks...
    
    -Jody
    

	Lorna.

	My statement wasn't meant to be taken to the extreme.

	It's meant to reference cases where, indeed we can be at
	blame for not remedying an unsavory situation.  As a woman I can
	choose to be oppressed by men, or I can choose to stand up for
	what I believe in....I have "choice" in many situations where I've
	been the victim.

	I feel there are many cases where people are victimized continually
	because they did not choose to get out of the situation causing
	them to be victims.

	However, this is only a subset of all victimization cases.  The
	statement was NEVER meant to be generalized to all cases.


	kathy

This discussion continues to be both fascinating and illuminating.

It is quite a learning experience.

First, some direct replies:

Referencing 316.31 (Ann):

   While terms like "crone" and "hag" are indeed used as insults in our
culture, their original usage was to describe female, old, and WISE teachers.
There is a growing amount of feminist religious/philosophical literature that
is bringing back their original meanings; consequently it is not suprising that
a group of radical feminists would call themselves "crones" or "hags". In so
doing they would be going back to the original meanings of these terms, which
as I've indicated are not really insulting at all.

   Of all the replies entered since my last one, I find yours the most
difficult to comprehend. What exactly is your point? That the names, etc. were
intended to reflect the bad names given "uppity" women by men, and are thus
intended to be a kind of left- handed sarcasm directed at (chauvanistic) men?
Yes, I guess that is possible.  Highly unlikely, though. As I stated in my
previous entry, the names were not the only elements in the basenote that
pointed to its insulting nature. The story is full of archetypical elements of
satire which even someone who has only read Jonathan Swift can recognize! Not
to mention the basic theme of the oppressed becoming the oppressors that is
woven throughout the story.

   In other words, your logic does not hold. Your idea is a good one, but my
interpretation is better supported by the actual text and tone of the story
than yours is.

   My "feelings" (actually they are observations) concerning the basenote have
not changed. If you look only at the names being used and take them out of
context, then you can, indeed, ascribe any interpretation you desire. But as I
stated in my previous entry 316.28, the translation of the names is not the
only element of the story which led me to call it insulting.

   I am, however, certain that you will present other arguments that support
your alternative interpretation. I am very interested in reading them.

Referencing 316.46 (Lorna):

  Interesting entry. My only reply to it is to tell you that your impression is
incorrect.

Referencing 316.52 ("k"):

   I particularly liked your entry. You have expressed a theme that I once
discussed back in Version 2. As I recall, I was "beaten on" for suggesting the
things you suggested in your entry. That particular entry was the last of the
"peaceful" entries I made; the beating I took after entering it was the final
straw that caused me to reevaluate my style of noting, and is a major reason
why I approached this and other Topics in the (obviously unpopular) manner that
I have.

   That your presentation here has met with minimal resistance demonstrates
much, but it is also very heartening to me that someone else has independently
realized certain things that I have.
______________________________________________________________________________

   The rest of the replies are interesting. Unfortunately I do not consider
most of them really significant arguments against my interpretation of the
basenote. In fact, after 316.31, nothing of importance is said about my entry
316.28 until Jerry's entry 316.36.

   I sincerely doubt that most of those replying to this Topic have really read
my replies through, because most of the responses betray a singular lack of
knowledge about certain things that I've said. Even 316.39, in its redisplaying
of certain of my statements (many taken out of context) displays this lack of
knowledge by including a number of statements which actually contradict Jody's
beliefs concerning my overall attitude. That certain others can point to 316.39
as "proof" that I was telling women here that they "should" be insulted is
illogical. The only thing that 316.39 "proves" is that at least one woman in
this Notesfile (well, actually at least two) chose to be insulted by the way my
message was delivered. It certainly does not adequately validate the
accusations directed against me.

   The only person who appears to really know all that I've said in this Topic
is EDP.  Unfortunately, since EDP is so unpopular in this Notesfile, I am
assured that the fact that he has demonstrated this knowledge will ensure that
no one else will bother to look more closely at my replies or consider the
possibility that maybe their accusations are wrong.

   The emphasis on how my notes made certain people "feel" is interesting, but
this is, in my opinion, impertinant to the topic under discussion. I presented
my arguments logically and based them on certain facts. The only thing that can
invalidate my interpretation is "better" logic and facts which neutralize mine.
That so many have chosen to attack the way I presented my facts, instead of the
facts themselves, simply tells me that they are unable to adequately dispute
the facts that I have presented.

   With the exception of Ann Broomhead, no one has presented any real
alternative interpretation of the basenote. And even Ann's arguments do not
explain all the elements of the "story" (Yet! I suspect that Ann will improve
her arguments and offer a viable alternative interpretation). That certain
people simply choose not to accept my interpretation of the basenote is
insufficient reason to say that my "misrepresentation" of the basenote is an
"undeniable fact". I see such statements, entered without a complete
understanding of how I arrived at my interpretation in the first place (despite
my enumeration of the thought processes I followed to arrive at my
interpretation at least twice), as being an attempt to invalidate my arguments
made by people who know that they have little or nothing that can really
dispute or disprove those arguments.

   In other words, my interpretation is correct, and most of you know it is.
Many would prefer me to be wrong because they didn't like the way I made my
case, but the fact is that I did make it most effectively. The rest is, as a
friend of mine used to say, "just wrapping paper".

                                                        -Robert Brown III

re: .69
                <<< MOMCAT::PIGGY:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;3 >>>
    
>  The rest of the replies are interesting. Unfortunately I do not consider
>mst of them really significant arguments against my interpretation of the
>asenote. In fact, after 316.31, nothing of importance is said about my entry
>16.28 until Jerry's entry 316.36.

    Perhaps they are not meant to be arguments - perhaps they are merely
    alternate ways of looking at it.  And what you judge to be unimportant
    others may feel have equal validity, as notes go, to your own.  Why
    must they be arguments rather than alternative viewpoints?  And if they
    are "merely" alternative viewpoints, is that what gives them little
    importance to you?
    
    
>  I sincerely doubt that most of those replying to this Topic have really read
>y replies through, because most of the responses betray a singular lack of
>nowledge about certain things that I've said. Even 316.39, in its redisplaying

    Why do responses which don't necessarily hold what you expect or intend
    betray a "singular lack of knowledge"  - perhaps people don't want to
    look at this discussion as seriously as you do, or do not wish to
    belabor points as you would like them to.  Of course, it has been
    proven many of us DO lack certain knowledge, otherwise your
    interpretation would not have had to be spelled out in so step-by-step
    a fashion...
    
>  The emphasis on how my notes made certain people "feel" is interesting, but
>his is, in my opinion, impertinant to the topic under discussion. I presented
>y arguments logically and based them on certain facts. The only thing that can
>nvalidate my interpretation is "better" logic and facts which neutralize mine.
>hat so many have chosen to attack the way I presented my facts, instead of the
>acts themselves, simply tells me that they are unable to adequately dispute
>he facts that I have presented.

    Perhaps nobody wants to invalidate your interpretation - I concur your
    interpretation is valid but it may not be correct (as the basenoter
    offered no couching statemenets to their note).  Perhaps nobody WANTS
    to neutralize your statement, and they choose for themselves whether to
    buy into it or not.  I didn't attack how you presented your facts, I
    stated how they made me feel.  I have no intention of disputing your
    so-called "facts", but I continue to believe that the tale is much like
    the Kate Forrester novel "Daughters of a Coral Dawn".  That is MY
    theory.  Which is Mine.  Ahem.  
    
>  In other words, my interpretation is correct, and most of you know it is.
>any would prefer me to be wrong because they didn't like the way I made my
>ase, but the fact is that I did make it most effectively. The rest is, as a
>riend of mine used to say, "just wrapping paper".
    
    
    Until you are aware of the original intent of the basenote author, you
    can not know your interpretation is right.  Such is the way of people
    analyzing poetry by authors long dead - so many state so clearly,
    "well, Emily Dickinson obviously meant this" when indeed she may not
    have.  I would neither prefer you be right nor wrong, but I have a
    perfectly valid opinion that I still think is the initial intent of the
    writing, that is not exactly like yours, which I still hold to.  Facts
    and logic hold no charm for me, nor do the tactics you choose to use
    that since you've done all this research, research makes you right.  It
    could be a parable about butterflies on Mars for all you actually know. 
    Unless, of course, you wrote it.
    
    -Jody

    	After all these replies, there still doesn't still to be much
    	point to this discussion.

    	The question seems to be whether or not the basenote is insulting.
    	Well, quite frankly, who cares whether it is or not???

    	We've been insulted in English so many times already - are any of
    	us supposed to sweat out whether or not we've now (also) been
    	insulted in Ancient Egyptian?  Even if it were true (and I seriously
    	doubt that it is,) why would this be worse than the insults we've
    	already received in English?

    	Hell, some of the stereotypes about Womannoters in the replies to
    	this topic are worse than the alleged insults in the basenote -
    	so why is the basenote such a big deal?

    	Second, we don't even KNOW who the basenote author is - so even
    	if the basenote was meant in an insulting way, it doesn't alter
    	our individual perspectives of the "truth" about what happens in
    	this conference.  

    	By the way, if the basenote *IS* critical of Womannotes, then
    	whoever regards it as an "INSULT" to us must necessarily be
    	acknowledging the unfairness of the alleged accusations.

    	So, even if we all were to AGREE that the basenote is insulting,
    	all we would be saying is that we accept that an UNFAIR set of
    	accusations has been launched against most of us.

    	The bottom line is - WHO CARES?

    RE: - 1
    
    Perhaps *you* don't care Suzanne ( but the amount of your
    replies suggests otherwise), however, your desire not
    to pursue the subject matter shouldn't interfere with others
    who are seeking to discuss and learn.  My impression is that
    you are trying to invalidate Robert's desire to pursue this
    simply because it holds no interest for you.
    
    Further, how can you state, as fact, that Robert misrepresented
    the basenote.  I think it was you who said that unless Robert
    actually entered the note, he really can't lay claim to knowing
    the motivations behind the entering of the note.  If such is the
    case, they you can not accurately accuse him of misrepresentation
    unless you were the author.  Robert did enter a note where by he
    presented his researched facts and applied it to the basenote in
    order to provide an interpretation for discussion.  Robert did
    ask for alternative viewpoints, but I felt that most of the 
    replies attacked Robert not based on his facts, but for having 
    them and wanting to have a discussion about them.  So, please,
    explain again where Robert misrepresented the basenote.  It's
    presumptuous on your part to completely dismiss his thoughts on
    this subject as you seemingly don't have anything pertinent to
    add to the discussion.
    
    Robert-
    
    I think your views on this are very interesting.  I must admit,
    I did not get through the entire note, because I became disgusted
    with it very early on.  For reasons of my own, I did indeed find
    it very insulting and I really don't care to share my reasons.  I
    only wanted to let Robert know he wasn't alone.
    
    Kath-
    
    Thanks for adding the comments about blame/blamelessness.  I have 
    found many situations in which one could have kept from being
    oppressed by taking a stand.  Also, I did not think that you
    intended your comment to be all-inclusive.  I find your notes
    to be well thought out and intelligent (even if not always in
    agreement).  I also didn't feel that you regarded "blame" as,
    "ok, I'm scum and deserved the horrible treatment I got", but
    rather "ok, what can I learn about my own behaviours and actions
    so that I may not find myself in this position again".  I could
    be wrong, please feel free to disagree.  Again, thank you for
    entering a viewpoint which I feel has a lot of merit.
    
    Christine
    

    	RE: .72  Christine

    	> ...your desire not to pursue the subject matter shouldn't 
    	> interfere with others who are seeking to discuss and learn. 

    	The suggestion of alleged hidden meanings (insults) in the 
    	names is a rathole at best, and I'm certainly not the first 
    	person in the history of notes to suggest that unproductive 
    	ratholes can be, well, unproductive.

    	Further, what is actually being discussed?  Robert says he
    	is dead right and we know it.  Most of us say this isn't
    	at all true.  In other words, we've reached an impasse.

    	When it comes down to it, does it really matter whether the
    	parable was meant to insult us or not?  Regardless, we'll
    	each take it the way we want, so why argue about HOW we 
    	should take it?

    	> Further, how can you state, as fact, that Robert misrepresented
    	> the basenote. 

    	"Misrepresentation" was defined in this topic, and Robert satisfied
    	the requirements.  He states things that were not written in the
    	basenote (such as, definitively asserting that the parable applies
    	to Womannotes when the basenote author said no such thing.)  Per
    	the definition of misrepresentation in this topic, he committed it.

    	> Robert did ask for alternative viewpoints, but I felt that most 
    	> of the replies attacked Robert not based on his facts, but for 
    	> having them and wanting to have a discussion about them.  

    	No one attacked Robert!  He thought this happened, but it's already
    	been shown that he was mistaken, so don't make false statements
    	about this.

    	> So, please, explain again where Robert misrepresented the basenote. 
    	> It's presumptuous on your part to completely dismiss his thoughts on
    	> this subject as you seemingly don't have anything pertinent to
    	> add to the discussion.

    	I haven't dismissed his thoughts.  He can think anything he wants
    	about this.  However, he has no right to claim or suggest that
    	all or most of us agree with him (or should agree with him) when
    	it's obvious that this isn't true.

    	By the way, with regard to the alleged hidden insults in the
    	names used in the basenote, did anyone else notice that the
    	words supposedly come from not ONE Ancient language, but TWO:
    	Ancient Egyptian and Ancient Hebrew, per earlier notes.

    	Further, the names are "BAD" Ancient Egyptian and "BAD" Ancient
    	Hebrew, per Robert.

    	If someone went to the trouble of trying to insult us in two
    	Ancient languages, I have a hard time believing they'd be
    	careless enough or would choose to use these words badly.  It
    	would be like creating a sloppy nuclear missile.  ;^)

    	It leaves some questions that can't possibly answered by anyone
    	except the basenote author, that's for sure.

    In reply .69, Robert Brown spoke of "the basic theme of the oppressed
    becoming the oppressors that is woven throughout the story."

    I have gone through the basenote, and culled out phrases and
    sentences which describe the deeds of the various groups described.
    With one exception (marked with quotes, so you can't miss it), I
    have ignored all the quotes, on the grounds that those are hearsay
    claims and are therefore not admissable.  The conclusion as to
    whether or not Robert has misrepresented the basenote is left to
    the reader.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Deeds of men and of the Resh	Deeds of the Hem    

    The men of the other lands ...	...[T]he People fled from persecution.
    did torture and persecute the
    People...				...some of the Priestesses built
    					temples....
    saying: " ... Let us subdue them. 
    Let us beat them with whips...."	Others claimed groves and lakes
    					for their worship.
    ...[T]he Reth call[ed] the
    Priestesses liars and witches.	...[T]he Priestesses told the real
    					history of the People.
    They brought ... books full of
    evil and forbidden words.		They taught the People....

    They defiled the temples and	Those with sin and violence in their
    groves.				hearts were made to go far from
    					the Land.
    They attacked the groves and
    clearings.				... They became deaf to the
    					heresies of the Reth.
    They burned the temples.
    					These warriors ... scattered the
    ...[T]heir god ... gave them	armies of the Reth to the corners of
    machines and weapons which they	the World.
    used against the Tagiriron.
    					...[They fought] the Reth...

    					...[They overturned] the blasphemies....

    							Ann B.

    P.S.  I should note that I have never met an author (and I've met and
    talked with a lot) who said that anyone else ever represented her or his
    writings 100% correctly.

    
    
    Actually, nothing much about the basenote is being discussed
    because (IMHO) most of the attention his being directed at Robert in
    a negative manner and implying that he has a hidden agenda in
    wanting to discuss his thoughts.  I'm sure he'd be willing to
    discuss other viewpoints, however as he pointed out, Ann was
    really the only one who offered a differing view, to which he
    did respond.   Yes, Robert did state he was right, but that was
    quite late in this string and although I really can't speak for
    Robert, I felt he was getting frustrated with all the notes about
    "who cares what you think" and "you wrote the note" and "so and so
    should apologize for such and such" and the like, which only 
    detracted from the discussion he was attempting to start.  Perhaps
    as some have indicated, he was persistant in wanting to discuss this
    because it obviously interested him.  Maybe nobody wants to discuss
    it, but please, don't negate his desire in wanting to do so.  Tell me
    you've never been persistant when something interested you.....
    
    Again, Robert is not arguing about how readers should take the note.
    He offered his thoughts and presented an arguement which was supportive
    of his thoughts and waited for further discussion.  Instead, he got a 
    lot of rhetoric about how he shouldn't tell women they should be 
    offended.  Robert did not state that we should be offended, and he
    explained why he was surprised nobody was.  He was stating his own
    opinions, but I forgot how necessary disclaimers are for certain
    participants here.
    
    I think Robert was attacked, you say he wasn't.  Don't accuse me of
    making false statements when I am entitled to my opinion and in
    MY opinion, he was attacked, maybe not viciously but I think he was
    put down nevertheless.  It is your opinion that Robert wasn't attacked-
    but that doesn't make it fact.  So, you stop creating facts from what
    have been responses to Robert's notes.

    	RE: .76  Christine

    	It's funny how you didn't mention Robert's attacks against
    	the conference (which started back in his first reply to
    	this topic.)

    	.2> I find it amazing that a Moderator allowed it to be placed 
    	.2> in here at all, not to mention actually entering it for someone. 
    	.2> It says a lot about the state to which this file has fallen.

    	He characterizes the whole file by this one parable (which, by
    	definition, can be interpreted any number of ways.)

    	.5> Please trust me, Maggie: this Notesfile really has FALLEN if it 
    	.5> has allowed such an insulting entry to be placed here. I see your 
    	.5> node address on the basenote; my statements about it are not meant 
    	.5> to reflect on you, because I doubt if you would have allowed the 
    	.5> basenote to be entered, anonymously or otherwise, if you really 
    	.5> knew what it was about. 

    	Pretty condescending tone to Maggie, wouldn't you say?  She's
    	fluent in more languages than anyone I know.  
    
    	Meanwhile, he continues to characterize the whole conference in a
    	very negative way for this one note, in spite of the fact that he 
    	also thinks some/many of us don't know what it means.

    	.5> The offensiveness of this entry -- and the biases that this entry 
	.5> exposes-- are fascinating!

    	If we don't understand the real meaning of the topic (and he does,)
    	then what biases are being exposed by the fact that he's the only
    	one who has protested it (at that point)?

    	Meanwhile, the stereotypes and offensive comments about Womannotes
    	go on, even though no one appears to be disagreeing with him yet!

    	THEN, he seems very pleased with the responses so far, but look
    	at the backhanded compliment he offers for them:

    	.13> I am truley impressed. Does this mean that I can engage in an 
    	.13> intelligent discussion this time? I hope so.

    	Then, he explains that he really feels that the basenote (as a
    	history of Womannotes) is insulting to EVERY SINGLE FEMALE IN
    	THIS CONFERENCE:

    	.13> The fact is that when I translated some of the terms used in 
    	.13> the basenote, I realized that it is an insult to every female 
    	.13> who participates in this Notesfile, as well as the Notesfile 
    	.13> itself.

    	Why EVERY WOMAN who participates here, even though some of the
    	women here typically go AGAINST the mainstream in the conference
    	at every available opportunity?  Why would these women be included
    	in the insult (while the feminist MEN here are not, although they
    	DO support the mainstream!)

    	Remember, this is back before most of us came anywhere CLOSE to
    	the topic, yet he's already attacking us - and for what??  Our
    	silent response to the basenote?

    	It seems to me that most of us ignored his insults for quite
    	awhile before finally showing some (understandable) annoyance.
    
    	Myself, I was very quiet, until he took MY WORDS and turned 
    	them against the file (misrepresenting my note.)
    
    	If he didn't want a negative response to his ideas, he shouldn't
    	have written them in such an offensive, negative way.  It isn't
    	fair to claim (now) that we're picking on him.
    
    	Believe me, I think most of us made valiant attempts to ignore
    	his negative remarks.  Perhaps we simply need to try harder
    	to ignore his notes next time - I'll agree to this much.

    Suzanne,
    
    First of all, thank you for rephrasing the last note.  The last line
    of the original .77 would have caused a more knee jerk response.
    
    I never really took Robert's remarks (as you outline them) to be
    negative to the conference, but I will look at it again.  I'm not
    convinced his intent was to malign or insult, but I can see what 
    you mean about being a bit abrasive.  I apologize for ignoring or
    missing it earlier.
    
    There are other points I'm sure we'll never agree with, but we can
    agree to disagree (I hope)
    
    Thanks.
    
    Christine

    	RE: .78 Christine

    	Thanks, I'm calmer now myself (after 4 tries at .77).  ;^)

    	I appreciate your seeing the earlier notes in a new light
    	(and recognizing the abrasive tones Robert used so early
    	in the topic.)

    	As to other points, it's fine for us to agree to disagree.

    	In fact, when it comes to interpreting parables, it's really the 
    	only course open.

    	Thanks again!

	Suzanne.

	*WHY* do you think the basenote author entered the note to
	begin with?


	Frankly, I think, as this discussion progresses, I'm becoming
	more and more aware of WHY it was entered.  Intriguing!


	kath

    re the parable - i kind of liked it.  there is a part of me that enjoys
    such fantasies.  but i get plenty of them (longer and easier to read on
    my own time) in my trashy sf.  trashy sf can be anti-male or
    anti-female, but must be pretty extreme before i find it insulting.
    
    re robert's original comments - i found them offensive, probably for
    irrational reasons.  i would strongly prefer a different "tone of note"
    from robert (not just in this topic or conference), because it is
    simply too difficult for me to be reasonable when it feels like someone
    is condescending.  not to single robert out, though: i feel the same
    about many wo/men.
    
    re robert's interpretation - interesting.  if i had time, and thought
    .0 was worth *any* effort, i would do a bit of research to confirm/deny
    his analysis (as i am not a trusting soul).  but .0 is a piece of fluff
    (sorry, anonymous writer; it's *nice* fluff, but fluff nevertheless,
    imho), similar to my trashy sf readings.  and like trashy sf, it would
    have to be MUCH more extreme in its bigotry before it became
    unenjoyable for me.
    
    lee

    
       	RE: .80  Kath
    
    	> *WHY* do you think the basenote author entered the note to
	> begin with?
    
    	Assuming motives of another person, Kath??  
    
    	> Frankly, I think, as this discussion progresses, I'm becoming
	> more and more aware of WHY it was entered.  Intriguing!
    
    	One's own creative assumptions are bound to be more interesting
    	than what's really happening, I grant you.
    

    
       	RE: .84  Suzanne
    
>    	> *WHY* do you think the basenote author entered the note to
>	> begin with?
>    
>    	Assuming motives of another person, Kath??  


    I ASS-U-ME nothing, Suzanne.  I'm merely asking you to ponder WHY
    you FEEL the basenoter entered the topic in the first place.  I'm not
    asking you to attribute anything to the basenoter, just to
    simply sit back and ponder why you think it might have been
    entered in the first place.

    BTW, it's a rhetorical question.  One meant only for inner thought.

>    	One's own creative assumptions are bound to be more interesting
>    	than what's really happening, I grant you.

    Or maybe not.  But it might tell you something about yourself.


  kathy  

   Well, shoot.  I think the basenoter entered the note to see what sort
   (and quantity) of response it would elicit, and how it would be judged
   by whom, and in what context.

    
    If I wrote a coded story that contained insults to women and whose main
    purpose was to insult the women of womannotes, and if that story got
    little or no attention, I'd sure be disappointed.  But if someone
    took up the flag and got folks to talk about my story for some 86 replies, 
    I'd sure be pleased.
    
    Justine

    	RE: .85  Kath

    	> I ASS-U-ME nothing, Suzanne.  I'm merely asking you to ponder WHY
    	> you FEEL the basenoter entered the topic in the first place. 

    	Oh, really?

    	Then what was this all about, if you weren't making some
    	assumptions:

    	.80> Frankly, I think, as this discussion progresses, I'm becoming
	.80> more and more aware of WHY it was entered.  Intriguing!

    	Do you think you know something we don't know about the motives
    	of the basenoter, or not?

>       <<< Note 316.88 by CSC32::CONLON "Cosmic laughter, indeed...." >>>


	Suzanne, your incessant arguing of semantics is really starting
	to piss me off.  I am NOT a grammar school teacher, forgive me
	for chosing another profession.

	
>    	.80> Frankly, I think, as this discussion progresses, I'm becoming
>	.80> more and more aware of WHY it was entered.  Intriguing!


	Allow me to RE-POSITION the words "I think" in that sentence, after
	all, it still means the same thing.


		"Frankly, as this discussion progresses, I'm
		becoming more and more aware of WHY I think
		it was entered. Intriguing!"



	kathy

    
    	RE: .89  Kath
    
    	Sorry, but "why I think [a note] was entered" still amounts to
    	making assumptions about someone else's motives.
    
    	You don't need to be a grammar school teacher to know this.
    

    
    One possible motive for entering/championing the base note *IMO*:
    
    To see if, after all that fuss a few weeks back( and all those "lists" of 
    people who would "ignore" or "refuse to be goaded" by various styles
    etc etc), the people of this conference would still resort to
    "debating" an issue by bitching at each other about other (or even related)
    subjects rather than calmly discussing the issue.   
    
    The finding? 
    Yes, they still respond like that.
    
    How tedious.
    
    

    	RE: .91  

    	Along those lines, a possible motive would be to see if women
    	could be made to feel guilty if we were silent about the basenote,
    	then (in turn) made to feel guilty if we then discussed it.

    	We're great targets for guilt trips coming and going, it seems,
    	so silence isn't the total answer, either.

    	Personally, I still don't think the basenote author had any bad
    	intentions at all, though.  I think it was a parable, pure and
    	simple.

    	We found out that silence can be attacked as a statement, too,
    	which is good to know.

    
       > a possible motive would be to see if women
       >could be made to feel guilty if we were silent about the basenote,
       >then (in turn) made to feel guilty if we then discussed it.
        
    Possibly.
    My own belief is that no-one can be *made* to feel guilty about
    anything.
    I do not choose to respond to anyone else's input in this string
    by feeling guilty. We all have this power of choice.                  

       >We found out that silence can be attacked as a statement, too,
     
    Interesting watching someone work themselves into a frenzy over,
    literally, nothing...isn't it?
    ^^^^^^^^^
    'gail
    
    
    
    

    
    	RE: .93
    
    	Quite right.  No one can be "made" to feel guilty, so when others
    	try by making snide remarks about the way women respond in this
    	file, why listen?  We can respond any damn way we want.
    
    	Yes, I do think it's amazing to see someone build a whole crisis
    	out of our silence (but it's been done before.)  ;^)
    

re: .0:

I dunno, was I just the only one who didn't get the joke, or what.
.0 seemed perfectly clear to me when I first read it, and my subsequent
readings haven't changed a bit -- it looks like an obvious re-telling
of the history of Womannotes from the point of view that says Womannotes
was intended to be a safe place where women could discuss whatever they
wanted to discuss -- and where men were unwelcome.

The rest of this is a line-by-line analysis of a few paragraphs -- feel
free to skip it.  (Also, the moderators should feel free to set this hidden
if I'm giving away the punch-line.)

Martin.

ps: It's just my interpretation of the text.  The concepts, such as the truth,
if any, of the claims made by my interpretation, are best argued elsewhere.
In particular, you should be very cautious in assuming that I believe that
my interpretation of this parable actually represents my thoughts about
Womannotes.


    The following story follows a very old tradition. Its message speaks to
    all of us here.

The "old tradition" is the use of parable/metaphor.  The "message" is
the ever-popular "what is the purpose of Womannotes."  I've cut out some
of the following -- marked by ...

    1. In the beginning, the Land was green and good.

Before "Eden" and the forbidden fruit.

    ...
    3. ...The men of the other lands closed their eyes to
    Her message of love and peace, and did torture and persecute the
    People, saying:

Men "torture and persecute" women.

    4. "They are prideful and arrogant, ... Let us beat them with whips. Let us
    remind them of what they should be."

Uppity feminists.

    5. And so the People fled from persecution and came to the Land. ...

Women create "safe space" (aka Womannotes).

    They built homes in the land and grew content, forgetting their
    history and their heritage.

Ignoring the outside (non-Womannotes/non-safe space) world.

    ...
    7. And some of the Priestesses built temples to worship the different
    forms of the Great One. Others claimed groves and lakes for their
    worship.

Discussions within Womannotes.

    8. And in all the temples, forests, and lakes the Priestesses told the
    real history  of the People.

More discussion, more safe-space.

    10. But there came blasphemers from the other lands, who did threaten
    the peace of Hemutlund. They saw the beauty and the bounty of our land,
    and their hearts grew cold with envy. They were the Reth, the sowers of
    discord and strife.

    11. And the Reth spoke against the Great One and the True Word, calling
    the Priestesses liars and witches.

Non politically-correct visitors.

    12. They brought with them books full of evil and forbidden words. And
    these books were full of untruths about the People and their history. 

The s0-called "real history" of feminism.

    13. Their priests were the fathers of lies and heresies. They defiled
    the temples and groves where the Great One was worshipped. They mocked
    the words of the Priestesses, saying:

Here, I'm confused.  If it were "mothers of lies" one could say that this
was a schism among the women, but "fathers of lies" suggests either that
men (who worship men) have invaded Womanspace, or that there are renegade
women who (still) worship men.  The latter seems to make most sense.

    14. "You People have had power throughout the history of the World, yet
    you cry so much about how you are always persecuted and powerless! ...

Whining feminists attacking non-pc women.

    15. "You are as sheep, led around under the yoke of your Priestesses!

Feminists led astray by NOW.

    16. And the Reth did fight the Priestesses of Hemutlund.

Non-pc women sowing discord in Womannotes.

    17. The Priestesses cried out to the Great One, pleading for vengeance
    against the defilers of Her temples. Their laments and cries rose up
    throughout the Land.

???  Desire for FWO notes, perhaps?

    18. The Goddess Aurphel'a heard Her daughters and came upon the Land ...

    19. Ajbah rose from the earth like a great Mother, giving birth to
    daughters who became terrible warriors. These warriors, who were the
    Tagiriron, scattered the armies of the Reth to the corners of the
    World.

Womanspace saved by the glass-chewing feminists's attacks on non-pc
interlopers.

    20. And the blasphemers of Reth cried out to the Priestesses, saying
    that they had come in peace. In their hypocrisy they asked: "why dost
    thou persecute us?"

Non-pc saying, "why are you picking on us."  Men saying "why are you
saying "men attack women" when you know I don't.

    21. And the Priestesses said: "We persecute no one who has love and
    peace in her heart. Those who accept Truth are welcome to live among
    us. Forsake your heresies and your false god! Follow the True Word,
    that you may live with us in peace!"

Become pc and you'll be welcome here.

    22. But when they heard the commands of the Priestesses, the Reth
    became prideful and arrogant. Their hearts became hardened.

    23. And they called upon their god of lies, who gave them machines and
    weapons which they used against the Tagiriron. 

    24. And one of their machines was the Light of Ma- At, which they used
    against the Goddess Aurphel'a.

You're violating company policy.

    25. But the Great One has many forms. She came as RuGiz, Yarah and as
    the great and wonderful Samael'a. She came in many similar but diverse
    forms.  She taught Her Priestesses to fight the Reth, and to overturn
    the blasphemies of the false god.

No, we're not.

    26. And so it has been through the generations. For to this day the
    invaders move through Hemutlund, spreading their lies and discord. ...

See the meta-discussion notes in V1, V2, V3, for more detail.

    27. Listen not to the lies of the Reth. They will tell you that they
    want equality, but they really want to rule over us all. They will tell
    you that they are persecuted, but it is they who are the persecuters. 

Pitiful. whining, hopeless men.

    28. They will tell you that they want to share their truths, but theirs
    are the lies of the false god.

    29. This land is given unto the People. It is our place. But the
    invaders want to destroy us and our place, because they are hateful and
    fearful of Hem, and are envious of our land and of our love.

Pc women can't have Womanspace because of the nasty, evil, men.

    30. Beware the priests of Reth, for to follow them is to take the path
    of darkness. ... Only through Her love and wisdom
    can we hope to bring back the joy that once dwelled with us in
    Hemutlund.

Only Womanspace brings us "joy.

                                      

    	RE: .95  Martin

    	Another way of looking at it, that's for sure.  

    	While I take issue with a great many points, I'd like to address
    	one in particular.

    	If we assume the parable is about Womannotes, I think you lose the
    	consistency of your interpretation here:

    	    > 14. "You People have had power throughout the history of the 
    	    > World, yet you cry so much about how you are always persecuted 
    	    > and powerless! ...

	    > Whining feminists attacking non-pc women.

    	This makes no sense, even in the context of your interpretation.

    	You might want to amend it to:

    	      "Whining men attacking feminists and denying that there
    	       is inequality between the sexes."

    	Feminists would be the last ones to tell other women "You've always
    	had power (throughout history,)" right?

    	I'll let most of the rest of your interpretation stand (but don't
    	take this as tacit agreement with it, ok?)  ;^)

.69  'my interpretation is correct ...'

I know that the point has been made, but [I'm nursing a near-fatal bruise] I
object to this statement.  I believe that your interpretation is 'valid' but
this it is 'correct' is arguable.

Given your research, I find your analysis of .0 to be quite interesting.  I
still cannot feel insulted.  If insult was the intent of our anonymous
base-noter, I am pleased that at least one member of the community had the
erudition to feel the slap.

I would not choose to invalidate your interpretation -- interpretations are
by their nature touchy/feelie and difficult targets for logic to bring down.
I respect your right to live by your interpretation until another comes along
that is a better fit to your needs and temperment.

I have my own interpretation, one that works for me.

When I first read .0, I was monstrously irritated by it.  Not insulted or 
offended; merely that cranky to the nth power.  Some of the references struck
a chord and I looked them up, much as you did -- and I got even crankier!

The whole of .0 struck me as a cautionary tale on the dangers and toils of
oppression vs. separatism as means of resolving differences.  Reciprocal bigotry
is a tough nut, and one that always gets me cranked.

One one hand you have the proponents of Truth who choose jihad and close there
ears. On the other hand you that seekers of Truth [who actually feel they've
already found it, but don't wish to appear too, _too_ smug] who choose
Utopia and close there ears.

In both cases, Truth is the higher good, not the individual or the community.
The methods of purification are genocide or Coventry.  Indeed, if all accept
Truth there _will_ be universal peace.

But what is Truth? and who is the arbiter?

  Annie

Referencing Christine:

   At this point I am in the "catchup" mode, and I have just read your 
entries (I am at 316.76).

   I will probably be composing another reply in reaction to the rest of 
this Topic (97 replies??? So much for the "who cares" argument!), but I 
want to let you know right now:

                     THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!!!

   With the possible exception of EDP, you are the only person who has 
demonstrated any real understanding of what I was doing, what I actually have 
been saying, and what my reactions were. I was, indeed, frustrated by how 
some individuals were more interested in accusing me of telling them how to 
feel than what I was actually trying to say, and by how certain others kept 
trying to put me down for even bringing up the subject by first saying no 
one is interested and then entering in note after note describing how I 
"misrepresented" the basenote.

   It is very gratifying for me to see that someone does not let hir biases 
against a person get in the way of really getting the facts about what that 
person says. So again: thank you very much.

                                                     -Robert Brown III

    	RE: .98  Robert

    	If it's possible, I'd like you to accept this as constructive
    	feedback on your noting style (which might help explain why so
    	many people here think you're attacking us, while you keep
    	making the mistake of thinking we're attacking you.)

    	In your note, you thank Christine profusely for understanding 
    	what you are trying to say, but then look at how you end your
    	note to her:

    	> It is very gratifying for me to see that someone does not let hir 
    	> biases against a person get in the way of really getting the facts 
          ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^ ^^^^^^
    	> about what that person says. So again: thank you very much.

    	Do you realize that this makes it sound as though you think Christine
    	has biases against you, but is able to overcome these biases in order 
    	to understand what you are saying?

    	Did you really mean to insult one of the few people who have written
    	supporting notes about your theory in this topic??

    	Can you see now how easy it is to write something that can be read
    	as insulting, even when it wasn't meant that way?

    	This is why you will NEVER, EVER know what the basenote author
    	really meant by the story (unless this person comes forward to
    	tell us all.)

    	Please take this to heart.

    	RE: .100  Herb

    	Of course, you wouldn't attack me, Herb.  You know I'm right,
    	after all.  ;^)  

    	Thanks for demonstrating my point about how people can misinterpret
    	and over-react (as exemplified by your gross exaggeration and the
    	use of stereotypes) to what they perceive others are saying.

    	This is why Robert's mistaken impressions about the note (and about
    	being attacked all over the place) are such easy noting traps.

    	See - you fell into it, too.  It's all a matter of perspective.

    	Oh well.  ;^)

   Before I begin this entry in earnest, I must correct a typo error in my
entry 316.98:

   My last paragraph in 316.98 reads:

   "It is very gratifying for me to see that someone does not let hir biases 
against a person get in the way of really getting the facts about what that.."

    It should read:

    "It is very gratifying for me to see that someone does not let other's
biases against a person get in the way of really getting the facts about what
that..."

   meaning that I am glad, Christine, that I am glad that you got the facts
instead of allowing yourself to be overly influenced by the biases of others.
The error in 316.98 makes my entry appear to be an insult. Sorry about that.

Now for my reply:

Referencing 316.70 (Jody):

   Of all the entries in this Topic which have confused the issues I have
raised, and misinterpreted what I've said, yours is the calmest and most
reasonably presented. Consequently, I feel that explanations are in order.

   In my entry 316.69, I mentioned a lack of arguments against my
interpretation of the basenote. The term "arguments" is not used in the context
of "argue against", but is used in the context of "present alternate facts to
support an alternative viewpoint". In other words, I was looking for what you
call "alternate ways of looking at it" -- but usually when alternate viewpoints
are expressed, "arguments" in the form of alternate facts are presented to
support those viewpoints.

   In the context mentioned above, my comments about lack of arguments were
appropriate, because with the exception of Ann Broomhead's entry 316.31, there
were no alternate viewpoints on the interpretation of the basenote presented.
Most of the entries were statements about my supposed attitudes, statements
accusing me of telling this community how it "should" feel, and arguments
against the accusations made against me (mostly by EDP).

   In other words, I chose to consider most of the entries unimportant because
they were not addressing the subject, not because they were presenting
"alternate viewpoints". In fact, in 316.69 I tried to make it plain that Ann
Broomhead's entry, because it did present an alternate viewpoint and gave
arguments to support it, was very important to me. I am suprised that you did
not notice this.

   And by the way: you quoted my statement in 316.69 which said that the notes
between 316.31 and 316.36 were unimportant. I submit that it is best for this
file that I did so. Consider: 316.32 and 316.33 were, in my opinion, pitiful
attempts at personal attacks against me made by an individual who at the time
really had nothing intelligent to contribute to a discussion that on the one
hand she kept saying was unimportant, yet on the other hand was one of its
biggest contributers. They contributed more to the foolishness of their author
(as, I see, others began to notice) than they did to the discussion. Had I
chosen to take them seriously, the resulting conflict would have been most
unpleasent to everyone. As it was, I laughed, shook my head in pity, and moved
on.

   In my mention of a singular lack of knowledge about things I've said, I was
referring to the accusations made about my intentions in starting this
discussion -- accusations made despite attempts to clarify myself. If the
clarifications had been read in their entirety, there would have been little
need to repeat the accusations.

   This is still being done. Example: I noted the discussion between Christine
and Suzanne. In 316.77, Suzanne mentions the abraisiveness of my first entries
in this Topic, using them as justification for her continued attempts to insult
and invalidate me. She (and I notice Christine) somehow missed certain
clarifications I made in 316.28 (and earlier, for that matter!), where I
explained why I behaved the way I did and in which I acknowledged that my
behavior was based on an assumption which was wrong. This is the kind of "lack
of knowledge" that I am talking about.

And your statement:

"Perhaps nobody wants to invalidate your interpretation... "

   is fascinating, because at least one person here has actively attempted to
invalidate not only my interpretation, but the entire discussion. This same
person, even now, has presented no facts or real logical arguments to justify
this attempted invalidation.

   In other words, Jody, I am trying to say that my entry 316.69 was not saying
what you appear to believe it was.

Referencing 316.75 (Ann):

   I like your entry, though I am somewhat disappointed that you did not
attempt to support your own interpretation more strongly. I was extremely
curious. Nonetheless, it is possible that an unbiased listing of the actions of
the groups involved is probably the best way of helping others reach an
informed decision about the basenote.

Referencing 316.80 through 316.87:

   Dad Blame, what a thought! Gee: could I have been playing into this
person's hands by starting this discussion??? It would be embarrassing to think
that I did!

Referencing 316.89 (kathy):

   Congratulations: you have experienced some of the same crap that I have to
deal with every time I "talk" to Suzanne. Also: your points, in my opinion,
are valid ones; questioning why a note is entered is not necessarily making
assumptions about it or the person entering it.

Referencing 316.95 (Martin):

   Thank you for your entry. It saved me the trouble of posting a similar entry
(as I was expecting I would have to do despite the fact that I enumerated
similar points in earlier entries -- more evidence of the "lack of knowledge" I
was referring to in 316.69).

   That Suzanne did not attack you (as she did me) or attempt to invalidate
your interpretation (as she did mine despite its similarity to yours) is
evidence of the kind of bias that I have so often attributed to her.
Consequently, your entry pleases me in two ways instead of just one.

   The analysis of your entry complements the analysis given in my entry 
316.20 -- though there are some additional things left out of both our entries 
which would make it difficult for anyone to reasonably say that the entry was 
not meant to be insulting.

                                                         -Robert Brown III

Referencing 316.99 (Suzanne):

   Please check out my previous entry. Your "constructive criticism" is 
unnecessary.

Referencing herb:

  Thank you for your previous two entries. I begin to see that others are 
noticing the things I am; I feel validated.

   To be honest, because of past experiences with Suzanne it is very 
difficult for me to consider anything she says to me to be intended 
to be "non- insulting" or "constructive". This is because the most 
insulting entries I have read from her were the ones where she has said, at 
some point, that she was "not" being insulting and was giving "constructive 
criticism". She seems to have a knack for being most insulting while saying 
that she isn't.

   Suzanne's treatment of me, as well as the passive acceptance of her 
treatment of me (and others) by this community, is one of the main reasons 
why I so often approach this conference the way I do. I am all too aware 
that the Suzanne Conlons of this conference will always have something 
negative and insulting to say to me regardless of what I say; consequently 
I start off defensive and prepared for rudeness until it is demonstrated 
that my defenses are unnecessary.

   So again: thank you for your entries. They are refreshing to see.

                                                  -Robert Brown III

>   It is very gratifying for me to see that someone does not let hir biases 
>against a person get in the way of really getting the facts about what that 
>person says. 

It is hysterically egotistical of you to think that everyone who disagrees
with you is doing so because they have a "bias against you".  I don't have
a bias against you - I have no idea who you are.  In fact, before this topic,
I'm not sure that I ever heard of you.  I have a vague recollection that
you entered something on "Concentration" once, but it was too long, so I
didn't bother reading it.  Other than that - I dunno.  Do you post often?
If so, your postings haven't been of interest to me to remember your name.

*Now* I know your name.  *Now* I might have biases against you.  But when I
first started in this conversation, you were just Joe Schmoe.  What on 
earth would make you think I had an opinion about you?!?

D!

    
    	RE: .105  D!
    
    	You haven't missed a thing.  
    
    	He analyses women (or notes to women) in exceptionally insulting
    	ways to try to make a name for himself, then wails and cries to
    	the winds about how we pick on him for absolutely no reason.
    
    	It's what he does.  It's ALL he does.

    Both sides are sailing quite close to a violation of 1.15.   Could we
    get a bit more distance please?  Thanks.

re: .97:

>.69  'my interpretation is correct ...'
>
>I know that the point has been made, but [I'm nursing a near-fatal bruise] I
>object to this statement.  I believe that your interpretation is 'valid' but
>this it is 'correct' is arguable.

While I'm not the author of .69, might I say that I would used "my
interpretation is correct" in the sense "my interpretation accurately
represents the intent of the author."  Of course, "correct" is still
arguable.

>The whole of .0 struck me as a cautionary tale on the dangers and toils of
>oppression vs. separatism as means of resolving differences.  Reciprocal bigotry
>is a tough nut, and one that always gets me cranked.
...
>But what is Truth? and who is the arbiter?

I like this interpretation.  In some ways, better than mine.

Martin.

R_BROWN says:

>   To be honest, because of past experiences with Suzanne it is very 
>difficult for me to consider anything she says to me to be intended 
>to be "non- insulting" or "constructive"...

and

>I am all too aware 
>that the Suzanne Conlons of this conference will always have something 
>negative and insulting to say to me regardless of what I say; consequently 
>I start off defensive and prepared for rudeness until it is demonstrated 
>that my defenses are unnecessary.

This, from the person who complains that those conversing with him 
are coming into the conversation with biases, and not being open minded
to what he is saying?

Can you say "hypocrisy"?

D!

    
    	By the way, who are "the Suzanne Conlons of this conference"???
    	Did someone form a rock group using my name without telling me?
    
    	Perhaps I should start signing my name...
    
    	Which_one_of_the_Suzanne_Conlons_am_I?  :)
    

    re:.103
    
    I -- and I suspect Ann as well, though I can't speak for her --
    don't feel that I need to present contrary "facts" to support my
    interpretation. "Interpretation" isn't fact-based, it's intuition-
    based. The facts of the case are as you presented them. It's just
    that I draw different conclusions from those facts than you.
    
    An analogy. Some years back, during an interview published in a
    magazine, author Harlan Ellison described another writer as
    "bugf*ck". Ellison meant this as a compliment -- admiration for
    the writer having a creative, if off-the-beaten-path, imagination.
    The other writer was highly insulted, and sued Ellison and the
    magazine the interview appeared in for libel.
    
    The "facts" are clear. Ellison *did* use that word to describe
    the other writer -- a word which usually can be taken for an
    insult. But there were few people who *interpreted* the word as
    insulting. Everyone I knew that read the interview knew exactly
    what Ellison meant. Only the object of Ellison's comment, and
    presumably those who spoke up for him in court, interpreted it as
    an insult. To make a long story short, the suit went in favor of
    the defendent rather than the plaintif, so apparently the court
    did not interpret the word as being an insult.
    
    Likewise, in the present case, you can say until you're blue in the
    face that this word means this and that word means that, and you
    may be absolutely correct in a denotative sense. But when you
    insist that the author of the parable is being insulting, then
    you are straying onto intuitive ground where our interpretation
    is just as valid as yours.
    
    --- jerry

	Yet another note saying yet again.


		My truth is not necessarily your truth
		and you truth is not necessarily mine
		for truth like beauty is in the eyes
		of the beholder which does not make one
		or the other right or wrong just different.

	Can't we move on, to something that is not so subject
	to "I right you are wrong" exchanges.

	

	This is Ignore 201 - In 101 we learned to not respond
	to notes that are clearing goat baiting.  In 201 we
	will learn that sometimes even clear cool responses
	to seemly rational requests can turn into goat baiting
	which then does a call back to what we learned in 101.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			Just the pedegogue in me I guess...

    	Deleted my most recent note here.

    	A difficulty with discussing the issue introduced in .2 of this
    	topic is that the idea of "who did what to whom" (such as "who
    	meant to insult whom" and "who failed to understand the note"
    	or "who failed to protest when others were allegedly insulted")
    	puts the topic on dangerous and rocky ground from Square One.

    	This goes beyond the realm of ideas, smacking squarely in the
    	territory of judgments, accusations, and hard feelings, which
    	is clearly inappropriate to include in a forum where we all
    	work and is wrong to bring up as a debate.

    
    	"Truth" is a label that is often used to glorify opinions.
    

    
    i believe the concept of truth being 'immutable' is dangerous
    and wrong.
    

    I believe that Truth is real and immutable.  It just can't be perfectly
    known or "proved".  Therefore, I believe it is dangerous to judge right
    and wrong.
    
    Mary

    
    	No one has the power to transform an opinion into reality, though.
    

    RE:  Earlier replies
    
    Robert-
    
    Thank you for your comments.
    
    Suzanne-
    
    I did go back to read the comments in context of the notes you
    outlined on Robert's remarks.  I still don't believe they were
    insulting or intended to be insulting.  I think it may be a 
    matter of some folks (yourself included) not agreeing with style.
    I will restate an earlier remark of mine-I indicated that Robert's
    remarks may have been abrasive.  I don't think they were so, I
    think he just has a strong style of noting.  In my opinion, it's
    just a matter or maybe reading too much into something and turning
    it into something it's not.  Please remember, I'm not trying to
    change your mind, (I think that would be impossible and unfair to
    you) I'm just voicing my opinion based on my reactions to the notes and
    I did not find anything that was objectionable.
    
    RE: others
    
    Those who pointed out that they felt Robert was very condescending
    towards myself in his comments thanking me for his support-again, I
    did not find his meaning offensive in any manner.  In my opinion, it
    may have been a matter of semanitics and Robert did come back to 
    clarify his message (not that I felt it was necessary, but it seems
    others did).  Unfortunately, in this medium, unless you have excellent
    (ie perfect) writing skills, it is very easy to read hidden meanings
    into one's writing, especially if one has already formed an opinion of
    the noter.  I'm not outright accusing anybody of doing so, I just know 
    that sometimes I have a tendancy to read a note and say to myself-
    gee, I'm not surprised at that remark coming from so and so.  What I'm
    trying to say is that I think some folks have a tendancy to place 
    people in catagories when responding, espcially in such an impersonal
    mode of communication.  It's easy to overlook one's meaning when seeing
    who the respondant is.  FWIW, this is only my opinion.  Perhaps some
    will find it has merit, others will not.  Differences do make the world
    go round.
    
    Christine

>         <<< Note 316.115 by CSC32::CONLON "A conspiracy of one..." >>>

    
>    	"Truth" is a label that is often used to glorify opinions.


   I agree 100%.


   k   

    	RE: .121  Christine

    	> I still don't believe they were insulting or intended to be 
    	> insulting. 

    	The whole point is that the margin for error when trying to
    	decide if someone else insulted or meant to insult others is
    	so great as to make debates about such things completely
    	meaningless in the absence of the original author's stated
    	intentions.

    	This is what I set out to demonstrate when I pointed out the
    	possible insult to you.  It's an easy mistake to make, as we've
    	seen in this topic all along.  Thanks for the corroboration.

    Suzanne, 
    
    Perhaps I'm just being dense, but are you saying that you were
    wrong in stating that Robert did insult me-after all, at someone's
    request, he did clarify his statement so there would be no 
    mistaking his intent.
    
    I'm not sure exactly what you are thanking me for, my reply was 
    not really geared towards the replies on truth, and as it wasn't
    I'm not really sure I agree with the notion of your applying my
    quote to an issue I didn't directly address, then indicating I
    was in agreement with you.  I must say tho,
    that in my opinion, certain things, as EDP pointed out, will be
    irrefutable facts (ie, like the reality of death) and as other's
    pointed out, we all have our own "truths".  Truth is a very 
    ambiguous notion and means many things to many people.
    
    Christine

    	RE: .124  Christine

    	> Perhaps I'm just being dense, but are you saying that you were
    	> wrong in stating that Robert did insult me-after all, at someone's
    	> request, he did clarify his statement so there would be no 
   	> mistaking his intent.

    	Yes, this is what I'm saying.  I was wrong about it - (and, in fact,
    	I indicated the likelihood of this possibility when I pointed out the
    	statement that looked like an insult to you.)

    	The whole point was to show how easy it is to write things that sound
    	like insults.

    	Luckily, Robert was able to step forward to explain his meaning, but
    	we don't have the benefit of this input from the basenote author, so
    	there is no possible way to know what s/he meant by the basenote.
    
    	(At this point, I seriously doubt anyone will come forward to claim
    	the note, after all this, and I don't blame the person.)

    	So, we'll simply never know what the truth is about this, although
    	I'm sure we all have pretty strong opinions about it.

    	Opinions are *not* "truth," though.  

    	Thanks for the request for clarification.

    Suzanne,
    
    Thanks for the clarification.  I'm just a bit fuzzy this morning-
    not used to working days yet!  I see what you mean, and I do 
    agree, opinions are not universal truths; what's "true" and "right"
    for one doesn't apply to the next person [unless they agree ;-)].
    
    Christine

   I have read the replies since my last entry, and I find myself
amazed at the number of people who have read just enough of all my
entries to use them as a platform for bashing, somehow missing the
many clarifications and corrections that I made!

   I am particularly disheartened by "D!"'s reactions, since I directed
a number of statements specifically to her which, had she not somehow
missed them, would have made it plain that none of the supposed "egotistical"
statements I made were even directed at her.

   And I am fascinated by how individuals took my statements directed
at Christine out of context, reacting while ignoring my later clarification
-- a clarification which turned out to be unnecessary since at least one
person in this conference has enough... well... was able to take my
remarks in context without attributing some set of interpretations on them.

   I strongly suggest that those who wish to take issue with what I say
make certain that they know what it is they are taking issue with. To do
otherwise weakens your moral position and makes you look less than able
to engage in a rational discussion (and before you take that statement out
of context, please note that I said "look", not that you -- whoever "you"
are since I am using no names here-- actually are "less than able"). Many 
of the replies directed at me since my last entry make accusations which,
if my last few entries had really been read, would have been shown to be
false. This factor, as well as the fact that there still hasn't been any
really serious discussion of the real topic here, simply reaffirms certain
observations and conclusions I made in my entry 316.69.

   Christine, I thank you for your clarification. I had become so used to
having my statements misinterpreted and taken out of context here that 
I felt an explanation was in order. It is really gratifying to be in
the same Notesfile as you.

   And by the way: in the event that people get the idea that my entry
316.103, in which I clarified my statement in 316.98, was prompted by
Suzanne's entry 316.99, please be aware that that idea is false. What
happened was that in my relief at seeing Christine's entry I wrote a
reply in which I accidently introduced a typo during the second pass of
my editing cycle. I later realized my error, and fearing that it would
be misinterpreted (as the replies since my entry 316.104 indicate,
though it seems that everyone EXCEPT the person it was directed to managed
to do so despite the clarification. Typical!), I entered my clarification,
THEN read Suzanne's reply and the subsequent replies, THEN entered 316.104.

   In other words, the point that Suzanne was trying to make was 
not only unnecessary, but displays the same kind of egotism and arrogance
that so many others have chosen to attribute to me. And to think that anyone
who uses insults and innuendoes as their primary method of communication
can have any positive effect on my behavior is to engage in egotism which
would make the arrogance that I am accused of seem small by comparison.

   Can we at least get back to the subject? It is nice for some to
talk about how "umimportant" it is (while contributing greatly to the
125 replies to this Topic), but my understanding is that the NEXT UNSEEN
button is a very handy tool for those who do not wish to engage in the
discussion or who don't like the way I say things.

                                                     -Robert Brown III

    
    Gosh, I never thought I'd see the day when I said, "enough process -
    let's get back to the content," but I think that day has come. I think
    that everyone has had ample opportunity to state, restate, and clarify
    hir case, so how about if we use this note to talk about the story
    introduced in the basenote?
    
    Justine

Justine:

   I note that over the weekend there haven't been any replies except yours. It
looks like this nonsense is finally over and that we are going to be allowed to
discuss what we want to discuss here at last. This pleases me, considering how
things had gone so far downhill Friday.

   Would you believe that someone actually took the time and trouble to send
a long MAIL message to me telling me how much she refused to discuss this 
"bad joke" with me? Amazing!

   Nonetheless, the non- contributers have finally ceased their futile attempts
to insult us (hopefully, they have taken my advise about the use of NEXT
UNSEEN). They have, however, left a lot of "trashnotes" here.  Consequently, to
get us back to the original discussion, a synopsis is in order:

________________________________________________________________________________

   As I stated back in 316.1, the basenote of this Topic is the most insulting
note to be entered into this Conference. It is an insult directed at the women
in this Conference. I claim this based on the following points which have been
made in previous entries:

(1) The names of people, places, and deities are corruptions of Egyptian and
    Hebrew words, as described in my entry 316.20

(2) As I indicated in 316.69 (and earlier), and as Martin described more
    closely in 316.95, there is a theme of "evil men" vs. "good women" --
    as described by a priestess whose name means "ignorant". The entire
    attitude of the narrator and the history of "Hemutlund" (Women's land)
    parallels the beliefs expressed by certain people in this Notesfile and
    this Notesfile's history.

(3) I also mentioned, in various places, the theme of the "oppressed becoming
    the oppressors", which is indicated by certain things the Priestesses did
    in "Hemutlund".

   Originally, I suspected that the more... er... vocal members of this
community "got the joke" of the basenote, but were reluctant to comment on it
because, as I explained earlier, the introduction and style of the entry
suggests that the author was female. As a result, I believed that there was a
bias involved which my earlier comments were directed towards. I later
realized, from the perplexity of other responses, that I had overestimated the
knowledge of these members, making my earlier remarks inappropriate. As should
be obvious by now, my attempts to clarify and correct this error were missed.

   Two alternative interpretations were offered: one by Jody who believed that
the story was a version of "Daughters of the Coral Dawn", and by Ann Broomhead,
who believed that the elements in the story which I had identified in 316.20 as
insulting to women were really sarcasm and that the story itself was a parable
not intended to insult women, but was intended to comment on men, society, and
(I think. Please correct me if I am wrong) a comment on how men have created
problems in this Notesfile.

   I am very curious about these alternative interpretations. I am unfamiliar
with "Daughters of the Coral Dawn" for example; I would be interested in
hearing of how the basenote parallels that story.

   I am also interested in knowing how one can come to the conclusion that Ann
has.

   And also: "k"'s entry 316.52 is especially interesting, for reasons
mentioned before. Another reason why I find it interesting is that before I
read it it had never occurred to me that the basenote portrays the women of
Hemutlund as being completely "blameless". When I read 316.52, I went back and
reread the basenote. I find that I must agree with "k". It is almost as if the
narrator of the story is blaming any and all evil in Hemutlund on the Reth, as
if the Reth's sole purpose in existance is to make life miserable for the
"peaceful" inhabitants of Hemutlund.

   That the narrator seems to shift all the responsibility for the problems in
Hemutlund onto the "invading" Reth indicates to me that the entire history, as
presented by the narrator, is very one- sided. When we incorporate this into
what has already been said,  we find that we have another insult aimed at the
women in this conference: that they, like the narrator in the story, are unable
to look at facts objectively.

   This is the synopsis, as I present it.

                                                       -Robert Brown III

    I sincerely feel that, with the tone seen in the first few paragraphs
    of .129, you have squelched any urge I would have had to "discuss" this
    with you.  I fear that perhaps I'm not the only one who may feel this
    way.  I'm not sure whether you see this as a loss or a gain, though.
    
    Alas.
    
    -Jody

    re .129
    
   That the narrator seems to shift all the responsibility for the problems in
Hemutlund onto the "invading" Reth indicates to me that the entire history, as
presented by the narrator, is very one- sided. When we incorporate this into
what has already been said,  we find that we have another insult aimed at the
women in this conference: that they, like the narrator in the story, are unable
to look at facts objectively.

    skip the 'we', and say "When I incorporate this into what has already
    been said, I find that I have another insult aimed at the women in this
    conference:..."
    
    i don't view things the same way that you do.  what is so bad about
    presenting a one sided history?  isn't that what happens anyways?  if
    one were led to believe what is taught in schools in america, one would
    think that the people who settled the west did so honorably, and only
    defended themselves against savage natives.  talk to a descendent of
    the native americans, and you will hear a completely different story,
    of newcomers settling, making agreements about the land, breaking the
    agreements, forcing the rightful owners off their land into less
    desirable real estate, and shooting those who tried to stand up for
    their rights.
    
    so anyways........i rather enjoyed the one sided point of view, because
    it let me look at things from the non-standard point of view, that of a
    minority that left the majority behind, and when some of the majority
    came along and tried to impose their views, the minority stood up for
    themselves.  you see this as oppressed turning into oppresser.
    
   This is the synopsis, as I present it.

    yes, that is your version of the synopsis.
    
    i don't see any insults being slung around by the original story.
    
    jonathan
    

    	As another example of how difficult it is to interpret notes - 
    	even notes that are NOT parables - try re-reading .124, .125 and 
    	.126 - then see the reaction in .127 and .129 (some emphasis added.)

    	.125>  Yes, this is what I'm saying.  I WAS WRONG about [Robert
    	.125>  insulting Christine] - (and, in fact, I indicated the 
    	.125>  likelihood of this possibility when I pointed out the
    	.125>  statement that looked like an insult to you.)

    	.125>  The whole point was to show how easy it is to write things
    	.125>  that sound like insults.

    	.125>  Luckily, Robert was able to step forward to EXPLAIN HIS 
    	.125>  MEANING, but we don't have the benefit of this input from the 
    	.125>  basenote author, so there is no possible way to know what s/he 
    	.125>  meant by the basenote.
    
    	.125>  Thanks for the request for clarification.

    	.126>  Suzanne,  Thanks for the clarification.  [From Christine.]


    	This is followed by:  [Some emphasis added.]

    	.127> I have read the replies since my last entry, and I find myself
	.127> amazed at the number of people who have read just enough of all 
    	.127> my entries to use them as a platform for bashing, somehow MISSING
    	.127> the many CLARIFICATIONS and corrections that I made!

    	.127>  And I am fascinated by how individuals took my statements 
    	.127>  directed at Christine out of context, reacting while IGNORING
    	.127>  my later clarification...

    	The clarification mentioned in .127 was discussed at some length
    	in .124 - .126 (with the words "I WAS WRONG ABOUT IT.")  Pretty
    	straight-forward.

    	.129>  It looks like this nonsense is finally over and that we are 
    	.128>  going to be allowed to discuss what we want to discuss here 
    	.128>  at last. This pleases me, considering how things had gone so 
    	.128   far downhill Friday.

    	Among the last replies on Friday were "thank you" and "thank you"
    	(during the exchange of a clarification.)  

    	This is another demonstration of how impossible it is to discern
    	another noter's meaning without having the noter handy to offer
    	clarifications.  In the absence of the basenote author speaking
    	up about what s/he meant in the parable, there is simply no way
    	we will ever know what it meant.  
    
    	We will never, ever know.  Ever.

    	My personal opinion about the meaning of the basenote (although
    	we can't possibly know for sure without added input from the
    	author...)

    	It wasn't meant to be insulting to women or Womannotes.

    	The descriptions of the love (shared by the people of the Land)
    	were too tender to be meant as sarcasm.

    	Even after reading the alleged origins of the names used in the
    	story, the tone of the narrator is clear to me.  It was written
    	by a female or male member of the Land.

    	It was written with love, too.  

    Actually, when I read it, I took it as a �kind of over simplified
    fable about the problems that =wn= has had. Tho from my personal
    point of view it made things to 'black and white'. I didn't really
    care about the names, but assumed that the author made them up
    with perhaps some input from a smattering of words out of history
    but without intentionally picking names for any meaning other than
    that they sounded 'old' or 'mythical'.
    
    I find it interesting how often SF authors will subconsciously
    pick up words from other authors or movies and use the names
    in their works...
    
    One I saw recently was 'her mother was a princess from the Leia
    system'. How much of this is deliberate and how much just the
    workings of the subconscious of a well read person I can't say.
    
    My *personal* guess is that the base note author is well read and
    the malign meanings of the words that have been focused on here
    were just coincidence. But I may be naive.
    
    I can't call this one.
    
    Bonnie

    re:.129
    
    	� I am also interested in knowing how one can come to
    	the conclusion that Ann has. �
    
    Read .111 again (assuming that you have already done so).
    
    re:.136
    
    Some things are subconcious, some things are deliberate. I would
    be very surprised if the example you quote wasn't deliberate. And
    I would be even more surprised if the allusions that Robert cites
    weren't deliberate. The entire nomenclature is too intricately
    bound into a single unit to be happenstance.
    
    --- jerry

    Re: .135
    
    >	we can't possibly know for sure without added input from the
    >	author...)
    
    That's for sure.  It's been 6 weeks and 137 (make that 138) replys and
    so far the author has not submitted any anonymous replys clarifying
    anything, despite the apparent confusion.  My conclusion is, either
    
    	1) the author hasn't been reading this file for 6 weeks, or
    
    	2) the author does not want to clarify the story (reasons unknown,
           but strange in light of the fact that a clarification might help
           end the controversy)
    
    Perhaps the author is enjoying watching us make fools of ourselves
    arguing about a story whose meaning is ambiguous.  I suggest that we
    table this discussion unless the author wishes to clarify the story or
    identify hirself.
    
    Mary

re: R. Brown's recent posting.

.0:			   The History of Hemutlund

I took "Hemutlund" as being derived from the Germanic word that went
into English as "homeland" ("Die Heimat" in German, assuming I spelled
it correctly, "hemlandet" in Swedish.)  These words are only roughly
approximated by "homeland" -- you have to add motherhood, apple pie,
vanilla ice cream, and Fourth of July parades with the high school
band playing on the village green to come even close.

Martin.

Referencing 316.130 (Jody):

   Frankly, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

Referencing 316.132 (Jonathan):

   Your interpretation is very interesting; it is one which I ALMOST
made when I first read the basenote.

   However, there are a number of elements in the story which caused me
to discard that interpretation:

1: The seemingly deliberate selection of names of people and places throughout
   the story.

2: The introduction of the "priestesses" who came into Hemutlund and "taught"
   the "real" history of the People. This is all too similar to what happened
   in Christianity when certain repressed individuals gained power in the 
   Church, or what happened in Israel when certain right- wing fanatics formed
   political groups there.

3: While I grant that the victors in any conflict get to write the history,
   and that the history is inevitably one- sided, but the fact is that these
   days such one- sided histories are usually viewed with suspician. While
   the "white man's" side of the history of the west is well known, for
   example, as you have indicated we are also aware of the American Indian's
   side. The same is true of other conflicts in history; we are presented with
   all sides of a conflict -- even the perspective of the Nazis during World 
   War II!

   The point I was making in 316.129 is that the very one- sidedness of the
   history, as presented by a priestess whose name means "ignorant", makes it
   suspect. That so much of the rest of the story is so sarcastic indicates
   that the narration itself, in its one- sidedness, makes it just another
   insult. The insult is that anyone (in this Notesfile) who has the attitude
   of the narrator is so ignorant that she cannot even consider the possibility
   that her so- called "enemies" might actually have a legitimate reason
   for acting as they do.

   In summary: you may consider the basenote to be a presentation of an 
alternative point- of- view, and indeed, on some level, you may have a point.
However, there are too many other elements of the story which contradicts that
thesis.

   In other words, it does, indeed, present a non- standard point of view--
but that isn't all it does. And even its presentation of that point of view
is insulting to anyone who would have it.

Referencing 316.33 ("-d"):

   Thank you for your entry. I myself have seriously wondered at the 
purpose of the basenote since YUPPY::DAVIESA's entry 316.91. If the purpose
of the basenote was, indeed, to alienate members of this community, then
it has done so very effectively.

   Unfortunately I do not believe that anything was "caused" here. None of 
the negativity seen here was "created". What happened in this Topic was
simply a function of what each and every participant (myself included) has
within hirself.

   In 316.1 I stated, erroneously, that the fact that the basenote was 
allowed to exist unprotested was a sign of how this Notesfile has fallen.
I submit now that the "knee-jerk snapping..." etc. that occurred in this
entire Topic says something very unpleasent about a lot of people here.

   I wouldn't mind participating in a collective apology and siblingly hug.
I doubt, however, if that is ever going to happen here.

Referencing 316.136, 316.138, and 316.139:

   I really wouldn't mind seeing the author clarify her entry (I am still
convinced that the author is female), but I doubt that the author will do 
so at this point. I sincerely doubt if anyone, after seeing what has happened
in this Topic, would want to clarify anything.

   Despite this I make an open invitation to the basenote author: could you
please tell me, in MAIL, how close my interpretation of your entry is to
what you intended? I would like to know this for my own edification, nothing
more.

   Until I hear otherwise, I will continue to say what I have said from
the beginning: that the basenote is, indeed, a satire directed at the
women in this conference.

                                                      -Robert Brown III

    	It's funny how someone can see "satire" and "sarcasm" when a story
    	writes lovingly about a group of people.

    	As so many here have said, we each read things into words (based
    	on our own perspectives and feelings.)

    	What I see in the basenote is quite clearly love -

    		"In the beginning, the Land was green and good."

    		"...They came to this Land seeking peace..."

    		"And they called it Hemutland because it had so many 
    		natural gifts for the people.  They build homes in
    		the land and grew content..."

    		"They came quickly to Hemutlund, bringing the True Word. 
    		And the People of Hem welcomed them with open arms."

    		"The True Word brought peace to every corner of Hemutlund."

    		"The Priestesses and the True Word flourished in Hemutlund, 
    		and all the People were happy and content."

    		"But the Priestesses of the Great One still remain, fighting 
    		for all the People."

    		"This land is given unto the People. It is our place."

    		"But the invaders...are envious of our land and of our love."

    		"Only through Her love and wisdom can we hope to bring back 
    		the joy that once dwelled with us in Hemutlund."

    	
    	Quite obviously, the People and the Land are described with love.

    	Perhaps one has to understand the sort of love that exists in this
    	conference to see the love in these passages.

Referencing 316.141 (Suzanne):

   You are quite right, Suzanne, about how people see things according to their
own perceptions.

   Even the "understanding" of certain forms of love depends strongly on one's
perceptions:

"And in all the temples, forests, and lakes the Priestesses told the real
history  of the People... "

(And in Russia, all the children used to be taught the REAL history of how the
decadent imperialist Capitalists are causing such strife in the world, and how
the Soviet Union would bring "enlightened" government to the rest of the
world.)
 
"But there came blasphemers from the other lands, who did threaten the peace
of Hemutlund. "

(Blasphemers like those members of the Anglican Church in South Africa who
dared to suggest that the Blacks there were actually human beings.)

"The Goddess Aurphel'a heard Her daughters and came upon the Land as a great
dark cloud. All those who felt Her presence became deaf to the heresies of the
Reth."

(Translation: Darkness/Ignorance [which is what Aurphel means] prevented people
from "hearing" what the "heretics" were saying.)

"Beware the priests of Reth, for to follow them is to take the path of
darkness. Their god is Ma- At and S'uit, while the True Word comes from the
Great One, who is named Shil. Only through Her love and wisdom can we hope to
bring back the joy that once dwelled with us in Hemutlund."

(Translation: Don't listen to the Reth whose gods are Truth and Light [Ma- at
being Maat, GODDESS of Truth, Justice, and Light and S'uit meaning Light], but
through our Goddess Error/Falseness [what Shil means] we will bring back the
joy we once had.)

   It is indeed possible that one needs to "understand the sort of love that
exists in this conference" to "see the love" expressed by a character who is
obviously biased in favor of a land ruled by worshippers of the Goddess
Falseness. I doubt it, though. Simply because the narrator is a character who
loves her regime does not mean that the story itself expresses love. All it
means is that the character expresses love. But since her name means "ignorant
person" and her narration is so obviously biased, then the entire story takes
on a very sarcastic style. There are ample examples of this type of sarcasm 
in literature.

   But of course, it is possible that the love of this conference is being
expressed here, and perhaps if one does understand such love maybe one would
have a different perception of the story. But then, one's perception of the
old Soviet Union could be changed if one understands the communist "love" of
the State. I also imagine that a rational person's perception of South Africa
could conceivably be changed if one understands their "love" of "white
christian values".

   It is possible. But is it desirable?

______________________________________________________________________________

Referencing 316.142 (herb):

   I am not going to discuss the Deitz quote, for reasons which I explained to
you before. Even if I were inclined to discuss it, this Topic is not the
appropriate place for such a discussion.

                                                 -Robert Brown III

    	RE: .143  Robert

    	Well, as I said, the story could be interpreted in a number of
    	ways, but only some of these ways make a great deal of sense.

    	For instance - it wouldn't make sense to speak of the Land as though
    	it were South Africa (with the People being white South Africans)
    	when the People were so clearly lacking in power compared to those
    	who later invaded Hemutland.  In comparing two situations, you can't
    	switch the positions of power as a viable analogy to describe another
    	set of groups with a huge power deficit.  It simply doesn't work.

    	It would be like comparing the Holocaust to American slavery (and
    	suggesting that the Nazis could be compared to African-American
    	slaves while the Jews could be compared to Southern plantation
    	owners.)  Such an analogy would be both untrue and unfair.

    	As for the names of the characters, it's been mentioned before that
    	women sometimes claim names with negative origins - such as witch,
    	defiant bitch, hags, crones, glass-chewing feminists - as an
    	empowering gesture.  So, it's impossible to know (for sure) what
    	someone might have meant if it's true that the names in the story
    	have negative meanings about the Land, the People and the narrator.

    	Believe me when I tell you that such negative-sounding names are
    	often used in ways that are anything *but* sarcastic towards women.

    	Someone who truly understands the benevolent nature of the love
    	of this community would express love in the story quite sincerely
    	(even if some others found it impossible to believe or accept.)

    	RE: .145

    	> In the case of Hemutland, where the goddess kept the People from
    	> hearing the heresies of the Reth, bear in mind that the first step to
    	> sociopolitical collapse is censorship in the name of the state.  

    	Well, I disagree that "censorship" is being described in the basenote.
    	It sounds more like the People were were able to see the "lies" of
    	the invaders for what they were, which is why they were no longer 
    	influenced by them.  Thus, they weren't physically prevented from
    	hearing the Reth, but rather they were kept from being fooled by them.

    	> The Christian Bible says, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth 
    	> shall make you free."  What, I ask, was the gooddess of Hemutland 
    	> afraid of?  Losing her ignorant servants?  That don't sound like 
    	> much of a loving situation to me.

    	The Christian Bible doesn't encourage spending a lot of time 
    	listening to anti-Christian doctrine, either, though.  Does this
    	imply that the Christian God is afraid (or non-loving?)

    	In the story, words are used as weapons against the people (just
    	as language is used in our own culture as a tool of oppression.)
    	The invaders described the People's love as hate, which was a lie,
    	but a formidable weapon.  The best defense against it was for the
    	People to seek strength from each other (and their leaders) by
    	keeping the truth in mind.

    	The People knew the truth.  They also knew that they needed to be
    	strong at times to keep from being destroyed by lies.

    I am the author of the base string.  I find it sad, but
    predictable, that so many people missed the point. The story was a
    satire. I focused on the misuse of power, how easily one is
    corrupted when s/he thinks that s/he is representing a large
    powerful group.

    It is also a commentary on the what has been going on in
    womannotes ever since a few women have assumed the mantle of
    spokespersons for the group.  They have flogged anyone who does
    not walk within the narrow confines of THE VIEW.

    Unfortunately I expect harrassment through the notes files and my
    personal mail.  As has been stated many times before, absolute
    power corrupts absolutely.

    Judy

    re: .147
    
    If you, or anyone who is of the same opinion as the basenote author
    would like to respond via e-mail to topic 23, particularly with
    suggestions on how to better the notesfile, we are still listening.  If
    you see a problem, please suggest to us how to help the notesfile be
    more of what you'd like to see it be.  (Yes, I remove all identifying
    information before passing the information on to the other moderators,
    if you are more comfortable with anonymity).
    
    -Jody
    compiler-of-survey-information-on-the-notesfile

	RE: .148 (Suzanne)

	How can someone's "view" be wrong?


	RE: .147 (Judy)

	Thanks.  I DO understand.




		kath    

    	RE: .152
    
>    	> How can someone's "view" be wrong?
>    	Easily, when describing the motivations of others.


    But "views" are not descriptions, they are interpretations of
    occurances......opinions, judgements, perceptions.  Views are
    not "facts" as such, so they can't really be "wrong", can they?


	kath



        

    	RE: .152  Kath

    	Perceptions can be mistaken.

    	For example, I noticed some men beating you up very badly for
    	their perception of what you were saying in Mennotes recently.
    	As they pummeled on you, I noticed you kept saying that your
    	view was more relevant as a woman (you said "we women" quite
    	a bit in your notes.)

    	You were castigated for attempting to speak for all women (by
    	the men arguing with you) - and you were accused of all sorts
    	of other things.

    	Were they mistaken in their "view" of you, or were their
    	perceptions valid?

    	It's ironic to see you agree with someone here whose satire was
    	directed at some women she claims have set themselves up as
    	spokespersons for the rest of the women (presumably because some
    	women here say "we" in reference to the people they know who do
    	definitely agree with their point of view.)

    	Is this the power that corrupts so absolutely, and if so, did
    	you engage in this corrupt power by saying "we women" in Mennotes
    	(implying that you speak for all women, as they said you were
    	doing?)

>        <<< Note 316.153 by CSC32::CONLON "Cosmic laughter, you bet." >>>


>    	Perceptions can be mistaken.

>    	For example, I noticed some men beating you up very badly for
>    	their perception of what you were saying in Mennotes recently.
>    	As they pummeled on you, I noticed you kept saying that your
>    	view was more relevant as a woman (you said "we women" quite
>    	a bit in your notes.)

	You're right, perceptions (including yours) can be mistaken.



	kath

    
    	RE: .154  Kath
    
    	> You're right, perceptions (including yours) can be mistaken.
    
    	Thanks for seeing my point.
    
    	And, of course, I'm sure you also realize that your perceptions
    	can be mistaken, too.
    

    PLUEEZE?
    
    peace and quiet?
    
    thank you awfully much
    
    Bonnie J
    
    =wn= comod

Referencing 316.147 (Judy):

   First of all, thank you for your clarification. It is about time that
someone stood up and raised the issue you did. I would have, but I don't
feel it appropriate for me to do so.

   I am impressed by your courage in stepping forward.

   I do not, however, believe that you will be harrassed. The reason why
I don't is because you stated that you expected to be. Anyone who would
be inclined to beat on you is now in a mode where they must prove you 
wrong by "going easy" on you at worst or not responding at best. And the
worst kind of response you will get is the kind of "last word" phyrric
victory responses like 316.148.

Referencing 316.149 (Jody):

   It is good that you are seeking suggestions on how to improve things
here, but I suspect that things have gone way past the point where you
will get too many people (who share Judy's view) to tell you anything.
I, for example (assuming you're interested, which I doubt) do share her 
view and have ideas on how to improve things, but my previous dealings 
with the Moderators here have led me to believe that any idea I have that
does not involve shutting up anyone who doesn't accept what Judy calls THE 
VIEW will be ignored.

   Since in this Topic alone so many individuals and even one of the 
Moderators -- oops! I mean, one of the noters who "happens" 
to be a Moderator-- participated in blatent violations of this file's
guidelines, well, frankly there is a credibility problem here. I could be 
wrong, but I don't believe that Judy will send you anything. I also don't
believe that anyone who doesn't share what she calls THE VIEW will expend
the energy to tell you anything. I believe that they, like me, believe that
it would be a waste of time.

And now, Suzanne:

   As usual, you miss the point. You missed the point I made in 316.143,
and you continue to miss it.

   Despite your bringing up (impertinant) references to Kath's "battle"
in MENNOTES, the fact is that you are really in no position to call Judy's
position "wrong" (yes, I read and extracted 316.148 before it was deleted).
Saying that you disagree with her is appropriate, but in the absence of
real facts to back up your claim, then calling Judy wrong is... well...
wrong.

   Now before you decide on an appropriate retort (yes, I'm expecting more
insults and rhetoric from you and am prepared to allow you to have the
last word since the main point [and my vindication] was made when Judy 
entered 316.147), I leave you with the following suggestion:

   That perhaps you might want to look beyond the "insults" given in an
ancient language (actually, Judy did a good job putting her insults in
English as well as Hebrew and Egyptian. It isn't her fault that you and 
others chose to miss them), and look at what Judy was really saying. You might 
want to consider what part you might have taken in promoting and perpetuating
the perception she has.

   And while you do that, you might want to consider the possibility that 
maybe you are no more the arbitor of Truth than she is.

                                                     -Robert Brown III
          

	Maybe the problem is the way that the word power is being used.
	I now see power as that within myself to change things within
	my control and to accept that which is not.  This is not a bad	
	type of power.  I would guess that .0 is much more interested
	in the the type of power that is over someone else and is very
	distructive to the community as a whole.  While it is not 
	possible to ignore this mindset all of the time, it is possible
	not to fall into the traps that the holders of that particular
	mindset deposit all over the place. - get my drift.

	I choose not to engage in useless dialogue all of the time.
	This is me exercising my power.  I choose to question every
	fact that is brought up and do a quick reality check in my own
	head and based on that I choose to accept the "fact" as fact.
	Sometimes I choose to not accept the "fact" and then to engage
	in useless dialogue explaining why.  BUT it is all my choice.
	AND I can stop participating at any time I wish.

	I have a favorite joke that almost no one else gets - and it
	could be insulting to someone if they did get it, for me it is
	more the context inwhich I understand the humor rather than 
	the actual joke that make it my favorite.  I see .0 as someone
	"favorite" story (about =wn= I guess), I don't get it and so
	I am not insulted even if it was meant as an insult (which I
	am not sure it was).  I find it boring and uninteresting and
	for the life of me I can not understand why there have been
	this much discussion about it.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			Sometimes you just have to say HUH!!!!

    re .157, I don't consider myself to be "an arbitor of truth" but I do
    disagree with Judy.  (You did say it was "appropriate" to say if we
    disagree, didn't you?)
    
    Lorna
    

    	RE: .157  Robert

    	> I do not, however, believe that you will be harrassed. The 
    	> reason why I don't is because you stated that you expected 
    	> to be. 

    	You remind me so much of my sister when we were kids - she
    	would always tell me what she "made" me say and do (by telling
    	what she expected me to say or do, or what I was allowed to
    	say or do.)  One day, she found out that the ploy didn't work.
    	Puberty was a time of great personal growth for her.

    	> And the worst kind of response you will get is the kind of 
    	> "last word" phyrric victory responses like 316.148.

    	Well, now you've put us in a pickle, haven't you?  If we don't
    	say anything, you've "made" us keep silent.  If we do say something,
    	then you can gloat about your prediction.  What wiiiiiiill we do?

    	> Now before you decide on an appropriate retort (yes, I'm expecting 
    	> more insults and rhetoric from you and am prepared to allow you to 
    	> have the last word since the main point [and my vindication] was 
    	> made when Judy entered 316.147)...

    	Um, Robert, it might have been more prudent for you to wait to use
    	the basenote author's "trick" til later (when the psychology behind
    	"telling someone what they will/can do" wasn't still so fresh in our 
    	minds.)

    	But - I'll tell ya what I'm gonna do...

    	I'll take your offer to have the last word - and I'll hold you to it.
    	This means that you're not allowed to ever address me again in this
    	topic (not in the first *OR* third person.)  If you welch on your
    	agreement, I won't let you off the hook about it.

    	In any case, I think you should have a talk with my sister about
    	these "word psychology games."  She could fix you up on 'em.

    	Well, all I can say about the revelation from the basenote author
    	is that I'm somewhat relieved.  As often as she was accused of
    	writing the most insulting note ever entered in Womannotes, we'd
    	all have been in deep trouble if the note had been written to
    	insult men.

    	In the last few days, it's come out that women of this conference
    	have been reported to Corporate Personnel (and God knows who else
    	in this company) for saying the words "Dead" and "Think."

    	If the basenote had been insulting to men, the author would probably
    	have been fired.

    	As it is, since it was only meant as an insult to women, she'll
    	probably receive a plaque and a trip to Hawaii.

    By special request, a story of my own (something I wrote in another
    conference about people who like to count and point out when they
    think others are getting "the last word" - one of the favorite games
    of children everywhere.)  ;^)
    
    
        Some people should be given extra allowance as 'only children' 
        ---- ------ ------ -- ----- ----- --------- --  ---- --------
    
    	A conversation I remember between my siblings as children:

    	"Goodnight."

    	"Goodnight.  Now shut up."

    	"Ok."

    	"No, I mean it.  Shut up!"

    	"Ok."

    	"Why must you INSIST on having the last word every night!!!!  Now
    	shut up and GO TO SLEEP!!!!!"

    	"Ok."

    	"This is it.  I'm telling Mom that you won't quit until you're
    	allowed to have the last word.  If you hadn't INSISTED on having
    	it, we'd have stopped talking A LONG TIME AGO!!!!  Now shut up
    	and go to sleep, and STOP TALKING!!!!!!!!!  YOU DON'T ALWAYS NEED
    	THE LAST WORD, YOU KNOW!"

    	"Ok."

    	"OK, then.  I'm going to ALLOW you to have the last word - go ahead
    	now - have the last word because I ALLOWED YOU TO HAVE IT, AND NO
    	OTHER REASON!"

    	"Ok."

    	"Good.  Now you've had the last word (LIKE YOU ALWAYS NEED TO HAVE,
    	SO I *ALLOWED* YOU TO HAVE IT), so we can go to sleep FINALLY!"

    	"Ok."

    	"You're only answering because I MADE YOU RESPOND by allowing you
    	to have the last word.  I can make you say anything I want!"

    	"Ok."

    	"SEE????  I MADE YOU SAY THAT!  Now I will MAKE you have the last
    	word.  Go ahead - again."

    	"Ok."

    	"SEE????  I can make you say anything I want!  I told you!"

    	............. and so it goes.

    	Poor Mikey Z. never had siblings close to his own age, so he thinks 
    	he invented all this.  ;^)

    
    	Games like "made ya look" and "last word" are not the way adults
    	treat children.  They are games that most children play with anyone
    	they want to annoy - until they have enough brains and dignity to
    	give them up (somewhere around puberty.)
    

    
    	When adults are having a conversation, it isn't unusual at all
    	for a child to try to interrupt by interpreting the situation
    	as being something that relates to one of his own games.
    
    	It's a desperate plea for attention.
    
    	Adults usually go on having their conversation, hoping the
    	child will eventually be put down for his nap.
    

    Skicker snicker....

    Please cut out the interpersonal back-and-forth-shots.  Future ones
    will be deleted.
    
    -Jody