Conference turris::womannotes-v3

            <<< MOMCAT::PIGGY:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 460.1                         Dead People                            1 of 2
CSC32::CONLON "Cosmic laughter, you bet."            30 lines  18-OCT-1990 17:55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    	Well, I know I shouldn't respond to this, but these are my honest
    	reactions to the notes mentioned:

    	When Mark said that "the perfect man" is dead, I thought he was
    	talking about Jesus Christ.  No other humans in the history of
    	the world have been close to perfect since then, and people
    	generally agree that Jesus was perfect (not everyone, I guess,
    	but a good number of people) - so I assumed Mark was saying
    	that no one is perfect.  (He did say, "HE'S dead" - as if he
    	was referring to someone in particular.)

    	What he really meant - no one knows except Mark himself.  He
    	deserves the courtesy of being asked about it before anyone
    	makes negative assumptions.

    	When I saw the other note (that simply said "dead") - my first
    	thought was that the person was having a bad day.  This was
    	confirmed a few notes later.

    	No matter how many ways this word is stretched, it doesn't mean
    	(by itself) that all or most men should be dead.  Again, it's
    	only the description of a "perfect" man, and it says to me that
    	such a person ("perfect") simply doesn't exist.

    	It's incredible that these two little notes have precipitated 
    	yet another major crisis here.  The last two crises were caused
    	by the same phrase, "The problem is men."  

    	It's amazing to me that one person can become so enraged so
    	quickly by so little.

    mark's note: i assumed he was referring to someone real who is
    (unfortunately) dead: his father maybe.  i do not see it as a reference
    to someone who is perfect only because he no longer is alive, nor do i
    see it as a reference to generic men.
    
    lorna's note: it stunned me when i saw it.  were i a moderator, i would
    have returned it to her (yes, deleted it), with lots of hugs about the
    horrible fight she had; it MUST have been awful for her to react like
    that, but i thought it crossed a line.  personal opinion.
    
    .0> 1) Is it always okay to say the perfect man is a dead man?
    
    no, of course not.  legal? yes.  okay? no, not always. 
    
    .0> 2) When is it not okay to say the perfect man is a dead man?
    
    that depends a lot on who will hear you.  if i am screaming in my room,
    it is 100% hunky dory.  if i am interviewing a prospective candidate
    for a job (any job) or reviewing a subordinate, it is not okay.  for me
    those examples describe two extremes.  i cannot define where the line
    lies between the two examples because for too many instances where i
    find it ABSOLUTELY tolerable or intolerable, i find an exception.
    
    .0> Want a laugh?  Attack a man.  Want to vent?  Attack a man.
    .0> 3) Is that the way it is?
    
    here in this file?  i don't think so.  do you?

    .0> 4) Is turnabout fair play?
    
    no of course not.  but i don't think this file and the way it is
    (usually) run constitute "turnabout", even when it *does* get nasty. 
    what does?  i am not sure; will think more.
    
    .0> 5) Would it ever be okay to say the perfect woman is a dead woman?
    
    if it were inconceivable that the sayer meant it, then yes. 
    
    statistics say that if i know you (specific generic man, in this file,
    not a statistic), trust you, respect you as a professional, marry you,
    have children with you, it is not yet inconceivable that you truly mean
    that i would be perfect only if i were dead.  no matter how well i
    trust you!!  and that is not the case if you are a woman.  this is not
    an excuse for women to say or imply they wish all men were dead; it is
    a clarification on why i feel there may be very few circumstances when i
    can be sure a man does not mean such a statement. 
    
    .0> 6) What's the deal here?
    
    you don't want an answer to this question.  still... the deal is that
    imperfect people make mistakes.  when approached reasonably, most will
    try to correct their mistakes.  when attacked, they will often (perhaps
    usually!) persist in the mistake.  when the attacker changes his
    methods because perhaps s/he sees that the original method didn't (and
    probably won't) work, s/he is remembered as an attacker despite the new
    tactic, and the "perpetrators" persist in their mistake.
    
    sometimes, even reasonable people who remember that everybody they are
    dealing with is reasonable persist in a disagreement and a "higher
    authority" must be sought out to mediate the dispute.
    
    re specific notes, yes several should be deleted.
    
    re fwo notes, they should remain and be enforced by moderators.  ron
    glover disagrees with this and that makes me unhappy, but that's that. 
    i am happy with the current "ignore" policy several have taken with
    respect to those who violate fwo's, but if ron glover says peer
    pressure is a no-no, then that will be that, too.
    
    lee

    I fail to see how anybody could be bothered by the phrase "the
    perfect man is dead" who doesn't consider themself perfect.

    If you're not perfect, the phrase doesn't apply to you in the
    least. If you seek to be perfect, it might be a bit off-putting.
    But I expect I'll be at my most perfect after I'm dead anyway.

    In reference to the base-note questions - it's always possible to
    phrase questions so that any answer will give you the kind of
    response you're looking for. I don't see why it's pertinent
    whether I've stopped beating my cat.

    I think that the phrase "The perfect man is dead" can be interpreted
    that one prefers for all men to be dead.
    Also I don't think this kind of stuff is humor. Women who are
    complaining about violence against them from men (I do), should
    not resort to this kind of humor.
    Carol

    I take it as humor, because even when I've heard women say that in the
    heat of anger, they didn't really mean it.  Everybody has a bad day,
    week, month, whatever ....
    
    Jerry (who sez the perfect cancer cell is a dead one ...)

    I think the whole thing is just looking for a stick to beat the dog
    with. Once someone is against the right for a group of people to have a
    forum of their own, and decides to dust comb through the entire
    conference looking for offensive material, no single reply is safe.
    
    I cannot possibly take any of the questions and points brought forward
    seriously any more. I don't feel like going through the motions of
    explaining the obvious for the sake of sheer paying attention to
    someone. My noting time is limited and as far as it's devoted to
    following this conference I'm annoyed by the fact the original charter
    is again and again disturbed by one-or-two-person issues. 
    
    On the subject of Joe White and dead men I've got one thing and one
    thing only to say: I'm already dying. To toast a beer with him. 
    
    Cheers,
    
    Ad

    Sheesh! Someone makes a remark, in a bad mood, in a sense of
    'dark humor' and you take it personal. Then you assume that since 
    the moderators let the joke stand, they also wish to hurt you. 
    
    A lot of painful stuff gets said here. It's very hard, no, impossible,
    to work through one's own pain and maintain complete sensitivity
    to the feelings of everyone around you, through every word you
    utter. Here in =wn= if you plan on taking every 'hurtful' word,
    phrase, or expression personally you'll either end up a) in tears,
    b) hurting someone who already has a full plate of it, or c) ultimately
    engaged in an argument which will *destroy this confereence as we
    know it*. I _like_ this conference as it is, warts and all, pain
    and all, occasional hatreds and all, because those things, if not
    allowed freedom of expression, get in the way of any real
    communication.
    
    It's damn hard to communicate deep feelings of pain, anger, etc.
    without making a few wild statements, a few generalizations that
    will 'splash' others. But if you value this as a space where others
    can say what they feel you simply have to put on an emotional
    'raincoat' and let a lot slide off you. Eric, your unwillingness
    or inability to do this constitutes a grave threat to this conference,
    which is *unique* in this company, and in my limited experience,
    unique in the _world_. Part of me longs to say something
    confrontational to you, but instead I will simply ask you to
    consider this - are your feelings of hurt sufficient reason to 
    shut this down ? Or can you ignore your own pain long enough to
    really hear the others who are hurt too ?
 

    Dana L. Charbonneau

    	RE: .11  Dana

    	> But if you value this as a space where others can say what they 
    	> feel...

    	We've already been given his answer to this.

    	edp has requested that the conference be shut down unless it is
    	run to his narrow specs - this note is a clue to the approximate
    	leeway he would like to see people given here.  

    	He's generously offered to tell the moderators what basenotes to
    	write to conform to his notion of the direction women should be led 
    	in this conference - he even offered to allow them to write the
    	notes in their own words and everything (as long as his explicit
    	directions are followed.)

    	All of this in the name of promoting his definition of equality
    	between the sexes...  

    	If women won't accept his edicts and his definitions of what we
    	should be doing here, he demands that this forum be destroyed.
    	He's already been to lawyers about this.

    	This is the equality he wants so desperately for women and men.
    	If we won't bow to his demands, he's the one being treated unfairly.

    Well!  sinse noone else will say it, SUZANNE WILL YOU PLEASE STOP IT!?
    
    NOWHERE in this note has Eric taken a pot shot, or even a percieved pot
    shot at you, so why must you?  huh?  damn!  this is getting stupid!

    
    	Not to worry, Al.  
    
    	If edp succeeds in destroying this forum, the rest of the non-work
    	noting world will fall with it.
    
    	There won't be another employee interest notesfile left on the
    	net (so no one will be taking pot shots at anyone anymore.)
    
    	Nor will anyone have the chance to discuss anything else.
    

    yes, trivial is the word alright.  sheesh.

    edp, in 456.18, you originally, in anger, said "f*** you". to a woman. 
    Perhaps it could be interpreted that, for a brief moment, in anger, you
    actually advocated the rape of a woman in this notesfile.  Afterall,
    taken literally, that is what "f*** you" means, isn't it?  
    
    How is this different from me saying in anger and hurt, after a
    horrible fight with a man I happen to care a great deal for and always
    will, that the perfect man is a dead man?
    
    Neither one of us really meant it.  I know I didn't really mean it and I
    don't think you did either.  But, then I was brought up to believe
    there is good in everyone.
    
    Lorna
    
    
    

    
    	RE: .17  Lorna
    
    	Thank you - I hadn't even realized that "F*** YOU" [submitted
    	without asterisks in the orginal version of his note] can be
    	interpreted as avocating the rape of a woman - if one were to
    	follow the same logic that interprets "dead" as advocating the
    	death of all men.
    
    	In fact, given that edp was engaged in a comprehensive diatribe
    	at the whole conference when he wrote "F*** YOU", it could be
    	interpreted that he advocated the rape of everyone here.
    

    Let's try this one more time, with feeling

    re: last few
    
    Please take the back-and-forth personal shots offline.
    
    Thank you
    
    -Jody

	Jody, while what I'm saying could be considered a "personal
	shot" I'd rather view it as a viable solution to the current
	problem.....


	I think that the high percentage of the problems in Notes has
	to do with a very low percentage of people...


	And on that note, I'll remove myself from this discussion so
	I don't become one of the "problems" too!  8-)

	kath

    *thank you*
    
    -Jody
    

    re .0, It is obvious to me that Mark's reply about the perfect man
    being dead is a joke.  It is obvious to me that what Mark is saying is
    that *nobody* is perfect, and therefore, it is futile to search for
    the perfect man.
    
    I cannot imagine how anyone could interpret this as bashing men,
    especially when Mark is a man himself. 
    
    As for my own reply of "dead" in answer to the question of What is the
    perfect man?, as has been mentioned previously, I was extremely upset
    at the time I wrote that.  The evening prior to that I had had an very
    upsetting fight with one of my male roommates over the fact that one of
    my cats had accidentally gotten shut in his bedroom and had made a mess
    on his bed.  (Can you imagine?  All this resulting from one orange cat
    not being able to get to his litter box.)  I was feeling very hurt, and
    very upset, and at the same time when I replied I meant it as a joke,
    too, a joke resulting from hurt feelings, and meant to be taken as a
    joke.  I later went in and said that I didn't mean it and had been in a
    bad mood at the time.
    
    Last night I was joking around and laughing with the man I originally
    had had the fight with.  He knows I don't hate men.  
    
    Now, I had posted that note on Aug. 21, and until last night I never
    heard ONE WORD from *anybody* about anybody being upset about that
    reply.  Last night I was called on the phone by a friend who felt that
    I should know that edp had taken one of my notes to Corporate Personnel
    and made a formal complaint about it.  That was the first I heard about
    edp's being upset about this note.  
    
    I posted it on Aug. 21 and this is Oct. 19.  edp did not call me or
    send me mail informing me that this note hurt his feelings.  If he had,
    I would have apologized and explained how it came about and deleted it. 
    edp did not give me this opportunity.  Instead, he waited almost two
    months and then took it to Personnel.
    
    The next time I post a note that inadvertently hurts someone I would
    appreciate it if they would contact me at either WRKSYS::STHILAIRE or
    dtn 223-3420, before resorting to more drastic measures.
    
    Thank you.
    
    Lorna
    

re.0
without reading any replies ...

 1. it's not 'ok'
 2. ever

 3. no
 4. never
 5. nope

 6. it's an imperfect world

These being my opinions/beliefs.

Have I always remained true to them?  No, and that's not 'ok' either.
Do I condemn others? No. How can I hold others to a standard of behaviour that
  I cannot perfectly maintain myself?

  Annie

    re .31, makes sense to me.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .33, Steve, originally Eric said "F*** Y**".  After moderators told
    him that was not acceptable, he went back and changed it.
    
    Lorna
    

    We can discuss this stuff forever. As, seemingly, we *have*. :-(
    
    However, a decision has been made. A course of action has been
    decided upon. No amount of discussion and attempted sense-making
    is going to change that. 
    
    If one person can have that potential Profound Effect on this file,
    we have not made the progress in this world that we thought we had.
    
    But then, we knew that.
    
    
    

    
    	RE: .35  Eagles
    
    	Further, the original "F*** Y**" was written without asterisks.
    

    The Greeks had a saying:
    
    		Call no man happy until the day of his death.
    
    That gives a bizarre twist to the not-yet-mercifully-forgotten
    song, "Be Happy".
    
    						Ann B.

    
    	Folks, it doesn't matter if edp drops everything and deletes 
    	=wn= from his notebook.
    
    	He always comes back later (as mad as ever.)
    

    	RE: .17  Lorna

    	>edp, in 456.18, you originally, in anger, said "f*** you". to a woman. 
    	>Perhaps it could be interpreted that, for a brief moment, in anger, you
    	>actually advocated the rape of a woman in this notesfile.  Afterall,
    	>taken literally, that is what "f*** you" means, isn't it?  

    	He's allowed to "explain away" what he really meant, though.  Your
    	explanation (almost immediately after you wrote the "dead" note)
    	didn't count.  You're only a woman, after all.  Like most of us here.

    	>How is this different from me saying in anger and hurt, after a
    	>horrible fight with a man I happen to care a great deal for and always
    	>will, that the perfect man is a dead man?

    	The difference is - he's edp.  He can justify (and refuse to justify)
    	anything he wants, as long as he's the one defining sexism for us.

    How Droll....
    

    Future back-and-forth shots will be deleted, folks.
    
    This is a difficult and upsetting time for all of us, are we really
    likely to improve matters by adding insult to injury?
    
    						in Sisterhood,
    						=maggie

    I dunno, when I see the title of this topic, I immediately think of
    Randy Newman singing, "Dead people got no reason..."
    
    Am I the only one?
    
    --- jerry_who's_not_dead_but_then_nobody's_perfect

    
    	RE: .50  jerry
    
    	As a matter of fact, the title had the same effect on me (at
    	one point.)  ;^)
    
    	Great minds ... (and all that.)  ;^)
    

    
    	RE: .52  edp
    
    	>> He's allowed to "explain away" what he really meant, though.
    
    	> Lorna was the one allowed to "explain away" her note.  She explained 
    	> it and the moderators permitted it.  Not so for me.
    
    	Is there such a thing as an "explanation" worth allowing the words
    	"F*** YOU" [written without asterisks] to be permitted in a Digital
    	notesfile?  
    
    	Were you the one who deleted and edited your "F*** YOU" note, or
    	did the moderators delete it?
    
    	Along the lines of the questions in your basenote, is there EVER a
    	reason why "F*** YOU" should be permitted in a Digital notesfile?

    	RE: .54  edp

    	>> Is there such a thing as an "explanation" worth allowing the words
    	>> "F*** YOU" [written without asterisks] to be permitted in a Digital
    	>> notesfile?  

    	> Certainly.  The explanation is Suzanne Conlon.  The explanation is 
    	> the feelings you cause.
    
    	What did I say immediately prior to your outburst that upset you so 
    	much, edp?
    

    
    	RE: .56  edp
    
    	Nothing about your hurt was mentioned in the note written immediately
    	prior to your outburst of "F*** YOU".
    
    	Don't you remember what it was about my note that upset you so much?
    

  Is this the new home of the rathole string...it seems that the dribble
  over someones hurt has all been done befor in so many other strings. 

    RE: Suzanne
    Are you going for a record or something?  I mena, you are (almist in
    every entry) constantly making reference to the phrase...
    
    I wont say it, even with ***. cause I feel that you have said it MORE
    than enough for the whole world to see......

    It's always been hard for me to see a real difference between a
    full spelling of a word and the same word with a few *s in it. So
    the obvious answer to Suzanne's question is that since she uses a
    word in a note and expects it to remain that it is obviously acceptable
    to use. * or no.

    		Alfred

    
    	RE: .60  Alfred
    
    	It's not the word as much as the way it was used.
    
    	Of course, by the time you and edp are finished, they'll be
    	printing "F*** YOU" on Hallmark Greeting cards.
    

    
    	RE: .62  Christine
    
    	How about answering my question, too, while you're at it?
    
    	Is it ever ok to scream "F YOU" to someone in a Digital notesfile?
    	Do you also think it's funny how someone could try to justify and
    	defend it (even though he reports women in this conference for
    	saying "Think" and "You don't understand" to him)?
    
    	Know what would happen if edp hinted that the perfect woman was
    	a dead woman?  
    
    	Considering how it compares to what he normally says to women,
    	it would most likely be regarded as an improvement.
    

    
    Asking for clarification...
    
    Was the dreaded phrase F*** Y**
    or was it F*** It!
    
    I've seen the second one, not the first one.

    Re .0 ( edp ) 
    
>    1) Is it always okay to say the perfect man is a dead man?
    
        No.
    
>    2) When is it not okay to say the perfect man is a dead man?
    
    When there is a reasonable expectation that saying so will offend and
    incite... E.G. - when you know the listener has recently suffered a
    bereavement of a male ; when you can reasonably expect that the teller
    ought to be aware that the listener is attuned to anti-male jokes and
    does not find them funny ; when the teller has been "tagged" as
    anti-male so that the joke can be reasonably regarded as one said out
    of malice, not fun ; when the social circumstances are such that men
    are routine victims of violence by women- e.g lynching/rape.
    
    Only the last example is theoretical, the rest are real-life instances 
    where the statement ought not to be made.
    
    
>    Want a laugh?  Attack a man.  Want to vent?  Attack a man.
>    
>    3) Is that the way it is?

    Well, if you've been a victim of male violence, its understandable that
    that is the way it is.
    
>    4) Is turnabout fair play?
    
    Usually only if you are at the end of your tether, i.e. the statements
    are persistent, personally directed, routine, unavoidable.  Otherwise, 
    you should laugh it off, sympathise with the reasons for the
    statements. And the turnabout should be engaged in with the express
    purpose of showing "now you know what it feels like" with the offer of
    "I'll stop if you will".
    
>    5) Would it ever be okay to say the perfect woman is a dead woman?
    
    Yes, as part of banter, light-heartedness etc... E.G. - If
    she's suffering from a hangover and say's "Gawd, I wish I was dead !",
    then a riposte like "That'll make you perfect then!" Context and the
    relationship matters.
    
    6) What's the deal here?
    
    You mean in the context of the notes posted ? Dunno for certain, but to
    me it looks like a feud. You're making, as far I can see, a reasonable
    statement that this sort of stuff hurts you. Why it should is beyond
    me, but if it hurts ya, and I was asked to refrain from it I would. But
    a few noses seem to be outta joint, so whatever you say is gonna be
    misinterpreted...
    
    -Shantanu

    The original note was the former, at moderator request it was
    edited to the latter.
    
    Bonnie J

    
    	RE: .66
    
    	> You're making, as far I can see, a reasonable statement that 
    	> this sort of stuff hurts you.
    
    	Yup - so reasonable that Corporate Personnel found out Lorna had
    	hurt his feelings well before she did.
    

    re .62, Christine, I assure you that the explanation I gave for
    entering the comment that a dead man is a perfect man is the honest to
    God real reason, cross my heart and hope to die, Christine.  Suzanne
    did *not* put words in my mouth.  Now, if you refuse to believe me
    there is nothing I can do.  If you would like to speak to me about this
    personally you can call me at 223-3420 or we could meet for lunch or
    for a drink after work and discuss.  I'm free.
    
    The same goes for anybody else reading this conference!
    
    I am sick to death of this stupid discussion.  Believe me, no one
    wishes more than I that I had never entered the note.
    
    I have a couple of questions for the readership, and would
    appreciate answers.
    
    1.  Since I had posted that reply on Aug. 21, I would like to
        know why it took people almost two months to decide it was
        offensive?   !!!!!!   When I am offended i know it 
        immediately.  It doesn't take me two damn months to
        decide on it.
    
    
    2.  Have I been tagged a *man-hater* by this conference?
    
    3.  Do people reading this really believe that I hate all men
        and wish all men were dead?
    
    For god's sake if all men were dead most of my best friends 
    would be eliminated and I would never get to enjoy my favorite
    activity again!!!!!  Why would I want that?
    
    I have exchanged mail with edp this morning.  As far as I am
    concerned the incident is over for me.  If edp still has a problem with
    the way the moderators moderate this file, that is between them and
    him.  As far as I'm concerned, there is no battle between myself and
    edp.  I don't even think edp *thinks*  *I* hate men!  He may think some
    of the women who note here do, but I don't think he thinks *I* do?
    
    Now, I want all the men who have met me who really believe I hate men
    and wish they were all dead to reply here and say why they believe it.
    
    Men who haven't met me, don't count, because you don't know me.
    
    I told edp in mail this morning that I believe that the reason that the
    moderators left my reply about perfect men being dead men in is because
    they *know* and know what kind of person I am, and not because I'm PC
    or a woman.  (After all, I'm *not* always PC.  I disagree with a number
    of the women in here about a variety of things.)  But, all the
    moderators know me personally and they all have some idea what kind of
    sense of humor I have, and they all have some idea what kind of a
    person I am.  They all knew that I was either (a) making a joke or (b)
    momentarily p*ssed off.  they all knew, in their hearts, that I don't
    really hate all men or wish them dead.
    
    Christine, when we lose our sense of humor, we lose everything.  Your
    reply .62 felt like an attack on me personally, and I don't appreciate
    it.  You don't know me as a person, so get off my case.
    
    Lorna
    

    Exactly what is my "crime" afterall?  I made a bad joke.
    
    I feel like there are people in here who would like to see me *shot*
    for making a bad joke.
    
    I don't think the question is, what's wrong with *me*?
    
    I'd like to know what the hell is wrong with all of *you*?
    
    I think you're a bunch of sickos to condemn a woman to this extent for
    making *one* bad joke.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .61 Here's the question that I felt answered it self. 
    
.53>   	Is there such a thing as an "explanation" worth allowing the words
.53>   	"F*** YOU" [written without asterisks] to be permitted in a Digital
.53>   	notesfile?  
    
    This note that YOU wrote implies that there is such an "explaination"
    possible. So you agree with EDP and the mods agree with you. What is
    your problem?
    
    		Alfred

    
    	RE: .71  Alfred
    
    	Is there a difference between shooting a gun into the air and
    	aiming it at someone's head when the trigger is pulled?
    
    	You're intelligent - figure out for yourself how these two
    	scenerios could possibly be different.
    

    Is there a difference between someone reading a note and someone
    deciding without reading it what it say? I hope one day Suzanne
    figures it out.
    
    		Alfred

    re .72, somehow I find it difficult to believe that you didn't have
    *me* in mind.  After all, I am the one whose reply was quoted in the
    basenote - the reply I entered two months ago and subsequently deleted,
    and then was supposedly reported to Corporate Personnel for writing,
    two months after the fact, and without having been personally contacted
    first.  
    
    Lorna
    

    
    	RE: .74  Alfred
    
    	Your words are coming through loud and clear - it's just very
    	difficult to believe you're saying these things with a straight
    	face.
    

    
    	Lorna, don't let it get you down.
    
    	If you come back in the next life as a man, you'll be able to say
    	anything you want (including "**** ***" with all the letters in
    	tact) and no one will care in the least.
    
    	You'll probably get a medal for it, in fact.
    

    
    lorna, you are wonderful
    

    re .79, oh, *thank* *you* Joe! :-)  
    
    re Suzanne, but when I come back as a man and say **** *** without the
    asterisks to women, I want the plaque and the trip to Hawaii! :-) :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    
    I AM SOOOOOOOOOOOOO BORED.....

    
    	RE: .80  Mike Z.
    
    	You'd be dissapointed, Mike.  You'd have to decrease your own
    	blathering by ten-fold, along with the other traits you mentioned.
    
    	You'd get the band end of the deal.
    

    
    	RE: .86  Mike Z.
    
    	You blather in far more conferences than I participate in, Mike -
    	and as for your accuracy, I am reminded of the time you criticized
    	me for arguing with you in Human_Relations (a conference I don't
    	even read.)
    

    OK now children.. each of you, take yer own balls and go home.....
    
    GESH!  someone hit that darn turntable...

    re .86, Christine, you still seem to be addressing the issue from the
    standpoint that I actually wished all men were dead, which is not the
    case.  I *disagree* with my own statement, too, if it comes to that,
    because I was only kidding around!
    
    re .84, let's see how soon you get over it the next time you are
    reported to Corporate Personnel because a statement you made was taken
    out of context.
    
    Lorna
    

Would you all take the insults and personal arguments
to mail, please?

Kathy

    would you all take the insults and personal arguments elsewhere --
    anywhere else at all?
    
    Sara
    

    
    	Lorna, there goes your plaque and the trip to Hawaii.  ;^)
    

    re Christine, I don't feel that I was taking a pot shot or making an
    unnecessary barb.  I was simply stating my honest opinion.  Perhaps
    you'll prove me wrong in the future by someday agreeing with a woman
    who is involved in a disagreement with a man.
    
    Also, you say that you hope the file gives you a chance, but so far it
    seems that the only time you reply to a topic is to state that you
    disagree with somebody or to say what you don't like about this
    notesfile.  In other words, it seems to me that, so far, you have only
    come in to criticize.
    
    I'm sorry if I have offended you but I've been under a great deal of
    stress recently (due to being reported to Corporate Personnel and all).
    
    Lorna
    

	I am going to be ill.



	People so intent on their "agendas" that they have no idea
	the extent of the pain, nor do they seem to care, they inflict
	on others.



	I'm ashamed to be associated with some people some of the time.
	And that is TRULY sad.


	Can everyone PLEASE take a deep breath and look inside and determine
	what their *agenda* is?   Some *agendas* are really not worth
	the hell you can put others thru.


	kathy

	

    
    	RE: .106  Mike Z.
    
    	Your definition of misrepresentation is a misrepresentation. 
    

Would you folks please stop the personal shots in this file?

Kathy

    
    Lighten up buddy, they're both joking.
    My husband says that the perfect woman is as follows:
    	flat head, (for a beer resting place)
    	no teeth, (you figure it out)
    	mute,
    	her "Daddy owns a liquor store"
    
    I think that a ridiculous joke is just that.
    
    Rachael
    

    This man doesn't need the saving, thank you very much.
    
    I think that some participants are overly sensitive to 'male-bashing'
    and convinced that their personal moral compass is the only true one.
    
    I find this code very narrow and intolerant of other viewpoints. This
    is a woman's file, after all. 
    
    As we have already seen, one person's bash is another person's joke.
    
    Lighten up.
    
    -roger
    

Roger,

I think he was being ironic.

	"Lighten up."


	-- Charles

    
    
    I think this has been hashed and rehashed enough.  To all concerned:  
    It is not appropriate to discuss or speculate about matters that are 
    currently or may be currently before personnel.  This note seems to do 
    little else, at least lately.
    
    I'm setting this note nowrite until morning, at which time the comods will 
    confer about its future. 
    
    
    Justine