Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    Many thanks to Joyce LaMotte for starting this popular topic!

    Beehb boo biii beeeh ba beeba aah ba oommiibeeh!
    
    							Ann B.

    hey ann,
    pass the pillow when you're done, ok?
    
    liz

    Don't you just hate the people who pass you the pillow when they've
    gotten it all soggy *right in the middle*, and they've torn little
    holes in the case with all that teeth-grinding?
    
    Here, Liz.
    
    							;-) Ann B.

    Sorry to burst your bubble but that must have been a very old clip.
    The Heavy Weight Champion of the WWF is not that way any longer.
     Anyone that really believes that this is real has a couple of things
    to learn.  Not to say that you do, just saying.  He treats her with
    alot more respect that he used to.  Watch more up to date events
    and you will see.  Jack T. must have opened his eyes, and smell
    the coffee.
    
    BTW:  That is why he was/is called "Macho Man"  Cause he was a baddy
    and all baddy's have to do things that piss people off.  His name
    will probably change now that he is nice. or........

    Whats this "Mr" crap, Mike??
    DEC has a policy.....
    
    Yes, the "Rude Awakening" really excites me too.... GAG!

I saw a woman running a show on a NH TV station in Manchester Sunday afternoon.
She had a repersentative of "Father's United", and organization interested in
improving the lot of seperated and divorced parents and children, and a woman
from a battered women's shelter.  She would play them off against each other,
asking them apparently innocent questions, and having them actually answering
different questions.  For instance, she would ask about how they felt about
mediated divorces, and the man would be for it (for divorces in general), and
the woman would be against it (for abusive situations).

Such misrepresentation made me nausious!

JMB 

    re: -.1
    
    people who wildly extrapolate, jump to their own conclusions, stick
    words in other people's mouths/heads, and then demand evidence to
    back up their conjecture.
    
    faugh.
    
    -Jody
    

    I HATE SUCK***ES AND KISS***ES!!!!  I dispise people that suck up
    to people to either better themselve or to get even with someone
    else!!!!  These sort of people will stop at nothing to get what
    they (HE OR SHE) want.  Nothing I hate more that an *** kissing
    back stabbing son of.........
    I bette stop before I get into trouble.
    
    Still dont feel any better.....

    re   < Note 80.11 by RANCHO::HOLT "Robert A Holt" >

>    Instead of playing catty eye games, why not call it what it 
>    is (insulting), and inform the offender clearly that you
>    are not pleased...?
    
    hmmm, if the choice is between "playing catty eye games" or being
    "strident" (perhaps "domineering"?), which is preferable?
    
    Lee

I would think that unless the other person means to be insulting, there is no
reason to say, 'that is insulting', but rather 'I would prefer otherwise'. Body
Language can always help put your point across.

JMB 

    re .15
    
    um... I think you missed my point, Jim.  The hot button I was relieving
    refers to the fact that certain words are FWO.  You simply do _not_
    hear men being called "catty" (that means a woman acting in anger,
    but in a particularly "ungracious" way), "strident" (that means a
    woman who does not accept having her words/opinions dismissed without
    any consideration whatsoever), or "domineering" (a woman who likes
    to be in control, even if it is only for ONCE in her #$%%&^* life).
    
    See, men aren't "catty" because their anger is righteous and they
    are not expected to be "gracious" when in fact they are blowing
    steam from their navel they are so mad.
    
    Men aren't "strident" because they are allowed to be insistant when
    they have an opinion they think is relevant and but not being given
    due consideration.  Their opinion may be wrong and stupid, but their
    insistance is just that, insistance, not stridency.
    
    Men aren't "domineering" because they are _supposed_ to be in control
    MOST of the time (not just in the few isolated instances which will
    get an in-control woman labelled as domineering).
    
    These are words that scream at me.  They are offensive to me, and
    say horrible, awful things about the speaker's opinion of "a woman's
    place".  A proper woman never acts in anger, no matter how righteous.
    A proper woman accepts without protest the outright rejection of 
    her thoughts. A proper woman controls nothing (even controlling
    the children's raising or th weekly menu will get her called the
    d-word).  The user of these words says to ME that s/he believes
    these things.
    
    Sorry I didn't make it clear enough.
    
    lt

    I am fed up, fed up, fed up to the N power of men telling women
    how to behave, whether it be in WOMANnotes or elsewhere.
    
    I am totally disgusted with myself because I don't dare say "Suzanne
    Conlon is right", as when I said it in V1 I was told I was starting
    a new religious cult, even though men can initiate notes and have
    other men answer in "me too" mode without being accused of the same.
    
    I realise that the above sentence is somewhat un-grammatical, but
    I am too upset to try to put it right. Accept my apologies.
    
    Joana
         

    
   There is a difference....we've been told what to do and how to be
   for the last 5,000 years.
    
   Ann Marie 

    Re: .20
    
    Ann Marie, I didn't know you were that old....
    
    Re: .18
    
    Probably the thing that burns me up more than anything is when someone
    decries a certain behavior in others, but commends it in themselves
    or their own group.  The rationalizations of hypocrisy I have seen
    lately are amazing.
    
    					Steve

    
    re: .21
    
    It's a good thing that I have a sense of humor.
    
    am
    

Don't you know we don't "Value differences" here? :->
(just how many ways can you take that?)

This whole thing is rediculous!

JMB

    RE: .25
    
    >  i wish some of you boys would shut up
    
    Yes, Ma'am, whatever you want.

    RE: .28
    
    Mike, I was being somewhat facetious, probably because of the
    response in his Note 60.72, regarding my 60.66.               
    
      Alan

    ...Men who get on other men's cases by implying that there is
    something female about them, thus making female qualities
    somewhere lower than pond scum.
    

      
    People who feel they must fight another's battles.

    People who put in an entry, and then a correction as the next
    entry.
    
    (Actually, this isn't a flame.  It's me being a busybody and giving
    a hint.)  All they have to do is type at the Notes> prompt while
    reading their own note:
    
    extract x.x<ret>
    delete<ret>
    y<ret>
    reply x.x<ret>
    
    and edit in the correction.
    
    							Ann B.
    
    

    ... or if you just finished writing the note and realized you made
    a mistake,
    
    delete<ret>
    y<ret>
    reply/last
    
    ... will allow you to re-edit the note you just wrote.
    
    e

    
    Discovering a string of hot m-f "fight notes" only to          
    discover I can only see the titles! 
    
    This is worse than getting caught at the light at Page Mill Rd.

100.* is a good example of the attitudes that fathers trying to get custody have
to deal with.  I'm boiling mad, but I hope to resist replying to that topic
for everyone's sake.  I doubt that it would be productive; my reactions are
not 100.0's to have to deal with.

JMB 

    Repeated misspelling of a word does not qualify as a "typo".
                                              
    Typographic errors are typically rare, random mistakes.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    re .38
    
    SO WHAT???

    re:.39
    
    So spelling mistakes are one of his hot buttons.
    
    --- jerry

    One of hot buttons is people who jump in and reply about a spelling
    error when someone is asking for help.  I could better understand
    someone coming into the topic and letting the person know of the
    mistake and then getting back to the subject, but I think joking
    about it and not even bothering to reply to the original topic isn't
    very nice.    
                                            
    .40                                     
                                            
    and since you are speaking for him can one of y ou explain to me
    why someone elses spelling error has such a great importance to
    you/him?  No spelling bees in here as far as i can tell.
              
              

    re:.40
    
    I didn't say I was speaking for him. My response was a deduction
    made by reading his notes.
    
    Personally, I have a "thing" about spelling and grammar (and, yes,
    I make errors, and I kick myself for them), though I rarely remark
    on them.
    
    --- jerry

    re .41:       
    
    My "hot button" is proper use of language, not spelling errors per
    se. I was reacting to the statement that I had been making fun of
    someone's "unfortunate typo". What I was pointing out is that it
    was not a typo but a misspelling. Since I (collectively) was asked to 
    reply only to .9 in that topic, this seemed the only appropriate place 
    to point that out.
    
    Misspelling is not a "hot button" I don't jump all over someone for 
    misspelling. As I've already explained, in this case I thought the
    misspelling conjured a humorous image, I was not trying to ridicule
    the author. 
    
    As for not replying to the topic, I read that basenote as asking
    people to go over to MENNOTES to reply to her note there. 
    

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    BTW, the title of this topic asks that hot buttons be deleted when
    cooled. Hasn't anyone cooled off yet?
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    
                                             

    	My hot button is people using "since" when they mean
    	"because." 8-)>
    
    	Scott

    
    I roll my eyes heavenward at the hangups on grammar, punctuation,
    and spelling when the meaning is perfectly clear. 
    
    Also, my eyebrows tend to arch upon encountering excessive use
    of $64.95 words, uselessly intricate prose calculated to impress,
    or obscure Latin and/or French phraseology, when a dimestore 99 
    cent word works perfectly well....

    Hey, if you collect enough $64.95 words, you've got a substantial 
    (that's "big" to the non-cognoscenti) investment in obfuscatious 
    verbiage. Why waste it?

    Today my hot button is people who travel on toll roads and aren't
    prepared to pay the toll, they have to search for 5 to 10 minutes
    for the money.  I take the Mass Pike every day and I keep my ash
    tray full of change just for tolls, this also helps when I travel
    other toll roads also.
    
    I could just scream when I am sitting behind some idiot who pulls
    up to the toll booth and then starts a long drawn out search, under
    the seat, leaning over to the back seat, Getting out and searching
    their pockets and whatever. 

    what bothers me about the tolls that you have to throw your change
    in is that they are too far away for my small arms...They should
    put the basket on a mechanical arm and when cars pull up the arm
    can extend to your window then you don't have to worry abou missing
    and getting out of the car and picking the change up from the ground
    and having everyone beep at you for holding up traffic...
    
    

    Today, another hot and humid day after several weeks of hot and
    humid days, with no end in sight, all my buttons are hot.
    
    I'd start a fight with the next person who says "hello," but I'm
    too hot and exhausted to pick up a fist.
    
    --bonnie 

    Apart from purging the notes, Peggy, not too much.  Unless someone
    knows where I can get a good physical-sector editor...jako the Norton
    Utilities for DOS. 
    
    						=maggie

    Building managers who, during a brown-out due to overuse of
    electricity, have the air conditioning set to such a low temperature
    that I'm shivering in my office!  I'd rather be able to take my
    jacket off and turn the lights on.
    
    Guess I won't get very much sympathy on this.
    
    Pilar.

    
    ...not from someone who sits in an area where the vents blow
    *warm* air, and it's 95 outside... :-{
    
    --DE
    

    The misdated notes don't affect me..  I don't see why they should
    bother anyone who is using the NOTES "unseen" feature in the normal
    manner.  I'd be interested in receiving mail from people who are
    affected by this.
    
    					Steve

    re .44:
                    
    >	My hot button is people using "since" when they mean
    >	"because." 8-)>

    No, smiley faces will not protect you. Today I am on a mission from
    Merriam-Webster.
    
    since: (conj.) 3. as a result of the fact that; inasmuch as.
    
    You have absolutely no right to be upset at the use of "since" in
    place of "because", it is proper usage. Harrumph.
    
    okay, okay, I promise to stop right now. please, no more rotten 
    tomatoes. I just couldn't help myself.
    
    But seriously, I did not look up "since" merely to prove you wrong
    or to make a fool of myself. I was writing my progress report and
    used "since" in place of "because". I thought of your note and
    wondered whether it really was improper usage since [sic] I see it
    used that way so often. So I looked it up. 
    
    BTW, I just looked up "because", and I think it interesting that
    its definition is:
    
     		for the reason that; since.
    
    So, no more, I realize that this is not JOYOFLEX and I will not
    subject this conference to anymore linguistic quibbling. (for awhile
    anyway)
    
    Thank you for your patience.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    
                                

    in re .55
    
    well it isn't exactly a hot button...
    but it itches me to see people write that they would like
    advise instead of advice ...
    
    sigh
    
    bonnie

    Re: 5.52
    
    You will get sympathy from me. This has been my hot button (or cold
    button) for the last month. We have these stupid brown outs everyday,
    and I'm here wearing a jacket. Augh !
    
    Dee

    Gee, since [sic] everyone else is adding their grammatical
    pet-peeves...
    
    Typos don't bother me, but when the use is repeated, then it's a
    spelling mistake:
    
    When people say "alot".  It's two words, folks!
    
    When people say "your", as in "Your going to the store".  Grrr...
    
    When people say "their" as in "Their going to the store"    "
    
    :-)
    
    The *real* hot button I meant to put in here...prejudice, esp.
    expressing it in obnoxious, blatant ways.  And *especially* gay-bashing
    (including verbal!)  Some people have been pushing this button a
    lot recently (in the laset couple days) and I get *so* mad I can
    hardly see straight.  I also tend to get irrational, so that the
    people I am trying to convince end up laughing me off.
    
    Is anyone following the COLLEGE conference?  Someone made a comment
    like "Gee, hope there are no LAAR (gay group at RPI) people around",
    to which I flamed abundantly, and then someone called me a hypocrite
    for mentioning that I wasn't in LAAR.  Ooohhhh, sometimes I get
    so mad I punch holes through cubby walls!
    
    Diana
      !

    about being kept in the cold and dark -
    
    I have to tell you...we've been in "brown out" quite a bit this
    summer. I don't mind the dark, although I think I have more headaches
    and "eye-aches". The heat, though is another story. AND, even worse,
    the humidity! Last Friday, it was up close to 90 in the area where
    I work. (just a regular office area in the Mill) And HUMID! Boy,
    my lungs were not happy at all! But other office areas which I walked
    through were comfortable or even cool! Not fair. Monday morning,
    I came into work and it was so cold we felt there should be sides
    of beef hanging around! It was 56 degrees when someone finally came
    to shut the a.c. off. It's been this way all week - HOT then COLD
    then HOT etc. 
    
    And people are GROUCHY! (Myself included!) Is this ever going to
    stop? 
    
    And here's another hot button, since we're at it - Last night, it
    was about 85 degrees out at around 9:30. And it was so humid you
    could see the moisture just hanging in the air. Everyone I knew
    who does not have a.c. (myself included) was basically just sitting
    around with fans blowing and of course all windows were open, hoping
    that there might be just one slightly cool breeze. (wouldn't want
    to miss it, you know...) And the DPW or whoever is in charge of
    these things decided to send the trucks around to spray for mosquitoes!
    
    They drove around spraying this poison into the air. Which is bad
    enough on a "normal" night. (It causes breathing problems, that
    is.) Of course, they must have figured that there wasn't *already* 
    enough crap in the air. I mean, the air quality has been *poor* for 
    so long now, they must just be used to it. (sarcasm fully intended, 
    in case someone misunderstands) Just what I needed.
    
    Well, thanks for letting me get this off my chest.
    
    -Amy.

    Re: Weather
    
    Am I the only on that has a hot button with people that complain
    about things thay can not control? Like the weather? Yes, it is
    hot. Yes, and oppressive. Oh well that's the way it goes. Let's 
    get some more ice tea...
    
    The more you complain about it, even to yourself and the more you
    think about it on a conscious level the more it will bother you.
    
    I remember my Dad used to be able to find something bad about the
    weather all the time, rain or shine, hot & cold and anything in
    between. 
    
    Be sure to reread these entries in January, it'll make you feel
    warm inside  8^)
    

    

    People who won't return phone calls.
    
    Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    
    People who insist on correcting the alleged "misspellings" of someone
    who chooses to use (for political or other reasons) an alternate
    spelling of the nouns representing the female gender (ie;
    womyn,wimmin).  If you've got a problem with those alternate spellings,
    why not take it to the "Sexism in Language" topic or some other more
    appropriate place?  Insisting on correcting that usage in response
    to a basenote or reply that is dealing with some issue other than
    language usage is rude and disruptive.
    

    Gee, Rita, I don't think I've ever seen "rathole" used as a
    verb before!  
    
    :) :) :) :):) :) :) :):) :) :) :):) :) :) :):) :) :) :):) :) :) :)
    --bonnie

    re: .63
    
    The previous note is an example of three common rhetorical tactics
    used in notes files:
    
    1.  Irrelevance, as Rita is complaining about -- the use of
        "rathole" as a verb has nothing to do with whether politically
        motivated alternate spellings are valid or, more importantly, with
        the note-writer's feelings about the matter. 
    
    2.  Trivialization of the point -- by making it irrelevant.
    
    3.  The use of humor to disguise the non-sequiter.  Can't you
        take a joke?

        Notice also the use of smiley faces to disarm criticism.  
    
    Please avoid all these tactics.  There's a place for humor, but be
    careful.  And remember that rational argument is more effective
    than rhetorical pyrotechnics in the long run. 
    
    --bonnie

    
    Yup, as in "to rathole"; usage similar to the verb "architect" ;-)
    
    Rita
    

	What about those that take every joke as an insult. If I'm
       talking to someone in person I have the same attacks of silly I
       sometimes get in notes. A phrase or word sometimes just seems
       funny. That's part of what makes conversation enjoyable. I spent
       a lot of time working in hospital emergency rooms and cancer
       wards. Humor was the only way to survive sometimes. If we take
       ourselves too seriously we lose sight of the joys of life. liesl

    re .62
    
    Another approach is simply to use [SIC] to express yourself: it
    specifically means "I'm quoting this accurately despite the apparent
    error", but doesn't derail the discourse. As in:
    
    re .64

>    3.  The use of humor to disguise the non-sequiter [SIC].  Can't you
>        take a joke?

    Some of us aren't capable of serious discussion without employing 
    humor. 

    Gun-bearer, the industrial-strength flamethrower, please:
    
    Datatrieve:
    
    	as a dbms layered on an mfg. system (like the ubiquitous MRP II)
    
        No GOTO?!?  Take me now; I've had enough. . .
    
    
    Steve
    

    Um, Steve, Datatrieve isn't a dbms, it's only a query language... 

    It's an interactive query language, at that.  It's meant for
    asking little questions at your terminal, or maybe at most
    printing out reports of a whole bunch of little questions asked
    together.  What are you trying to do with the poor thing that
    you need a GOTO????????
    
    --bonnie, who used to write for Datatrieve and is now on CDD/Plus 

    re: .69
    
    I know, Bonnie - I should have been clearer.  Would it make
    more sense (that is would the use of DTR be more non-sensical)
    if I'd phrased it "I just hate it when DTR is made to try to
    serve the purposes of a dbms, particularly in a system with
    scads of files, all of them with *lots* of records and many
    with large records (say, > 500 bytes).  
    
    In virtually any manufacturing system, you can get lots of data
    from one file, but for sophisticated *information* you need to 
    garner data from one file, and, using a common field, grab data 
    from two or more other files, etc.  Didya ever try to do a 
    one-to-many CROSS starting with a couple of thousand records 
    CROSSing to a, perhaps, 100 K record domain?  I watched my beard 
    grow long and grey while awaiting the results.
    
    In one of the other topics, I referenced a shouting match I'd
    had with a manager during a meeting.  Now, I'll admit that I
    was *way* off base in my method (madness itself), but what I
    was trying to commuicate was that we'd been using 1022 (my
    beloved) while on the 10's to do the kind of thing I'd described
    above (at nearly carriage-return response speed to boot); to try 
    to do the same with DTR was, um, ill-advised. . .another tool 
    (like 1032, the VAX version of 1022) would be far better.  I was 
    told that 1032 was "too expensive".  Over the ensuing months I've 
    often wondered at the expense of litreally not being able to do the 
    things we once could (as users). . .  In honesty, DTR, when properly 
    applied is a fine tool; unfortunately, some have believed it could be
    successfully applied to lots of inappropriate things.
    
    Steve
    

    People who verb nouns.

    Reference is  a  noun.  Refer is a verb. I could go on about other
    equally annoying misuses of English, but instead I'll refer you to
    Henry Higgin's song at the opening of "My Fair Lady".

--David

    re -.1                                                
    
    Wait till I get my earplugs firmly screwed in...

    RE .71>People who verb (sic) nouns
    
    Last I heard, 'verb' *was* a noun.
    
    :-)

Re: .74

    That was  the  point,  but to quote Ron Ziegler (I think) "You can
    verb  anything."  (Another  reason  to  not listen to presidential
    spokesmen.)

--David

    
    Have a seat. It'll take awhile...

    
    Incompetent drivers.
    
    People with no sense of humor.
    

    	Long notes that end in "enough said".  Sounds like trying to
    	get the last word in to me.
    		Linda

    
    People who are so convinced they are right that they censor out of
    notes opinions that don't correspond with  what they believe.
    
    Ken P...

According to an article in SELF recently, more women are looking at men and
judging them by their wallets and paychecks then ever...

JMB

    
    re -.1
    
    Whew! What a relief! 
    

    It'll soon be time to develop some new "lines" to start conversations:
    
    "Hiyah, babe, I'm making 52 K a year, and I drive a Jaguar XJ6,
    own my own home, and have a little timeshare condo in ski country.
    How about you?"
    
    Perhaps I should focus less on learning to cook, and search for
    a second job..  :^)
    
    Bill

    re .85
    
    I think that entry would be quite effective on the node HIT:: 8^)

    Hey guys, those lines are already being used.  I had two dates in
    which the men offered all this information to me, which I feel is
    quite personal, but I think they see it as making them more marketable.
    
    Soon it will come down to passing resume's and tax returns!!  What
    ever happened to the "Date" where you went out for a good time?
    Give me the good old days.

    I think it's time to take a 24 hour "don't look at womannotes unless
    you're ready to get _really_ ticked off" break, cause my hot buttons
    are being pushed EVERY time I open...
    
    Lee

All right -- I've waited 24 hours and I'm still feeling unhappy, so here 
goes...

Some deep internal button in me gets pushed when my views and character
are misrepresented.  I do not mind being attacked for opinions I
actually hold, but I become annoyed at being attacked for positions and
opinions that are not mine. I feel compelled to state that my sense of
personal ethics requires a commitment to intellectual honesty. 

Although Truth may be ultimately unknowable because we can never step
completely outside of our own frame reference, I am nevertheless
relentless in my commitment to searching for it. I have an insatiable
desire to know why and how everything works, particularly the endlessly
fascinating creations of human society.  The conclusions I come to are
based on my observations -- observations that constantly push to get to
the reason behind everything.  I do not construct theories, and then
force the data to fit them.  I do not have prejudices that I then
construct theories to justify.  These are intellectual sins, and it 
offends me very deeply to be accused of them. I admit to having
prejudices like any other human being, having been born and raised in
human society, but when I find them I challenge them ruthlessly.

Along with a commitment to the pursuit of truth, I have a strong
commitment to understanding and valuing the realities of other human
beings.  I strongly oppose the kind of thinking that makes one-dimension
objects of human beings.  It is the kind of thinking that makes it
possible to turn human beings into possessions: to make them slaves,
wives, breeders, to dispose of one's baby daughters like unwanted
kittens, to sell own's children into marriage, prostitution, and
slavery, to kill the "gooks" and "redskins" like they were so many
vermin.  I have a strong commitment to respecting the sacredness of each
human experience, and to the struggle for individual freedom and social
justice. 

If I thought that men were intrinsically doomed to violence, rape, and
the destruction of life, then I would have to live with the thought that
I have given birth to a monster, since I have a son.  As a mother I
cannot think such a thing about my child. All the mothers out there will
understand how I could never view either my son or my daughter as less than
wonderfully and fully human.  This means that in a very deep and
personal way I cannot accept that men are intrinsically beyond
redemption as human beings, although at times my faith is sorely tested. 
Knowing what it has cost me to care for others in my life, I am at a loss 
to communicate what it means to me to be accused of a hatred toward men 
that is comparable to the hate fostered by the author of _Mein Kampf_.

Now that I've made that personal statement, I feel much better.  The 
feminist-baiters may proceed to flail away in another topic.

    Re: .89
    
    Hooray for you, Catherine!  I would have written exactly what you
    said, if only I could express myself as well as you did.  Never
    give up the search for truth.
    
    				Steve

    Arghh!  It's happened again.  Yesterday I had a black plastic point
    pen on my desk.  I used it.  Within an hour it had disappeared.
    So I got another one.
    
    By now I should have about fifteen of these, rolling across my
    desk at work, lying at the bottom of every compartment in my purse,
    and cluttering up every flat surface in my house.  I don't.  I
    have one on my desk, one in my purse, and one at home.  Miff.
    
    What?  Oh.
    
    Excuse me.  I have just been informed that I am extremely lucky
    to own any.  The experience of at least one other person has
    been that they evaporate while still in the supply cabinet.  Well,
    I don't *feel* lucky.  Or grateful.
    
    							Ann B.

    Cheer up, Ann --  the person who moves into your office after you
    vacate will find five black pens in the center drawer of your
    desk, five in the side drawer, and five more in the filing
    cabinet. 
    
    When I moved into a new office a couple of years ago, I found two
    green felt markers, three black ballpoint pens, two red fineline
    markers, and a blue pencil in the drawers.  The previous occupant
    informed me that he had been looking for the blue pencil for a
    couple of years, and he swore those drawers were empty. 
    
    And I believe him.  My theory is that we each have a pocket of
    time-space following us around, and our pens fall through holes in
    our drawers, pockets, and purses into this time-space warp.  As
    long as we're there, we plug the exit, but as soon as we leave, we
    open the hole and everything falls back out.
    
    --bonnie 

    
    	Remember the book _The Borrowers_?  I still think that is
    	a good explanation of what happens to pens, paper clips,
    	scissors, socks . . .
    
    	My father never believed in the Borrowers though . . .

    Does it work for socks as well, Bonnie?
    

    George Carlin says when you die and go to heaven, you get back 
    all the stuff you lost...
    

    I thought that was when you went to hell.
    
    --bonnie

    GRR! i hate it when people bring their new babies into the office.
    i can understand the joy that people feel when they have children,
    and i can imagine that they'd want to show off the kid especially
    with people who've waited and agonized with them for 9 months. 
    
    but the kids seem to hate it! it's apparently very stressful for
    little babies to be dragged into these airless environments with
    lots of flourescent lights and to perform for lots of strangers
    making strange faces. it seems like every baby who's brought to
    work ends up screaming.
    
    and that leads me to how the adults feel. i hate listening to babies
    crying. and at work, especially, i find it to be a very disturbing
    noise. in addition, i realize that some workmates love googling and
    cooing over babies, but i don't. i don't want to look at it, i don't
    want to hold it, i don't want to tell the mom how cute it is. 
    
    phew. that feels better... (and if anyone wishes to discuss this,
    please start a new note! thanks).
    
    liz

	It's not the newborns that bother me - they're usually
	in and out pretty quick.  What about when Mom or Dad
	decides to bring in little Johnny or Suzie for the
	entire day?!  They run up and down the halls, can't
	go to the bathroom by themselves and whine for help,
	are generally loud and disruptive, and 'visit' other
	office to 'see what you're doing'.   Grrrr, this isn't
	a daycare center.

	Conni

    I absolutely *HATE* bumping into notes that are SET HIDDEN before
    I've even had a chance to read them.  It drives me NUTS!!!  It's
    kind of like when I was a child and I would approach a group of
    girls who had been telling secrets (assumption) and they stop as
    soon as I arrived.  AAARRRGGGHHH!!!
    
    Barb

    Barb,
    
    Please understand that we moderators have no choice. We aren't
    deliberately keeping secrets from people but trying to keep
    material that is for some reason controversial, but not immediately
    identified as "should delete" from generating anymore controversy
    until the issue is resolved. For one example, if a person is offended
    by a note, we hide it until we work out a solution between the
    two people (if the issue is raised to us, that is, we prefer that
    people attempt to work things out by mail first). The solution
    could be the withdrawal of the objection, a rewriting of the note,
    or deletion of the note.
    
    Bonnie J Reinke
    comoderator

    Bonnie-
   
        It's not that I don't understand, nor is it that I don't agree
    with what you must do.  It's that it still drives me *NUTS* whether
    necessary or not.
    
    Barb                    

    This one gets to me too -- why NOTES isn't smart enough to
    know you can't read a note that's being written.  
    
    I keep a little pad of yellow stick-em notes next to my terminal
    to jot down the notes I need to go back to, so I can read them
    explicitly.
    
    --bonnie

       re .103/.104:
       
       Try this when you get a "...note being written" message: give the
       SET SEEN/BEF= command, and specify the time 1 minute before the
       still-being-written note.  Then your notebook will be convinced
       that you haven't seen the note, and you'll see it next time you
       open the conference.
       
       A votre service,
       
       --Mr Topaz 

       One of my hot buttons is when someone gives an ambiguous
       description of a problem that they want solved.
       
       --Mr Topaz

	RE. .100 & .101

	I agree that the SET HIDDEN can be maddening; like missing
	the 'good' parts of a novel because someone has ripped out
	the pages. Image the end of a mystery novel and 'The murderer
	is .." Rip. Yes, I understand why moderators must do so.
	So I have solution - a new conference HIDDEN::HIDDEN_NOTES
	as a burial ground for such notes :-)

       People who pass me in the hall and say "Hi how are you" when I
       know they don't care and only want to hear "I'm fine" as an
       answer. I know that's all they want to hear cause they just keep
       on walking rather than stop to find out. I HATE this and I almost
       never say anything in response but Hi or good morning. Why can't
       they just say Hi? liesl

    
    re: .112   
    
    	I feel the same way.  Most people really don't want
    	to hear your problems!
    
    

    My usual response to this kind of greeting is either "Surviving" or
    "Alive". 

     re .112   Or at the local Grocer as the checkout clerk says,
               "Have a nice day" instead of an earlier original -
               "May God bless you."
    
                                                  Russ

    The thing to do is go on the 'offensive' and hit THEM with a "Good
    Morning" or "Hi" (or other pseudo-solicitousness-free greeting)
    FIRST! 

    Chuck

re .112

	In the same voice you might use to say "Great! How are you?", instead
	say "Horrible! How are you?". It'll usually stop 'em in their tracks.


						Tom_K

    Yeah, I've met a few of 'em, too.
    Generally, if it's morning, I'll respond with, "I'm awake."
    
    Some people wait to pipe up with it until they are just about past
    you, so you may not even know who they are unless you whirl around
    and wear your coffee in the process.
    
    No big loss, in my book, these hit-and-run-hello-ers...
    
    -Jody

    Try answering with a total non sequiter, like:
    
    "Hi. How are you?"
    
    "Oh, about a quarter to two."
    
    --- jerry

    How about "Functioning" or "Here"?  This usually stops 'em in their
    tracks.
    
    -Barb

    Set mind/attitude=triple_furious:
    
    I'm angry:
    
    When I went to enter a reply of several paragraphs,
    I got blown off the net - "partner exited" or some such

    I'm double-mad:
    
    It was, just for a change, a serious reply to a serious question
    (the note on mood shift during menstruation); it took a while to
    compose and, since it was written from personal experience, it
    had a certain degree of emotional punch in it for me.
    
    I'm triple-furious:
    
    I *know* there's a way to recover the buffer - with the aid of
    a moderator, I did it once.  But did I write the solution down?
    
    Noooooooooooo
    
    Think I'll just go chew my wrists open while playing in traffic.
    
    Steve
    
    P.S.  If anyone can quote me the solution, I'm sure my next of
    	  kin will appreciate not having to go through a similar
    	  fate. . .
    

    or you can write the buffer out to a file and enter the note later.
    if you're at the notes prompt, type
    	Notes> eve buffer notes$edit
        [in editor]
    	<do>write save.wn
    
    and steve, i hope you reconstruct your note rather than chewing
    your wrists open -- a much less messy solution.
    
    liz

    
    You people bitch about such picayune stuff....
    
    

    re: .123/.124/.125
    
    Thanx, gang.
    
    re: .126
    
    If it's any consolation, Bob, there are lots of "big bopper" things
    that are also hot buttons for me - you know, war, pestilence, hatred,
    the price of tea in Mexico, etc. . .the usual stuff.  But trust
    me - you really don't want to get me started on that stuff. . .
    
    Meanwhile, did my "picayune" complaint hit one of your buttons,
    or was .126 simply an observation?  I read it as the latter, but
    sometimes with written media it's tough to differentiate annoyance
    from amusuement. . .
    
    Steve
    
    P.S.  Mods - I'd be happy to delete .121, but it occurred to me
    	  that the info. on buffer recovery might be helpful to others.
    	  I'm not quite sure what the best solution is in this case;
    	  as Phil D. would say, "Help me out here. . ."
    
    

    when people tell me how I think or what I feel or
    how I have damaged a zillion women because I don't validate anger
    for a personal name that hadn't included every single noter!
    
    my favorite poem I wrote many years ago that hangs very visably
    in my office....
    
    	If you think I think what you think I think,
    			THINK AGAIN!!!
    
    vivian
    
    I have been trying to write a reply to some of the misguided
    perceptions of who and what I am thats in the hiding note, but have not
    been able to write one that didn't attack.  so until then, I'll keep
    trying to compose a less assertive message.
    

    Spectrum.  Variety.  Bell-shaped curve.  Range.
    
    There is a concept behind these words!  Each person is different
    from all other people.  Lump people together if you must, but
    you da%n well had better end up with a *lot* more than two lumps!
    
    I'm tired of either-or thinking!  Do you hear me?  Up-to-here
    tired.
    
    Thank you, I feel much better now.  The postscript has gone back
    to being a joke.
    
    							Ann B.
    
    P.S.  There are two kinds of people in the world; those who divide
    the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't.

    Like the 'Dominator model' vs the 'Partnership model' types.
    
    I mean really.
    
                                                 Russ P.

    You readers propably did, and remember vividly how hard he
    demanded that precisely his conception was the only possible
    valid one, and his objections were the only possible alternative
    to my (and Stone's and Frazer's, and Eisner's) conclusions.
    
    Re-reading it all may be difficult.  For some reason he deleted
    a lot of what he wrote.
        
    						Ann B.

    I may have been vigorous, but "demanded", no.  
    
    The interesting thing about deletions is that it frequently
    constitutes what might be called a form of separatism.
    
    I have noticed people of both sexes delete notes here and there
    in Conferences with one reason being dissatisfaction (or not wanting
    to have one's name associated with) a Conference.  
    
    In fact I pulled a couple dozen here when the 'no time nor energy'
    note came out.
    
    Anyhow, the nice thing about 'Partnership types' is that they make
    the time and energy to note in various gender Conferences.
    
    In my own case, such 'participation' involves choice and a pleasant
    ideological balance.
    
    I pity the day when anyone declines to enter a single note in a
    gender Conference on account of 'choice.'
    
    If you know what I mean.
    
    
                                                   Russ P.

    since I missed the discussion about credit cards in the sexism note,
    I'll put my comments here.
    
    Why oh why do stores go through all the rigamorole of checking your
    signature and writing your phone number and address on the slip?
    The underwriters guarrantee the money to the shop whether you're
    forging, overdrawn, whatever. All fraud is absorbed by the underwriters
    who then initiate criminal investigations.
    
    The same is true of traveler's cheques. (at least American Express
    has this policy) To the person accepting them, they are CASH. Even
    if they are stolen and the signature is forged, the payee gets his
    money.
    
    I have heard a rumor that when a shopkeeper asks for more than just
    the signature on Traveler's Cheques, that American Express no longer
    guarrantees payment on ones that have been forged. 
    
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Re: .133
    
    Steve, one possible reason I can think of, for stores to ferret
    out/seize stolen or forged cards, is that they're given a bounty 
    by the underwriters for "finding" these cards.
    
      Alan

       Once my wife charged $80 worth of merchandise while she was 80
    miles from home. the store clerk forgot to run the charge slip thru
    the machine thats make the imprint of the card. my wife didn't notice
    this. Without the phone number the store might have been out $80
    since we might not have noticed the absence of the charge of the
    monthly statement. Hence, the phone number and address had a real
    purpose in this case.
                                         DW

    re the bounty:  It's only $25.00 and I nearly got attacked by a
    customer whose card the credit company told me to hold, so after
    that I just refused to honor the card.
    
    The store where I worked used the address to add people to their
    private sale list.  When we ran unadvertised sales, those folks
    plus anyone who had signed up to be on the list, received our flyers.
    
    Another reason your phone number is requested is that sometimes
    the sales associate's handwriting is bad or the cash register imprint
    is blurred, and the credit card company has to call to verify the amount.
                                            
    

In our store it helps when someone forgets to take their card.  Calling the
credit card company to track you down is a hassle and takes a lot longer.  

I don't see where it would help with forgeries because if you forged you
certainly would be stupid to put your true address on.  I don't know if the
credit card company checks the address to make sure it matches your billing
address.  I wouldn't see that as useful because these don't always have to be
the same. (suppose your daughter has a credit card at school and you pay the
bills. - not that I would suggest that! :) ) 

    	I have a joint account with my boyfriend to pay our household
    bills, and I am the first named account holder. And yet when they
    have a query they phone him ! This really annoyed me the first time
    it happened, especially seeing as the reason was that i had managed
    to get us accidentally overdrawn to the tune of #200 and I was hoping
    Steve wouldn't realise !!!! (It's me that manages the account) So
    Steve was a little put out to be phoned up and questioned about
    an overdraft hedidn't know about, and I in turn got an earful !
    I attempted to phone the building society while I was still mad
    but the line was engaged, and I managed to cool down in the meantime
    And having cooled down, i thought well, perhaps it was just chance
    they picked his number not mine. But it's just happened again !!!
    
    Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
    
    This time I have written a politely snotty note to the manager,
    I shall be interested to hear what he has to say! I think I shall
    also tell Steve if they phone him again, to just redirect them to
    me.
    
    Sarah.

    I am not sure I should enter this in here, as I basically don't
    expect to "delete when cooled". I neither expect nor want to cool
    down on the issue I am about to bring up. But I also don't want
    to clutter the note on "Abortion Concerns" more than it is already
    cluttered.
    
    I find the analogy between mothers who get abortions and the Nazis'
    attempt at extermination of the Jews incredibly shocking. Baldly
    stated, it means: Nazi = Pro-choice person, Jew=embryo. Can that
    terminology be considered acceptable in any circumstances, whether
    it be by pro-choice or Jewish persons?
    
    Though I also find this comparison so flawed that it's not worth my
    refuting it (others having already done so anyway), my point here is
    that it shows a lack of sensitivity that I would not have expected
    from anybody in this file. Granted that it was used to make a point, 
    and not from any desire to hurt - hopefully - it shows that the esca-
    lation in wording and the desire to get the better of ones "opponents" 
    can lead people to write/say things they wouldn't dream off in other 
    circumstances.
                                               
    Joana
                              

    	RE: .140
    
    	Agreed, Joana.
    
    	The irony of this sick analogy is that, as I understand it,
    	abortion is *allowed* within the Jewish religion.
    
    	So, what it boils down to is that members of this conference
    	are telling some/many Jews that they are essentially as bad
    	as Nazis (along with the rest of us pro-choicers.)
    
    	Aside from the infinite absurdity of this argument (and the
    	lack of apparent human decency shown by those who have been 
    	promoting this idea,) the argument ALSO constitutes a decided
    	anti-Semitism that *surely* goes well beyond the limits of 
    	Corporate Policy.
    	
    	Not only does the entire comparison deserve to be deleted from
    	the conference, but those who presented it should feel obliged
    	to offer the largest apology to this community that they can
    	muster.
    
    	Not that I'm holding my breath about it, of course.

    
    I agree completely, as I have already stated in the Abortion Concerns
    topic, that the analogy is offensive to me as a Jew and as a human
    being. I believe that even if I were not pro-choice (a thought too
    macabre to contemplate), I would still find this analogy offensive
    and trivializing of Jewish and human suffering.
    
    Roberta

    Re: 5.142
    
    Marge,
    
    As you requested, I have re-read notes 183.731 and .732.
    
    Though I think that you mis-interpreted 183.731 in your response
    in .732, that's not the subject of this note.
    
    I am quoting the last line of 183.732 for your consideration (re-
    entering the full note would serve no purpose, everybody can go
    over there and read it):
    
    quote > Same holocaust, different criteria. < unquote
    
    I don't think taking exception to this sort of statement in the
    frame of the note dedicated to abortion concerns is a mis-repre-
    sentation of the argument.
                              
    I am not trying to re-kindle any fires, but your note 5.142 seemed
    to imply that people who had entered the recent Hot Buttons were
    superficial readers. Please be assured that I had the courtesy to
    read your note carefully before voicing my disagreement.
    
    Joana                  
    

 A simple point-

 Those of you who are offended by the analogy ought to remember that there are
also people who feel offended that women refer to the termination of human life
in any way relating to a woman's "freedom." While it may cause your blood to
flow faster to read such an analogy, remember that you people are not without
opposition, even in your own ranks. There are people who feel every bit as
strongly on the "other side." Believe me, I understand your reaction. It is
important to attempt to value differences, though, even if you may not really
respect those differences at this time. 

 The Doctah

    	RE:  .145
    
    	> ... remember that you people are not without opposition, even
    	> in your own ranks.
    
    	Who is the "you people" that you are talking about here, and
    	what constitutes our "ranks" (if you don't mind my asking.)
    
    	

    60 minutes did a piece on Sunday about the drug RU486(?) and
    interviewed leaders of the anti-choice movement in the U.S..  
    Apparently this analogy is being used/taught by some of those at the top.
    It seems that whenever someone wants to indicate that something
    is truly heinous they compare it to the Holocaust.  Recently I read
    AIDS and it's Metaphors in which Susan Sontag points out that the
    problem with metaphor is that the two things being compared are
    rarely identical, and that the one thing takes on the characteristics
    of the other in people's minds when the comparison is made.  Which
    is I guess the tactic being used here, whether unknowingly or not.
        Linda

    another comment on the 60 minutes piece, the embroyoligist interviewed
    stated that the no-choice people speak out of ignorance.  that if
    they were truely "educated" they would then not speak as they do.
    
    I cheered.  I agree. 
    
    vivian

                          <** Moderator Response **>

    Please try to not carry on actual conversations in this string. It's
    really meant for one-off declarations and perhaps occasional isolated
    expressions of support/opposition.  Thanks.
    
    						=maggie 

    RE: .16
    Excuse me for interjecting, but where are such things actually being
    taught, much less accepted?  I was reared to understand that a lady,
    far from being a doormat, would never be loud and abrasive in defense
    of her rights, but rather calm, persistant and firm.  Certainly
    the right to have one's opinion duly considered in a matter in which
    one has a stake is a right worth defending.  Maybe i was born in
    the wrong time/plane-of-existance.
    Then again i'm the sort of person who thinks that people who are
    rude without provocation should be shot.
    Dale
    

    Re: .151
    
    >I was reared to understand that a lady, far from being a doormat,
    >would never be loud and abrasive in defense of her rights, but
    >rather calm, persistant and firm.
    
    In other words, a lady never loses her temper.  An admirable goal,
    to be sure, but somehow I find paragons so *dull*.  I'm also highly
    resistant to the idea of supressing my emotions.  The argument I'd
    make against losing your temper is not that it's "bad form" but
    that it's bad tactics.

    my hot button is people who come into this file "for a good fight"
    rather than to share their experiences. i find that those people
    disrupt the flow of conversation and effectively block the kind
    of interaction that this file could provide (in my more cynical
    moments, i suspect that it's intentional). the end results are:
      . this file becomes like any other on the network. 
      . i save my energies for the kinds of interactions i thrive on 
        by NOT reading most of the essays produced by these people.

    i wish there was more listening and less posturing. 
    
    disclaimers:
    -----------
    a) if you feel like arguing about this, please start a new note,
       or preferably, send me mail
    b) this note describes my opinions and perceptions. arguing with
       me about my observations is likely to be unproductive.
    
    liz

    and another one...
    
    i get tired of the confusion that arises when people think i'm still a
    moderator when it's been nearly three months since i stepped down from
    that role. please, folks, stay up to date with note 1 -- that contains
    the conference announcements and policies and will help you get around
    better in this file... 
    
    also, the moderators of this conference tend to be very good about
    stating when they're in "official" mode and when they're in "private
    citizen" mode (they do have opinions on occasion <grin>)... when
    in doubt, it's a safe bet to assume that they're operating as "regular
    people"...
    
    
    liz

       Does anyone understand what .156 is complaining about?
       
       --.157

	Re -1

	I'd like to sign my notes but my pen's gone dry :-)

    The advantage to using reply numbers instead of names is that it
    makes for easier cross-referencing.

    
    thank goodness for people who write irritating things that tempt me to 
    respond and then, fortunately, write something so insane, ridiculous or
    and offensive that i am no longer tempted
     

    
    My hot button is people who read Woman Notes with the _sole_ purpose
    of jumping on any little thing whatsoever that smacks in the _least_
    bit of feminism. 
    
    The motto seems to be,"If you don't have anything nasty to say,
    don't say anything".
                                                           
    Roberta

    They're running the Lord Peter Wimsey stories, starring Edward
    Petherbridge, on PBS again.  I blame the director for their three
    principle faults:  a sour Lord Peter, a nasty Harriet Vane, and
    butchered plot lines.  This is epitomized by the conclusion of
    _Strong_Poison_.  In the book, it ends with Harriet struggling
    through the crowd to her friends to ask, "Where is Lord Peter?
    I wanted to thank him.", and receiving the reply, "Oh, he left
    as soon as they gave the verdict."  In the series, it ends with
    them coming face to face in an empty corridor, and she turns and
    walks away from him without a word or a smile.
    
    Arghhh!
    
    What makes it doubly annoying is that I found a much better Harriet
    Vane:  Jill Meager, who placed Lucy Eyelesbarrow in "Mystery!"'s
    version of Agatha Christie's _The_4:50_from_Paddington_.  (Also
    known as _What_Mrs._McGillicuddy_Saw!_, and filmed as `Murder (She
    Said)'.)
    
    							Ann B.

	*HOT BUTTON*  , I am totally annoyed that the first 5 notes
I get to are all "SET HIDDEN" .  I have read the different notes on
what does and/or does not belong in -wn-, and have my own opinion.
	However, my parents impressed two things on me:
	    1.  work hard/be honest
	    2.  learn everything you can

and as an aside ....

	SET FLAME = VOLCANIC ERUPTION

	It _doesn't_ hurt to be polite!!!!

	SET FLAME = SIMMER

Please folks, I understand that there are some sensitive issues being dealt
with here, but no matter how right you(generic) think you are, can't it be said
in a manner that won't PO the mods....  they are trying hard and doing a
(opinion) good job.   Are YOU (generic) so important that you _must_ have
your say without being polite about it.

	SET MODE NORMAL

	Thanx,  I needed to get that out

				KBear   (male)

    
    since we should call people what they wish to be called,
    i wish to be called  THE ONLY MORALLY CORRECT PERSON IN THE UNIVERSE.
    please refer to me as such.
    
    
    

    
    my dear ms. broomhead, you are specifically permitted to use whatever
    case letters you choose. everyone else, however...
    
    

    Are you going to change your name to Tom C. Pitu?
    
    --- jerry

    The means of compensation for religious is not a basis of any
    argument.  Generally a parish priest will receive room and board
    as part of his salary.  There are other religious who indeed receive
    a salary and are required to provide their own room and board.
    
    The point I am trying to make is compensation in any form is payment
    for services provided.
    
    

    If I give you a dollar then may I call you "FRIEND"?
    
    Ben

    Reply 5.170 Attn: .170
    
    It irks me to no end to think that people express a general case
    to imply all cases are true.
    
    Attn: THE ONLY MORALLY CORRECT PERSON IN THE UNIVERSE. 
    
    Besides yourself, the horse you came in on, and 1 other, why is
    this a necessity ?
    
    
    Second Irk:
    
    Why is it that som any people enter Humour into a entry designated
    as for "Hot Red Buttons" (please expletive on reply (or some such
    thing ?). ??
    
    Signed,
    

    I don't like being called 'strate' -- it makes me feel like some sort
    of commodity, like a substrate or something.
    
    I also find offensive the implications of 'straight' -- that others are
    'bent' or 'twisted'
    
    Or am I missing the point entirely?  _Surely_ straight doesn't mean
    without ice or mixer ...
    
    Thank you, I feel better now.
    
      Ann

    Women who avoid certain situations because they don't want to get
    raped are too fearful, but women who do get raped should have
    known better and avoided the situation.  I wish someone would write
    a book telling us how to make sure that we will never get raped
    so that we can lead less fearful lives.

I am getting failrly upset about two recent notes, which I hope are not going 
to become a trend in =WN=, namely:

720 - David Azar, etc..
767 - Rape daughter for coke...

I have said in the Processing Topic that people should be free to discuss 
what they feel like in =WN=, provided it is of interest to at least one
woman. However, these two notes are so damn similar in the way they're approa-
ched that I feel I am getting double-vision. To recap, we have advocates off:

1) kill them slowly, and make sure they hurt in the process.
2) kill them quickly, after all we are a civilized nation, what?
3) let them rot in jail, the poor bastards will suffer so much from their 
   peers they will wish they had died.
4) put them in jail and throw away the key.
5) try to understand what circumstances brought about this sort of behaviour,
   and try to find workable solutions to prevent recurrence of similar events.
   
Now that I have vented my frustration, I'd like to make a suggestion:

What about creating a "Death Penalty - Pros and Cons" note, and including the
two above notes in there, as well as any other similar events which people feel
merit to be reported and discussed. I am really reluctant to see a burgeoning
of "kill the bastards" notes. 

IMO, and the usual disclaimers, of course...

Joana

Re:  .178

>    What about creating a "Death Penalty - Pros and Cons" note, and including
>    the two above notes in there, as well as any other similar events which
>    people feel merit to be reported and discussed.

Actually, we already have such a note.  713 is titled "Death Penalty for
Unspeakable Crimes?", and discusses events similar to those you've suggested.

While I wouldn't say it's a hot button of mine, I tend to agree with you that
a proliferation of related topics tends to clutter up the file, and I wouldn't
mind having all that stuff moved to 713.

						--Q (Dick Wagman)

    re 5.179 "--Q"
    
    Drat, I KNEW the note existed and couldn't find it when I went through
    the "Directory of our File" note!
    
    Well, another hot button of mine, is definitely careless reading,
    so I might as well take my own medicine...
    
    Thanks for the pointer.
    
    Joana

    	RE: .181
    
    	Mez, the impression I got was that Bush was trying to use words
    	that he thought would hit closer to home with school age kids.
    	(In reality, I think he missed the mark, though.)
    
    	If this speech had been given when I was a kid, it would probably
    	have run along the lines of "just because you say no [to drugs]
    	doesn't mean you have cooties."   :-)
    
    	I don't blame you for being annoyed, though.  I think Bush could
    	have chosen his words a lot more carefully.

    While I didn't hear the speech to which you are referring, I take the
    term "nerd" to mean a geek (colloquially, of course). Whereas many
    young people use the term "nerd" to describe someone "uncool," I
    believe the Prez was trying to identify with youth as best he knows how
    (which my not be well). Think about it, you have a man who is talking
    to an audience two generations younger than he. Of course he's going to
    have difficulty; hearing youthful colloquialisms from an elder always
    sounds funny to me. :-)
    
    Perhaps you are objecting to the use of the term "nerd" with the
    derogatory connotation? (And since you are somewhat at odds with the
    speaker's politics, it makes it that much more annoying.)
    
    The Doctah

    Would a nerd use a phrase like "pisses me off"?  Mez, are you sure you
    are a nerd?
    
    -- Mike

    Trust me, she's a nerd.
    
    						=m

    That's dweeb. Only a nerd would use 'dweebie'  :-)

    If I'd been his speech writer, George would've said something
    like, "Hey, like it's wicked rad not to use drugs, y'know?  I
    mean, like *awesome*!"
    
    Steve
    

A DEC recruiter jokingly called me a "nerd" for sending out 
my resume to companies in the form of a Pascal program on a 
bootable 5.25" floppy (along with the paper version, of course).  
But he admitted he was curious enough to find a PC in the 
Mill to see what it was like :-).  

					nancy b.

    
    Re: .191
    
    I think that's a fabulous idea for a resume.
    

re: .192 (HANNAH::MODICA)

The recruiter thought it was a neat idea also, but he
said it took guts for me to send *Digital* my resume
on software that required an I*M PC or compatible to run.
I hadn't thought of that (figuring everything at DEC could
be connected via that miraculous DECnet software), so I
just said "Well, none of the other companies had any trouble
finding a PC to run it on...You mean your financial-types
use something _besides_ Lotus.  How odd."  :-)

Then, an interview with a software-type who greeted me with
"So, you call yourself an _electrical_ engineer?", consisted 
solely of software questions concerning how I coded the
different parts of my program!*#!  I don't think he ever asked
me my name - just nonstop technical questions.  When I got
tired of him asking me questions, I started to ask him 
questions *he* had to think about (revenge is sweet).

						nancy b.

	I am *SO TIRED* of people who see the opression of some group (usually
one of which they are a member) in every action they don't like, no matter how
far-fetched the logic used to arrive at this conclusion!

    People who write notes and then delete them within hours. If
    they don't feel that what they have to say is worth keeping
    around for a much longer period of time, then why bother writing
    at all?
    
    Yes, I realize that some people reconsider what they've said, but
    (a) those people usually put in a replacement note that better
    explains what they meant to say or at the very least explains
    why the previous note was deleted, and (b) the person that pushed
    this Hot Button has done this in the past and explanations for
    this behavior did not seem to follow the reason described in (a).
    
    --- jerry

Jerry:



              We are in complete agreement.

                                                -Robert Brown III

    re: .197
    
    Only this and a couple of the reserved "events" notes carry
    the suggestion to delete replies.  I share Jerry's frustration
    at the loss of continuity that occurs from time to time in
    discussion notes.
    
    Steve
    
    P.S.  Of course there *are* ways of getting around the "quick
    	  delete" tactic.  This reply might make little sense as
    	  .197 has been deleted.  However, this one wasn't deleted
    	  *quite* quickly enough. . .
    
================================================================================
Note 5.197             HOT BUTTONS!! (delete when cooled)             197 of 199
AERIE::THOMPSON "tryin' real hard to adjust..."       5 lines  11-OCT-1989 12:28
                                 -< * yawn * >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    _HOT_ BUTTON !!! To be deleted when cooled !!!

    MALE womennoters who waste disk space here complaining ...

    ~--e--~  Eagles_Believe_Some_Notes_Are_At_Best_VERY_Temporary...
    

Referencing 5.195, 5.196 and 5.198

Jerry and Steve:

   Having thought it over, I just realized that while it is sometimes initially
annoying to read references to a reply that someone deletes within hours of
entering, I think it is appropriate to feel more pity than anger at the person.
Think about it: a person who replies to any notesfile shares knowledge,
feelings, and/or opinions with others; indirectly sharing part of him/her self.

   By entering a reply in any Notesfile for a period of time and then summarily
deleting it without replacing the note or explaining the deletion, a person
indicates that s/he does not value his/her knowledge, feelings, or opinions
enough to allow them to remain public and stand or fall on their own merits.
This implies certain things about his/her own self- esteem. If the person who
enters such replies does not consider them important, why should I?

   Even if such a person enters replies which temporarily anger me enough for
me to want to reply to them, all I have to do is wait for a few hours and the
reply will disappear. Even the most annoying response from such a person
becomes less than significant because the PERSON HIM/HER SELF defines it as
insignificant by implication.

   In other words, the rule of "ignore it, and it will go away" applies here.
Literally.

   I think that in the future this is how I will tend to deal with people who
have demonstrated the tendency to enter replies (particularly annoying ones)
and then later delete them. I may enter responses to replies that I think are
totally "off the wall", but only if the person demonstrates enough "backbone"
to let them remain. On the whole, however, I shall ignore them. Why not? Most
sensible people will probably forget them anyway, so why make permanent
replies which will remind them?

                                                       -Robert Brown III


P.S.: Gee, Steve: you "stole my thunder". I was going to do that!!!!

    <<< Note 5.200 by ULTRA::ZURKO "The quality of mercy is not strained" >>>
                            -< 1/2 co-mod response >-
>My personal opinion is that every person owns their notes. I feel no obligation
>to the community to keep my notes in this, or any, notesfile.
>	Mez

Digital policy is not quite so clear, as notes may be "Corporate Documents"
subject to disclosure in legal proceedings.  See HUMAN::DIGITAL note 1.0
for the gory details.

I.e. if someone were to sue Digital because of something written in
a notefile, the fact that a note was deleted from that file may be
more damaging than its actual content.

Martin.

    re:.200
    
    Well, aside from what Martin mentioned, I agree that a person owns
    his or her own notes and is free to delete them.
    
    But, I have the right to be annoyed at the practice. This *is* the
    Hot Buttons note, isn't it?  If I brought this up in the Processing
    topic and asked that this type of thing not be allowed here, then
    I'd be in the wrong.
    
    --- jerry

    ARRG!  To whom it may concern, PLEASE learn to use PARAGRAPHS!!!
    
    I CAN'T STAND to read your cluttered-up, messy, run-on notes
    without any break in between 40 lines of note!!!  I know that 
    what you have to say is important, but no matter how important
    it is, I need some breathing room - how about a radical idea
    such as a NEW PARAGRAPH ONCE IN A WHILE!!!!!
    
    

    I absolutely can't STAND people who use "WE" as if we all have the
    same opinion.  Please use "I" or denote a certain subsection of
    the population like "some women" or "some of the feminists I know"
    or "men I fish with" or something....
    
    Whew!  That feels better....
    
    -Jody
    

    Since there has been so much discussion lately over "political
    correctness", I think it would be a good idea to compose a compendium
    of politically correct behaviors and beliefs which could then serve as
    the final word on the subject.  If anyone has any doubts about their
    own Ideological Purity, if they are afraid that they are not being
    dogmatic enough, if they are concerned that the way in which they
    breathe, eat, drink, sleep, copulate, inhale, exhale, exhume, expound,
    or otherwise express themselves contradicts some tenet as set down by
    the Guardians of Political Consistency, then they need only turn to
    this Compleat Guide to be set right.

    Thus far, it appears that the Compleat Guide would include such things
    as:
    	o  Sexuality.  "Feminism is the theory, Lesbianism is the
    	   practice."  'Nuff said.
    	o  Religion.  Elevate political correctism to the status of
    	   theology and you get, of course, Wicca.  No true feminist
    	   is a monotheist.
    	o  Diet.  You must be a vegetarian.
    	o  Pets.  You must own a cat.
    	o  Pornography.  You must favor censorship. (You have to feel it in
    	   your gut.)
    	o  All other instances in which "the personal is the political."

    On the other hand, those who reject ideological conformity, who
    prefer to think for themselves, who consider the very notion of
    "political correctness" to be utterly insidious, such a Compleat Guide
    would be less than useless.

    -- Mike (who is not a politically correct pacifist)

    I was playing catch-up and I found this gem:
    
    >I also first thought it was a joke, but then I
    >thought about it, because there are more people around who believe this
    >than one might think.  Maybe not here is Mass., but in the deep South
    >it's probably more common.
    
    No wonder the South tells Yankee jokes, given the stereotyping we get 
    stuck with so often.  Yes, that's right, you geocentric snobs, you have
    a transplanted Southerner in your midst and she's getting damned tired
    of seeing the South represented as the glorious epitome of every -ism
    you happen to come across.  Sexism?  Why not pick on the West?  Oh, but
    we have Coloradans reading this file; don't step on any toes.  But
    naturally there are no Southerners reading this file, so they can be
    impugned with impunity.  And God forbid that the Great White Northeast
    should be tainted with any suspicion of -isms within its holy
    boundaries.  Everyone knows that Yankees are models of right-thinking,
    after all; they couldn't possibly have any serious instances of -ism
    around here.  Oh, no, unthinkable.

    re .205 Mike, I didn't think you had it in you!

>    No wonder the South tells Yankee jokes, given the stereotyping we get 
>    stuck with so often.

 No wonder group A disparages group B, considering group B disparages group A.

 Neither the south nor the north has a monopoly on good or bad qualities. As
a transplanted southerner, you feel the brunt of it more than most because
we happen to be located primarily in the northeast. As one who's had to listen
to countless Yankee this or Yankee that jokes, stereotypes and general
libelous remarks made by southern "gents and ladies," I can tell you with
considerable certainty that both the goose and the gander enjoy the same things
in this regard. It all depends on where you're from and where you are whether
it'll bother you.

 The Doctah

       re 5.207:
       
       For more commentary about the characteristics of the South, see
       also HL Mencken's exceptional essay, "Sahara of the Bozart".
       
       --Mr Topaz 

    Re: .209
    
    This is the Hot Buttons note.  If you're going to be reasonable, do it
    someplace else....
    
    (And I still contend that the South is regarded as a hotbed of -isms
    but the Northeast -- hey, yeah, maybe a little, but not nearly so bad 
    as THEM down South, you know.)

>    This is the Hot Buttons note.  If you're going to be reasonable, do it
>    someplace else....

 Wow! Mark this day down. :-) I can't believe I was accused of being reasonable.
What a day. This is too much. I'm sorry, I'll never do it again. :-)

 The Doctah

    I've long since given up on that one, Maggie. It's like the your/you're
    puzzle. :-)
    
     The Doctah

    Maggie, care to tackle "choose" and "chose"?
    
    Karen
    

    my favorite: affect/effect

	Grrrrrr . . . .

    If one more (usually sympathetic, male) friend responds to my complaints
    about work with

            "Oh, women engineers never get along well . . ."


    The statistics reflecting female to male violence are going to go up!!!!




     Barbi

    Beck to semantics issues:

    Why in the WORLD do some people use an apostrophe to supply a plural?????
    For example "those house's over there are falling down". I see it all
    over the place. Boggles the mind.

    Another common problem I see is "accommodate" spelled with one "m".
    That's fairly easy to understand, but it still jumps out at me.
    (Actually, they all jump out at me...)

    On the other hand, I came up with "monolithicity" the other day in
    describing the characteristic of being monolithic.

    
    is there such a thing as a 'sad-button' note?
    you know, for those times when it seems like the only thing people
    want to talk about is violence, hatred, retribution...
    

	 loose vs lose
	 choose vs chose

	 Sometimes it's not a matter of using the wrong word,
	 sometimes it's a matter of typing too fast.


	 I quite often spell because (becuase) and believe (beleive)
	 just because I type too fast and don't catch it when I do a
	 quick typo check.

	 Today I spelled "work" as "worth"......oh well, =wn= is much
	 to slow for me to delete and reply/last to fix the error.  I
	 just don't have the time........

	 (and did I mention I'm a slight dyslexic?)


	 Yes, it's annoying to see misspellings and such, but I
	 usually bypass them unless they're in abundance (or unless
	 the person makes me particularly angry! ;-) )

	 Wildkat

                               ...Irregardless...
        
        

    There   =	location
    
    Their   =	possesion
    
    They're =	contraction for "they are"
    
    Also, I'm not sure why so many folks think "definitely" is spelled
    "definately". . .it's definitely not.
    
    I must confess, though, I have a "secret weapon" in the word wars.
    Although I have an shelf full of technical manuals (many of which
    frankly baffle the hell out of me), the book that's by far the most
    usage-worn is the dictionary.  You see, Mom, who minored in English 
    and frequently reviewed my homework, was a radical: she always taught 
    me that if I wasn't *certain* of a word's spelling, I ought to look 
    it up.
    
    Steve

>You see, Mom, who minored in English 
>    and frequently reviewed my homework, was a radical: she always taught 
>    me that if I wasn't *certain* of a word's spelling, I ought to look 
>    it up.                         
    
    and
    
>    Their   =	possesion
    
     I guess you never listened to your mom either. :-)
    
     The Doctah

    
    	An ellipsis is three dots ... not a hundred like so many people 
    	use..........................to connect.....all their sentences 
    	with..........................
    
    	Carla
    

    
    
    from [per PEOPLE magazine] the sexiest man of the year.....
    
    "slapping a woman is not the worst thing you can do to her"
    
                                        - Sean Connery 
    
    

        re: .220 (Joe White)    -< thinking we can do better >-

	>    is there such a thing as a 'sad-button' note?
	>    you know, for those times when it seems like the only 
	>    thing people want to talk about is violence, hatred, 
	>    retribution...
    
	I agree, Joe, that is a "sad-button".  So much talk of
	murders, rape, other violence, guns, etc., it surprises
	and kinda depresses me that other people have to think
	of that stuff too.

	You "think we can do better" ?  I think you and others who
	don't really have an interest in the those topics could
	create other, more upbeat ones for the community to discuss
	(in addition to complaining about how some of us seem to dwell
	 on certain issues).  I would be overjoyed, really!

						nancy b.

	(who last week was trying to think of a good =wn= lite topic)
 

    
>    	An ellipsis is three dots ... not a hundred like so many people 
>    	use..........................to connect.....all their sentences 
>    	with..........................


         Well, in all actuality, that isn't true.  An ellipsis is a
         series of marks (usually characterized by three dots, but not
	 restricted to three.  Astericks are also common to denote an
	 ellipsis.) used to indicate the omission of a word or words.

         I've never seen anyone use the 'ellipsis' in the correct way
         in NOTES. 

	 I certainly don't.  ;-) I use it for emphasis...to separate
	 (I got that one right) ideas and thoughts.  


	 I admit it; I always spell "immense" with an 'e' instead of
	 an 'i'.  It's because I get hung up on the words "immense"
	 and "enormous" and get all confused!

	 (And i admit, Steve, sometimes I spell "definite" like
	 "definate"...it's a throwback to Calculus days.)

	 You'd never know I won my junior high spelling bee, would
	 you? 



	 Wildkat

    re .226 "to connect ... all their sentences with ..."

    You mean "with which to connect all their sentences".

    re: secret weapons

    I use XLSE for my NOTES editor (when I'm not running the DECwindows
    version) which includes a linguistics aid package. Not only can I hit
    "PF1-?" to spell-check specific words (just used it on "linguistics"),
    but I can use "PF1-&" to bring in a thesaurus (just used it to change
    "individual" to "specific"). See CASEE::XLSE if interested...

    re:.227
    
    Well, it *isn't*, is it?
    
    re:.231
    
    These days, no grammarian -- except the most obstinate hidebound
    ones -- believes that sentences should not end in prepositions.
    
    --- jerry

    Emacs (the ultimate editor) has a spell-checking interface as well.
    (spell-word-in-buffer, spell-check-buffer...)
    
    Also, CCT Notes has SPELL from the NOTES$EDIT buffer.  Lack of a
    spelling checking interface from DECW$Notes is really annoying.
    
    
    					--D

Misogyny.
Negative generalizations about all or most women, and how "they" are
worse than men about something, "can't handle" something.  
Especially here in this conference.

	MKV

>Misogyny.
>Negative generalizations about all or most women, and how "they" are
>worse than men about something, "can't handle" something.  
>Especially here in this conference.


	 I have the feeling this is addressed at me....and I don't
	 like that.


	 What *I* find very sad about this conference is that views
	 that are NOT of the norm are NOT listened to, are NOT viewed
	 with an open mind, and are misinterpreted constantly.

	 I'm finding myself censoring almost everything I write in
	 this conference anymore because, no matter what, it's
	 misinterpreted.

	 Also, it's AWFUL that a person cannot present their personal
	 observations without someone condemning them for them.


	 Some women ARE worse than some men about something.....*AND*
	 some MEN are worse than some WOMEN about somethings.  We,
	 NONE OF US, are perfect..........and I'm sick and tired of
	 blame being pushed on "society" and "men" for everything.
	 Don't you think that quite possibly women might have some
	 problems too that have added to this?

	 Hell!  Ya know....everyone isn't picture perfect
	 sometimes....and I'm getting sick and tired of women being
	 portrayed at being perfect and being 'put out' all the time
	 even though they never deserve it.

	 When people start realizing that WOMAN CAN HAVE HANG UPS too,
	 I'll really start thinking we're getting somewhere.  But when
	 women are still portrayed as without blame, and alternate
	 views to that are bashed, I'd say we're fighting a brick
	 wall.

         I'm SOOOO tired of being portrayed as anti-feminist because I
         refuse to agree with some of the Feminist portrayals
         presented in this conference. At least *I* know that I can be
         beautiful, desirable, loving, devoted, experimental, and
         still be intelligent, outgoing, equal, and a woman.


	 You don't have to agree with me, you don't have to even LIKE
	 me......but you HAVE to respect that *I* have opinions of my
	 own, and that *I* believe that what I feel is right.  And you
	 HAVE to accept that other people don't HAVE to believe what
	 you believe.

	 That, my dears......is the beauty of CHOICE.


	 kath

re: .235
Sigh...
No, it is not towards you or any other *person* -- it is an emotion I have
about negative generalizations.  About any group, but here in a file
for/about women, especially about women.  (Also my perception is that
people are fairly careful about not generalizing negatively about men
here -- I suspect in part because there are so many diverse, and positive
counter-examples amoung the men who note here.)  

I'm sorry you perceived it as anything directed towards any person --
I'll work on my communication skills :-).

	MKV

>No, it is not towards you or any other *person* -- it is an emotion I have
>about negative generalizations.

	 I had JUST written something that I said to myself, "Self,
	 that is just going to be flamed, because it seems that women
	 in this file don't want to hear that they could have problems
	 too."

	 Then along came your note.  Perhaps I was hasty, but my
	 opinions expressed in my tirade :-) are still valid.

	 I don't think women in this file like hearing things contrary
	 to what they believe.  All I've ever tried to do is show
	 people my differing opinion.....I've never had the intent to
	 CHANGE anyone or force my beliefs on anyone, but just to
	 rather show them that I believe something different...and
	 that women fighting for equality CAN have differing opinions.

	 I feel that I can no longer express that differing opinion in
	 this file.....one reason I've been holding off on re-entering
	 the discussion on Beauty/Strength.  All I want is for people
	 to see that I view life differently than they do.

	 Neither of us are right or wrong....just different......and
	 we all seek the same goals, but differently.....and we all
	 view things in a different light.

	 I don't feel I can enter my opinions into the Beauty/Strength
	 note until it's understood that my opinions and the way I
	 view things is just as valid as the way others view things.


	 Unfortunately, I'm misperceived as trying to change people
	 and trying to tout that what I believe is "right."  It's
	 right for me...and what's right for you is right for
	 you....and all I want is respect for having the gumption to
	 have and form my own opinions.

	 k
	 


	 

<    These days, no grammarian -- except the most obstinate hidebound
<    ones -- believes that sentences should not end in prepositions.
    
A year ago I was discussing grammar with someone and said something about
sentences ending in propositions... 

I have yet to live this down.  :-}

         Carol

    Seeing copyright mispelled as copywrite. :-)
               ^^^^^                  ^^^^^
    
    (I realize that most people think of it as "write" since it most
    often deals with "written" material, but just think of it in terms
    of the RIGHT to COPY.)
    
    --- jerry

>    Seeing copyright mispelled as copywrite. :-)
>               ^^^^^                  ^^^^^


	 Hahahaha...I do this all the time!  I KNEW something was
	 wrong with being able to type 120wpm.....And SPELL won't
	 catch errors like that...and neither will my mixed up naked
	 eye!  :-)


	 I do feel rather stupid when I do it, though.....why is
	 English such a mixed up language, anyway?

	 kat

People who say outrageously provocative and offensive things, and then say
"This is just my opinion, and I don't care to discuss it."  Or who involve
themselves in a heated discussion, make a bunch a points, and then say "I
quit" before anyone can address those points.

The statements get me worked up and angry, nd the refusal to discuss them
means I have no where to vent or work through my anger at the *statements*,
so I get angry at the person for tossing a bomb into the works and then
leaving before someone can point a finger at them.

If you have opinions that are potentially offensive, and you don't feel
like defending them (pehaps it is because they are indefensable?), that's
fine - but don't shout them to the world then.  If you are going to make
gross generalizations or offensive assumptions, you can't coyly sit back
and just say "But those are my *feelings*, how can you argue with those?"

Grrrr.

D!

    People who slash others verbally and who, when their behavior is
    met with deserved anger, whine, "What's the matter, can't you take
    a joke?"
    

    .243
    
    Mez, 
    
    You don't mean _our_ labs, do you? I didn't think so! But thanks for
    the warning! 
    
    No wonder I stay clear of those places. I usually just peak in the
    window. Have you ever checked out the characters that hang around in
    labs? If that isn't a scary sight, nothing is!

Hot button:

    The word "gender" being used in place of the word "sex".

I was taught in college that "sex" is what your genitals are, and "gender"
is how you feel inside.  Hence a transexual (before surgery) is a person
whose sex does not match his/her gender.  

        Carol

    And I   was   taught   that  "sex"  was  biological  and  "gender"
    grammatical.  Or,  as  one  of my favorite teachers put it: "Words
    have gender, people have sex".

--David

    I use "gender" when I want to refer to men and women in the sense
    of the social roles generally assigned based on their sex. 
    Sometimes that sounds as though I should have said "women" or
    "female", but I mean to connote something else.
    
    --bonnie

	re: 5.243 (Mez)

	> I hate labs. I hate _debugging_ in labs. I would like to know what a
	> self-respecting SWEng and UI person would keep getting into groups 
	> that require _labs_ for debugging. They're cold. They have irritating 
	> background noise.

	You have no right to complain until you spent an entire day in my lab
	in the Mill :-)!!  My lab is undoubtedly COLDER than yours, probably
	LOUDER with all the vibrations of the mail trucks, humongous air con-
	ditioning systems cycling on and off, and noise that gets piped in and
	out through the walls, not to mention that awful-smelling red GOUP 
	that is being put in all the holes in the walls.  So there :-P!

							nancy b.

	(who spent most of last year's *gorgeous* Labor Day weekend in that lab
	 with a MIPSfair system that wouldn't load ULTRIX :-( )

<  <<< Note 5.246 by ULTRA::WITTENBERG "Secure Systems for Insecure People" >>>
<
<    And I   was   taught   that  "sex"  was  biological  and  "gender"
<    grammatical.  Or,  as  one  of my favorite teachers put it: "Words
<    have gender, people have sex".

Catchy, and easy to remember.  I will bet on mine being the most "accurate",
though, for two reasons:  1) it was taught by several professors, for my
B.A. in Psychology, and 2) I have gotten mail from at least one transexual
saying that my understanding was accurate.

          Carol

    
    No one has any right to complain unless they've spent a day in the
    wafer fabrication areas.
    
    Wearing a bunny suit all day, being in yellow light for hours on end
    (the same kind of yellow light that's in a photo dark room), working
    with toxic chemicals, looking through a microscope for long periods
    of time......but it's a way of life.
    
    Someone told me it was 62 degrees out yesterday....I had no clue.
    
    
    Lisa

Lisa, it's a heckuva way to learn how to recognize people by their 
eyes, though!

Carla

RE: .249

Carol, 

    I think  both are accurate. The teacher I'm quoting was an English
    teacher, and you're quoting Psychologists. They use the same words
    in their jargon, with different meanings.

--David

    
    re:251
    
    I also learn to recognize people by the way they walk.
    
    Lisa

    I've consulted a couple of dictionaries, including the OED. It's clear
    that the original meaning was "kind" or "sort", that is, things from a
    wider class grouped into catagories on some trait. It has origins, back
    through Middle English and French, in the Latin "genus", kind, or
    race. The term later got a particular association with the grammatical
    catagorization of nouns by sex (often not biological sex). In English,
    where grammatical sex is unusually closely linked to biological sex,
    the term has been transfered back out to the "subjects", the people,
    rather than just the names for them; that is, people considered in
    groups sorted according to sex. In my experience, this has always been
    understood to mean sex as defined by genitalia; certainly that is the
    meaning it has had in legal contexts. I have not heard the usage tieing
    it to "inner feeling"; is this like "sexual orientation"? I don't deny
    that such usage may exist, just that it is common, or that others are
    wrong.
    		- Bruce

    Please move further discussion to a different string.
    
    						=maggie

What drives me crazy is the kind of noter who comes into the file and makes
specious and hurtful generalizations for months, regardless of the fact 
that s/he is getting feedback that what s/he's writing *is* hurtful.  

Then, when someone else makes a general statement, neither directly 
targetted at, nor identifying, this individual, s/he decides to 
take umbrage, and moves to have the note deleted.

You're so vain ... I bet you think this note is about you!

Bobbi

    The term "strate" has apparently been adopted by this notes conference
    as the politically correct spelling for "heterosexual".
    
    I haight to admit it, but laightly whenever I see this word, it just
    graights against me.  Not so much that I can't see straight--or is that
    strate?--but it does bother me.
    
    Maybee i shud just stop werrying abowt how i spell things altogether.
    That way i dont haff to take the tyme to uze the spel utility befour
    i post a note.  And i kan even start koining nu werds, witch givez mee
    the benefit uv jhuufdlk sfjfdaskj aslfjfd asxmfwnqa.
    
    Whew!  Sorry, I got carried away there for a minute.  I'm over it now.
    
    -- Mike

    Thank you Mike. While I support the ideal of equal rights
    for all, 'strate' and 'wimmin' strike me as juvenile.
        
    You won't change society by changing spelling. You *will*
    alienate people.

    People who don't clean the mud or snow off the front of their
    headlights.  Last night I was driving home at 11pm and the car behind
    me had practically no headlights at all.  They weere blocked by snow.
    There was no white spot on the road in front of the car and the was
    going pretty slow because the driver couldn't see.  I'm a firm believer
    in the statement "A lot of people treat their lives like their tv
    sets--they don't like the show but they're too lazy to get up and
    change the channel." When I stopped at a red light and the car stopped
    behind me I got out, ran to the car and brushed the snow from the
    headlights.  The driver waved (presumably "thanks") and I got back in
    my car.  I hope the heck I didn't scare her too much when I ran to her
    car.
    
    ed

The difference between the word "wimmin" and the word "strate", is that the
word "wimmin" was chosen by some females as their prefered address for 
*themselves*, and if they want to be called that, and call themselves that,
who am I to object?  "Strate" was a term popularized by some of the homosexual 
comminity who chose that as the preferred address of heterosexuals, not
themselves.  Seems to be a qualitative difference between coining a new
word for yourself and coining a new word for another.

Personally I don't care one way or another.  They can call me what they wish as
long as I can call them what I wish, and everyone's happy.  (Although I
do find "strate" a very esthetically unpleasing word...but it often seems
like no one but me cares how words *look*.)

D!

    
    Hey, I thought we were supposed to delete these after we'd cooled off!
    
    I hate it when I'm sitting in my car, waiting to make a left turn
    across a stream of (up the road a ways) cop-directed traffic and the 
    guy behind me gets impatient because I'm not aggressively trying to 
    get out into the road, so he honks and when that doesn't get me going, 
    pulls up to my right side with the intention of taking a left in
    front of me (and into the traffic).  What a bozo!  (When the traffic 
    cop signaled that lane to stop, the traffic backed up and one of the 
    courteous drivers stopped short of the gas-station exit so that I could 
    get out.  The dope behind me _was_ blocked in -- nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.)
    
    CQ
     

    This debate over spelling and labels reminds me of a Robin Tyler
    rountine which goes somthing like this:
    
    "I'm not one to go for name calling...
    But if you're straight then I'm crooked
    But if I'm gay then you're morose..."     :^)
    
    Robin is a lesbian/feminist comic and I think she's a riot!
    

I thought people started using 'strate' because of feedback from
het people who disliked being called 'straight' because of it's
other connotations (conformist, etc.?).  In an effort to be sensitive,
'strate' is being used by some people instead (as opposed to gays just
deciding to mispell 'straight').

	MKV

>I thought people started using 'strate' because of feedback from
>het people who disliked being called 'straight' because of it's
>other connotations (conformist, etc.?).

I heard it that some gay people didn't like the implication that if hets
were "straight" then gay's must be somehow "crooked", "twisted" or "bent".

Incidentally, in some other sexual minority circles, the word "straight"
is also used to describe those who do not belong to said sexual minority.
It can cause some funny reactions when you talk about someone who is
well-known as being gay with something like "Yeah, Harry's a nice guy
but he's pretty straight."  Or even with people not in the know, a 
comment like "So Harry's boyfriend was complaining to me that Harry is
so straight...".  :-)

So if strate=heterosexual, and straight=vanilla, then at least we won't
keep getting confused.

D!

    All you mundanes talking about 'dom vernacular.
    
    						Ann B.

    . . .I'll need a straight/strate/strayte/pstrait jacket
    
    Steve

    In re .256
    
    > in some other sexual minority circles, the word "straight" is also
    > used to describe those who do not belong to said sexual minority.
    > . . .
    > So if strate=heterosexual, and straight=vanilla, then at least we
    > won't keep getting confused.
    
    Ha! Confusion increases as the square of the number of homonyms with
    somewhat related meanings (cf. affect and effect, etc.). Anyway, this
    use of "vanilla" is not in keeping with my experience. What we need is
    the secular equivalent of the oft-misunderstood word Gentile, which
    does not mean Christian. The root of Gentile signifies heathen, and it
    really means not-of-my-religion. It has been particularly adopted by
    Jews and Mormans. My parents once knew two people who were getting
    married - one from each of those faiths - where BOTH families objected
    on the grouunds that they didn't want their child marrying a Gentile!
    With your suggestion, D, we'll have someone saying: "I don't mind my
    child going with someone straight, as long as they're not too strate"
    (or vice versa).
    
    		- Bruce

    Because heterosexual is too hard to type . . . 
    
    But I don't mind being called vanilla.
    
    --bonnie

    Just to throw in another subculture twist. In the hippy culture I
    was part of "straights" were those who were not "freaks" or "heads"
    like us. liesl

    Related to .271: the adjective "straight" is sometimes used to mean
    "not under the influence of drugs" (most recently encountered in this
    context in the interview with 2 members of UB40 in the current Boston
    Phoenix).
    
    On the spelling issue: I don't think the different spelling solves the
    problem of differentiating meanings of the word:
    o	spelling doesn't help in conversation (unless there is a different
    	pronounciation for "strate" of which I'm not aware) and this is
    	where confusion is most likely to arise. The precise writer can
    	make it clear which of the many meanings of "straight" is intended.
    o	there are already so many of them that even the combined creativity
    	this conference would struggle to find a different spelling for
    	each one.
    
    Maybe this merits a separate topic?
    
    	Andrew.

    Are we at the seven-sigma limit yet?
    
    				Charlie.....

    Yeah!! Call me vanilla. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.

    
    People who don't know the difference between who's and whose,
    and keep on using it the WRONG way over and over again in notes,
    so listen up, here's a lesson:
    
    *Who's* is a contraction and it means 'who is'.  Don't ever
    use it where you can't substitute 'who is'.  Use as in,
    "My friend Mary who's coming over later...".
    
    *Whose* is possessive, as in "Whose are these shoes?"
    

    You're worried about your whose and who's.  I'm worried
    that they're getting their there's wrong all the time.
    
    :-)
    ed

              -< You must have been absent that day in 5th grade >-

Nope, I was there...I know I am a gross offender of this particular rule
of grammar, not out of ignorance, but out of laziness.  My typing is
based largely on phonetics - my mind hands my fingers a phoneme without
context (hooz) and then my fingers decide on which of a number of
correct spellings of that phoneme is correct.  It choose arbitrarily, or
maybe on which is most common.  It's up to my brain to check and make sure
it's right, and often it isn't.

I do that with "it's" and "its" a lot. I *know* "its" is a possesive and
"it's" is a contraction.  I just don't pay enough attention to catch it
most of the time.

Mea culpa.

D!

    
    I'm on a roll for HOT BUTTONS today, but here's a couple more
    I just thought of.  I must be in a bad mood or something.
    
    "One size fits all" clothing.  HA!  That translates to
    "One size is all we make."
    
    People who talk baby-talk to babies and small children.  Barf.
    No, make that a double barf.
    
    D!, I've actually gotten used to the misuse of it's and its and
    even their, there, they're, there's, and theirs.  So maybe I'll
    even get used to who's and whose in time.  Also, you're not the
    only one who misuses them in this file - no way.    
    

I *hate* being younger than everyone else in the world!!

When I was in grade school, I was a year younger than the other people in my
grades.  Starting in high school, my lovers were always older to much older
than me.  In college, my friends tended to be a year or two or three ahead of
me.  And now at DEC I am *the* youngest person I know!

I'm not 21 *inside*!  I just don't have the experience to support my
older "self"ness!

Don't I ever get to catch up?!?!

All I can say is thank heavens I don't *look* like a kid.

D!

	 D!


	 I'm glad you came aboard here.  I was saying the same thing a
	 year ago....


         (But happy to say that someone yesterday thought I was in my
         30s by the way I write.)


	 Cheer up.  New blood will be here next year. ;-)

	 kath

    in are +pat+ a while back..
    
    I'll never call you vanilla, I might call you chocolate
    but I'll always call you 
    
    "friend"
    
    hugs
    
    bonnie

    re .279  D! don't be hasty to get older. The trouble with
    getting older is that too many people are simply too damn
    *young* for you ! I mean, imagine being 36 and dating 
    some woman who doesn't remember the *Beatles* fercrissakes!
     :-)  :-)
    
    Seriously, your notes indicate a person mature beyond her years.
    
    Dana (hey, only my *knees* feel 36 ! I'm young. Really.)

    re .278
    
    ellen, i'm glad you didn't include pets in your baby-talking-button...
    mysti doesn't understand grown-up talk....(-;
    
    ~r

> The trouble with
>    getting older is that too many people are simply too damn
>    *young* for you ! I mean, imagine being 36 and dating 
>    some woman who doesn't remember the *Beatles* fercrissakes!

The who?  ;-)

By the time *I* am 36, the Beatles will have been gone for 30 some years!

Anyway, I date 36 year old men, and *I* know who the Beatles are, so it's
not all that bad.  I've always dated people older than myself...I expect
the absolute age of the people I am interested in to stay the same as I
get older, I just want to reach an age where those older people are interested
in *me* instead of thinking I'm just a kid!  (And where my Mom doesn't get
upset at me for going out with men closer to her age than mine!  This is
a frequent topic of 'discussion' at my home.  :-)

BabyD!

    Please continue the age conversation elsewhere (eg, 960.*)?  Thanks.
    
    						=maggie

    Those `people' who decide to murder someone before killing themselves.
    
    Skip those intermediate killings, nergle; go straight to your own
    death.
    
    						Ann B.

    Those who use their high beams on 495 (and other interstates) on the
    commute home.  Just because you aren't directly *facing* traffic
    doesn't mean your hi-beams can't blind others through their rear-
    view mirrors!

    Twits who put their headlights on before sunset. If 
    visibility to other drivers concerns you, put on
    your parking lights and STOP wiping out my low-light
    vision.

    re: .290
    
    I happen to be one of those "twits" who drive with their lights
    on all day.  Here (Ontario) we have to light up 30 minutes before
    sunset and, as of this year, new cars will have to have driving
    lights on at all times.
    
    Most people here drive with lights on at all times for the same
    reason motor cyclists do, so we can be seen better.  And it has
    been proven to reduce accidents.
    
    Happy motoring.

    There's nothing as bad as a silver or grey car in dimming light.
    
    My life depends on being able to see these things.  Thank you, I'd
    rather have their lights on than off.
    
    I heard the director of the Mass State Police a few years ago recommend
    against people driving with their parking lights on, ever.
    
    ed

    Unless they've changed the law since I lived there, in New York
    state it's not even legal to drive with just your parking lights
    on -- if it's dark enough for visibility to be a concern, you have
    to turn on your low beams.
    
    --bonnie

    In my household (boys 4 and 8), one eyed cars are known as
    "piddiddles" (origin lost in history; spelling also uncertain). At
    night, the game is to see who can spot one and shout "PIDDIDDLE" first.
    Sadly, there are sometimes so many that we can't really keep score. It
    is deemed somewhat humiliating to mistake a motorcycle for a piddidle.
    We disagree on whether a missing taillight constitutes a backward
    piddidle (which might be a "eldiddip", I suppose).
    
    	- Bruce

    extra points for a police piddiddle...

    
    Actually its PERdiddle. 
    
    And I admit to being one of those jerks who uses hi-beams because I'm
    out a headlight. I turn them off with approaching traffic, or when
    there is someone in front of me.
    
    I plan to get a new headlight in two weeks (rent is more important) but
    if someone wants to take up a collection for me, I'll put it in sooner.

    Although I have remained read only, I had to add this 'hot button'
    
    I hate having to deal with speeding, over confident drunk drivers.
    I wish they'd stay off the roads!
    
    Michele_who_missed_getting_creamed_last_nite_by_2_drunk_teens (who by
    the way rolled 'dads' truck over 3 times.....and walked away)  

	I have had my driver's licence for a long time - but I remember
	that in Massachusetts it is against (was) the law to drive with
	your parking lights on.  Back when we had to have our cars
	inspected twice a year there were fewer cars without appropriate
	lighting.

	BTW - For some cars replacing headlights is a LOT more then buying
	a light bulb.  I know I own a VW GTI and it requires a trip to
	the dealer and getting the whole assembly for replacement.

	_peggy

>	I have had my driver's licence for a long time - but I remember
>	that in Massachusetts it is against (was) the law to drive with
>	your parking lights on. 

 Can anybody come up with any reason to make driving with only your running
lights on illegal? Just wondering.

 Being the impatient person that I am, I can't stand getting behind anyone who 
is underconfident with their driving abilities, especially with good reason,
and simply drives slower to raise the confidence factor. Sheesh, will you get
out of the way?!!! Life doesn't stop simply because you can't be bothered to
at least drive the speed limit. Slowpokes are as dangerous as obnoxious
and reckless drivers.

 You'd think they'd realize what a source of annoyance they are being when they
look in their rear-view and notice that they are heading a parade. Why do they
think their "tail" is so long? Because they have such a popular destination?

 PLEASE- pull over and allow people to go by. Obviously you aren't concerned
with getting anywhere in a timely fashion, so the few seconds you lose by 
allowing the world to continue turning at it's normal speed will be most
gratefully accepted by those whose clocks do not slow down when they are
behind your car.

 The Doctah

    
>    Actually its PERdiddle. 

	 Hahaha! I wasd about to say this and make some off the wall
	 comment about funny NewEngland accents.


	 kat

> Can anybody come up with any reason to make driving with only your running
>lights on illegal? Just wondering.

Because parking lights signal a parked car.  If you assume a car to be
parked, and proceed, you could easily find yourself in anm accident.


it's illegal in a few states, I believe.

kath

    Using only your parking lights used to be illegal in Colorado simply
    because so many people had high power fog lights installed in place of
    the parking lights and they were equally as blinding (if not more so)
    than regular lights.  I don't know if that law is still on the books,
    though.
    
    Nanci

    Nanci, you've just hit on one of my hot buttons - fog lights that are
    brighter and more blinding than high beams.  Aren't there any
    regulations for the proper positioning of fog lights??!?
    
    Karen
    
    P.S.  They're almost as bad as the nincompoops who drive with their
    high beams on in heavy fog.  It's OK with me if THEY want to contend
    with the reflections off the water particles in the air.  But as a
    driver who has to share with road with them, it's NOT OK with me if
    they force me to share their idiocy.
    
    K.

>Because parking lights signal a parked car.  If you assume a car to be
>parked, and proceed, you could easily find yourself in anm accident.

 I figured it would be about this sensible. You can only tell that a car only
has its parking lights on if you are approaching it head-on. This being the 
case, who would drive TOWARDS a "parked" car that is in an oncoming travel lane?
Dumb law.

>    Using only your parking lights used to be illegal in Colorado simply
>    because so many people had high power fog lights installed in place of
>    the parking lights and they were equally as blinding (if not more so)
>    than regular lights. 

 Isn't that attacking the problem from across the street, so to speak? Why not
simply make it against the law to drive with running lights and fog lights on
when headlights are mandated by law to be operating?

 The Doctah

I always assumed (laws or no laws) that it was a bad idea to drive with only
parking lights on because it's too easy to continue driving that way after it
gets darker (especially on streets which are lit so that it's less obvious to
the driver that his/her headlights aren't on).

I've seldom had a problem with headlights on in the daytime - the ambient light
generally washes them out in all but the most infortuitous alignments. I'm far
more bothered by people who drive with parking lights past dusk. "I can see;
what does it matter if anybody else can see me?"

    G'Day,
    
    	How do Volvo's get on in the States - are they rewired or
    something?  In Australia, all Volvo's are wired so that the parking
    lights come on with ignition, hence they are always on when driving. 
    You have to manually turn the head lights on though.  They are the only
    cars over here like that.  We seem to have the opposite problem over
    here.  While there are a few people that use headlights during the day
    (usually quite unnecessary in bright sunny Sydney) most tend to leave
    turning their lights on until it is almost dark.  The major problem
    with headlights is that they are not adjusted correctly.  Even
    low-beams can dazzle an oncoming car if they are pointing in the wrong
    direction.  As for fog lamps, they should never dazzle an oncoming car. 
    They are supposed to shine below the normal line of vision to stop
    reflections hitting you straight in the eyes.
    
    Happy motoring,
    
    David.
    
    

    um people, this is the hot buttons note..
    
    if there is interest in a note on cars how about starting a separate
    note?
    
    Bonnie

    In re: .300
    
    > Life doesn't stop simply because you can't be bothered to
    > at least drive the speed limit. 
    
    Absolutely right! There are actually people who think those silly signs 
    show _maximum_ speeds, not _minimum_. What's more, they're the minimums
    at midnight on glare ice in dense fog. In daylight on dry payvment
    you're required to go at least double the minimum, with exceptions
    allowed at stop signs on weekends.
    
    Gee, it would be interesting to watch you drive in the midwest, or
    somewhere else where people think driving is a mode of transportation,
    not a competative sport!
    
    	- Bruce
    	  (who has been known to get impatient on the road, too,
    	   but at least is occasionally embarassed about it :-})

People who've never seen me before, and vice versa, who somehow think
it's cool to walk up behind me and pull my hair-tail.  It's 10 inches
long now and with my hairstyle it's very noticeable, but JUST BECAUSE 
SOMETHING IS NOVEL OR INTERESTING TO YOU DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE THE 
RIGHT TO TOUCH IT.

Carla

    
    	The Massachusetts Highway Dept.  I think they forgot Rte 3
    	this morning.  I live in Nashua and work in Westford so I
    	take Rte 3 every day.  This morning driving in NH was fine.
    	The highway was clear and the pavement was wet, not icy or
    	anything.  But once I hit the Mass. border...forget it.  Slush
    	and ice everywhere.  It didn't look like it had been plowed at
    	all!!  I hate winter and I hate driving in the winter....and
    	stupid stuff like this irritates me!
    
    	JJ
    

    RE:.312  It's been like that since I can remember.  Do you mean to say
    that Mass has recently been plowing Rte 3?  If they have, it sounds
    like they just went back to budget cut mode.
    
    ed

    
    
    	No.  I just moved to NH from MA in March of last year so I was
    	used to the lousy highways.  I guess it didn't take me long
    	to get "spoiled" by living in NH...so I happen to notice it
    	more than others I guess.
    
    	JJ
    

        We in MA are content to have unplowed roads in exchange
        for our taxes being higher than in NH.
        
        Dan

    Being gone all day and having to catch up with =wn= at night and 
    then having my entire family need to use the phone so I am up
    at this hour.
    
    Bonnie

    We always called a car with one tail light a KERBLINKIE.  Origin
    also unknown.

(This has come up before, but...)

I was talking with a woman recently who was talking about a couple of "new
girls" she had met at her gym the night before.  She was talking about the
first woman who was wearing a fully coordinated designer exercise suit that
looked very good on her, and how that woman had just giggled and not paid
attention when the instructer showed her how to use the machines, so my
friend decided she must just be there to meet men.  We both chuckled, having
both men people like that at gyms.  Then she starts in about "And you should
have seen this girl's friend!".  She says "This girl was fat, and I mean
we're talking *fat*!  Her thighs were as big around as my waist".  (Given
the miniscule size of my aquaintance's waiste, that isn't saying much.)
"She was wearing tights that made them look even worse, and a big man's
shirt tied in a knot at her hips.  can you imagine?  Who did she think
she was?  What was she doing there?"

Right.  Wouldn't want those *fat* people to wear clothes in the *gym* that
aren't flattering.  (Of course, if they were flattering, it would have meant
she was just there to pick up guys.)  Actually, wouldn't want those *fat*
people in the gym at all.  They sure lower to esthetic standards!  What
nerve of those *fat* people, coming in and flopping their bodies around like
they had a *right* to be there or something!  Only lean and fit people
should be allowed to exercise.  Fat and unfit people should stay in their
rooms and get fatter and less fit!  At any rate, they should at least have
the decency to *hide* their bodies while they are exercising!  Geesh,
damn uppity obese slobs!

(Actually, it's okay if they are around *sometimes* beccause then we can
*laugh at them*, laugh at those chubby little legs pushing those exercise
bike wheels around, their faces getting all red and *puff* *puff*.  
Yeah, heh heh.  Hysterical.)

:-P

D!

The "discussion" on feminists in SOAPBOX.  It's one of the most recent notes.
Misogyny at it best. 

And these people are deadset in their ways.

I think I'm going to just delete the whole conference and find a better use of 
my time, like talking to open-minded people.

Lisa

    Re .318
    
    !D,
    
    The scenario you outlined is only too real.
    Having joined a gym a while back as one of the "non-designer
    need-to-get-fit" brigade I suffered from "gym discrimination".
    It really hurt. A lot.
    
    Especially as it takes a lot of self-motivation to get yourself
    in there if you haven't exercised for years - the equipment is
    alien, you don't know the routine, you don't know your way around....
    and then you get this goddamned ATTITUDE.....
    
    I second your flare!
    
    'gail
    

    re .318 Right on !
    
    "You're working out in *sweats* ?! Instead of Lycra ?!
    How tacky ! I mean, your workout outfit smells like
    persperation !"
    
    I'll stick to a set of weights at home and wear my grubby
    sweats and save $$ 
    

        Re .318, D!;
        
        You said it all - brilliant!
        
        Andy (built for comfort, not for speed).
        

	 Now I know why I work out at a serious club.  Overweight
	 people at my club are encouraged and they get all the help
	 they want from the counselors because they are intent on
	 guiding those that want it.

	 I rarely ever see the "pretty boy/pretty girl" look at my
	 club.  Most of the women are in sweats (or like me, lycra
	 leggings and over-sized t-shirts).

	 But then again, I work out in the "off" time. Also, the other
	 two clubs with the same name in town are the "meet market
	 variety"..........i guess I picked the right one, eh?

	 I abhore that attitude.

	 kath

    Kath, from your description, I infer that you don't work out at the
    North Academy facility.  I have always gone to that facility because it
    is just down the road from where I live, but I have heard from several
    people that it has the most notorious reputation of the three locations
    in town.

    -- Mike

>                  <<< Note 5.324 by CSC32::M_VALENZA "Mir." >>>

>    Kath, from your description, I infer that you don't work out at the
>    North Academy facility.

	 North Academy is great if you go in the morning, or late in
	 the evening.

	 I work out at the Fillmore Club.

	 South Academy is just as bad with the army people.

	 kath

From The American Heritage Dictionary:

Imply: (2) To say or express indirectly; to hint.

Infer: To conclude from evidence, deduce; to have as a logical consequense

Usage: Infer and imply, in their most frequently used sense, are carefully
distinguished in modern usage.  To *imply* is to state indirectly, hint
or intimate: 'The report implies that we were to blame.'  To *infer* is
to draw a conclusion or make a deduction based on facts or indications:
'Reading the report led him to infer that we were to blame.'  In these
senses the words are not interchangeable.  Although *infer* sometimes appears
in examples such as the first, it is not acceptable there, according to 
92 percent of the Usage Panel.

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

In other words, if you are the writer/speaker you can IMPLY something.
If you are the listener/reader, you can INFER something from what was
said/written, which may or may not be what the speaker/writer implied.

D!

    People who don't listen to the meaning of my words.  (Or of
    your words.)
    
    :
    :
    :
    "No.  If the LN03 cannot find an image for *that particular
    character*, it prints the mirror question mark."
    "Ah.  So if the font isn't there, the LN03 prints question marks."
    "No.  If the *character* isn't there, the LN03 prints question
    marks.  If the *font* isn't there, the LN03 prints black blobs."
    "Ah.  So the LPS40 and the LN03 print black blobs if the font isn't
    there."
    "No.  Partly.  The LN03 does that.  The LPS40 does not. ...."
    
    "Funny, all the people I've heard say that were male Causasians."
    "So you're saying all male Causasians say that."
    "No.  I'm saying *I* have heard *only* male Causasians say that,
    but *not* all male Causasians say that."
    
    							Ann B.

    Are men REALLY as difficult to talk about as laser printers?
    

    Yeah, I heard the saying once that maybe some of the cruelty and hurt
    that some parents inflict on their children could be avoided if only
    babies came with a user's guide.
    
    Of course, nobody EVER reads the instructions/documentation...
    
    Jim
    

> Each word has a meaning

Umm, I think that was in "the old days", Ann ... when people could count on 
each word having a meaning, because each people were expected to give each 
word a meaning.  

But isn't all of that obsolete today?  I think the modern rule is "So what 
if it doesn't say exactly what I mean?  You can understand it, can't you?" 
or "If it feels good, write it."

And when people don't expect precision in their own speech or writing, why
should they imagine that yours is any different?  (What are you, an elitist
or something?)

	-Neil

    POLITICALLY CORRECT!  POLITICALLY INCORRECT!  ARGHHH!
    
    I am totally torched when people sling these labels around as an
    attempt to invalidate the stance of their opponents on some issue or
    other.  It shows an inability to articulate the specific concerns or
    points of disagreement, and a disrespect for honest disagreement.
    
    When someone accuses my position of being 'politically correct', they 
    are implying that I have taken my position as a sheep, to avoid scrutiny
    from some larger group with whom I am taking refuge.  In reality, the
    accusation is an attempt to discredit me and the large number of people 
    who also support my position.
    
    When you accuse me of being "PC", it means you can't refute my
    arguments, or are too lazy to try.  Your disrespect is noted.
    
    DougO  

Hear, Hear, DougO!

   This has never happened to me here (I do not believe that too many of my
views would be regarded as "politically correct" by many people here) but I
tend to get really MAD when others in this file (even if I think their ideas
are off- the- wall) have their views attacked as being "politically correct".

   I thought it was just me. Glad to know it isn't.

                                                       -Robert Brown III

    The very concept political correctness is one of imposing ideological
    conformity, and is contrary to independence of thought and action.  It
    represents rigid dogmatism and inflexibility.

    I therefore have no respect for political correctness.  Political
    correctness shows no respect for the honest ability of individuals to
    formulate their own conclusions about how to live their lives.  It
    attempts to tell others how to eat, sleep, speak, worship, copulate, or
    perform any other activity that must be performed in a certain way in
    order to be ideologically consistent.  It sees ideological implications
    everywhere, and thus claims to know best how individuals should live. 
    
    It is intolerant of diversity, both wihin and outside of a political
    movement.  Though political correctism is insidious, it is also,
    unfortunately, a common phenomenon among many political movements.

    -- Mike

    re .334, Mike V-
    
    > The very concept political correctness is one of imposing ideological
    > conformity, and is contrary to independence of thought and action.  It
    > represents rigid dogmatism and inflexibility.

    Precisely.  Thus, the accusation of "PC" is an accusation that my
    position is dogmatic and inflexible.  I, too despise the concept of PC;
    and to have someone denigrate my position with that accusation is an
    arrogantly annoying hot button.
    
    Mike, you used that accusation today, not against me, I know...but
    the usage is still unacceptable.
    
    DougO
    

    Doug, I used the term because I felt it was appropriate.  There is a
    big difference between saying, on the one hand, that a religion has
    demonstrated bad behavior over the years, and, on the other hand, that
    the religion itself is inherently bad.  Not only do I have no problem
    with the first statement, I would in fact probably chime in with some
    examples myself.  I am certainly not an apologist for Christianity, as
    those who read the RELIGION conference are probably well aware.

    The second statement, though, by contrast, implies to me that it is
    just plain wrong to make that religious choice at all, and it hardly
    seems very tolerant of religious diversity.  I don't care much for the
    idea of telling people that their religious choices, which are often
    deeply personal and important to many individuals, are inherently bad. 
    For those who don't have much respect for religious diversity, there
    isn't a problem, I suppose; but it is a position with which I
    philosophically disagree.  In particular, it shows a real ignorance
    about the real diversity *within* many religious faiths that are
    struggling with important issues.

    In my opinion, that is a classic example of political correctism. 
    There is a school of thought which says that certain religions (i.e.,
    Goddess worship) are politically correct, and others (i.e.,
    Christianity) are politically incorrect.  I am as offended by this view
    as you apparently are by the use of the term "politically correct" as
    an epithet.  I consider my use of the term completely valid under the
    circumstances.

    -- Mike

    moderator speaking here..
    
    I agree with the person who felt that the religion discussion is a 
    major divergence from women in combat and spreading it to hot buttons
    only makes the racinization worse.
    
    however, I don't have time to move the digression and I don't know
    if any of my comods do either..
    
    I'd like to ask people to continue this fascinating discussion and
    when I or one of my comods gets the time we'll move it..
    
    I'd hate right now to shut it down but please try and keep it in one
    place, spreading it to two notes makes it worse.
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie, I have taken and continue to take no part in the religious
    discussion at hand.
    
    Mike, no matter how good you think your grounds are in this one case, 
    I reject the tactic of using that epithet as intellectually dishonest
    in all cases.  You are postulating a large dogmatic community and
    representing yourself as a lone crusader when you accuse your opponent
    of toeing some PC line.  In all cases, you are using the popularity of
    your opponent's position as if that removes intellectual rigor from
    the position.  You are as guilty of yahoo-ism as you accuse your
    opponent of being.
    
    Take an extreme case.  Even if your opponent *is* toeing some PC line,
    the way to discredit the position is through showing the flaws in the
    dogma.  If they are guilty, they are vulnerable in other ways.  When
    you stoop to that attack, however, it means you have exhausted your own
    position without refuting your opponent's arguments.  When that epithet 
    is used against me, I take it as proof that my opponent can refute me 
    in no other fashion.  It is disrespectful of my position.  
    
    The epithet of "PC" remains a hot button for me.
    
    DougO

    Doug, I don't agree that my identification of political correctism is
    some sort of "tactic"; if the "epithet" is a hot button for you, the
    existence of political correctism is just as much a hot button for me,
    and this is something I identify and object to when I see it, without
    apology.  It is true, however, as you have pointed out, that I do not
    conform to the majority consensus on most issues, so perhaps it might
    be better for me to leave this conference to its own groupthink so that
    everyone remaining can preach to the choir.

    In any case, while I do object to the way that political correctism
    clouds the issues with dogmatism, my real objection isn't whether
    anyone toes or doesn't toe a party line, so your criticism of the way I
    allegedly attempt to "refute" people with my "tactic" misses the mark
    completely.  I couldn't care less of anyone toes a party line; I
    probably toe a few party lines myself.  I don't think I have ever even
    used the phrase "party line" at any time in any discussion here, and I
    am not therefore accusing anyone of being "sheep".  My criticism is of
    the realm of discourse to which the party line, if one even exists, is
    applied--more specifically, I abhor the methodology which involves,
    among other things, bringing broad ideological principles to bear on
    specific personal or theoretical issues, through a kind of crude and
    tenuous reductionism.  It is the extension of ideology into these other
    domains that I find most appalling.

    I therefore object to the doctrines that the only legitimate religion
    for feminists is Goddess-worship, or that Christianity is incompatible
    with feminism, or that feminism is the theory and lesbianism the
    practice, not because these ideas belong to any sort of "party line",
    since I would object to those same views if only one person expressed
    them, but rather because these notions dogmatically apply ideological
    pressure upon specific issues on the basis of a faulty reductionism
    into realms that I consider invalid.  The end result is a sort of
    intolerance of individual self-expression and diversity, which I find
    deeply offensive.

    I therefore disagree that I am somehow "resorting" to the political
    correctism accusation merely because I have run out of arguments to
    support my position.  Rather, my objection to the extension of the
    realm of discourse, which I label as "political correctism", *is* my
    position.  I don't believe that I am using the PC comment simply as
    a last ditch label to characterize argument an opinion I disagree with;
    rather, the reason I disagree with the opinion in the first place is
    that its very reason for existence happens to be that it applies
    ideology in a way which I consider faulty.  Were this dubious
    ideological linkage never made in the first place, the question to
    which the opinion applies would not even come up (political correctism
    has a habit of defining what is bad for other people to do).

    Now if you yourself engage in this sort of ideological linkage, which I
    consider dubious, but which you do not, then I suppose it is
    understandable why you would interpret my critique of political
    correctism as you do.  Nevertheless, I stand by my comments.

    -- Mike

>    I reject the tactic of using that epithet as intellectually dishonest
>    in all cases.
    
     I suppose it is your right to reject any tactic with which you
    disagree, however, the fact remains that the concept of political
    correctness is valid. Since the concept is valid, it cannot be argued
    that applying the term in situations that warrant it is intellectually
    dishonest. To completely preclude the use of the term "politically
    correct" in all cases regardless of the merit of the charge is
    intellectually dishonest, because it denies reality.
    
     You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the mere accusation
    of PC is sufficient to invalidate any argument. This is clearly not the
    case. There are occassions when such an accusation is unwarranted and
    unsupportable. 
    
>    Even if your opponent *is* toeing some PC line,
>    the way to discredit the position is through showing the flaws in the
>    dogma.
    
     And when you have done so in a forum which is hostile to attacks on
    that dogma, there is little point in repeating descrediting remarks,
    especially when the many are conditioned to respond in a certain way.
    It is sufficient to say, "This may not be PC, but I feel..."
    
     You seem to be taking this rather personally, as if PCness is only
    ever used against your position. That's not so, though people may not
    come out and say it. For example, any member of the NRA that happens to
    believe in a certain tenet advocated by the NRA is immediately
    discredited as being "just another NRA yahoo." This conclusion is
    arrived at frequently without the benefit of any sort of investigation
    into the thought processes or motivations of the person holding that
    position.
    
     FWIW- I don't recall using PC as a way of discrediting others'
    positions directly, rather, I tend to say that _my_ position is NOT PC,
    or is PI (3.14159265... :-). (I'm sure someone will remind me if I am
    mistaken.) 
    
>    When that epithet 
>    is used against me, I take it as proof that my opponent can refute me 
>    in no other fashion.  It is disrespectful of my position.
    
     While it may indicate disrespect, even contempt, for your position, I
    don't think it's accurate to say it's proof that your opponent is
    UNABLE to use any other line of arguments. Perhaps they choose that
    epithet to enrage you, hoping to get you to say something that can
    easily be attacked. Perhaps they simply don't have the time to engage
    in a detailed dissection of your position. Perhaps they say it just to
    piss you off. :-)
    
     Would you get all bent out of shape if I were to say that it would be
    PI for President Bush to consider the legalization of drugs? Well, it
    would be PI for him to do so. Does this mean I can't say it?
    
     The Doctah

Stop it. Right now. This is the Hot Buttons note.

If you want me to start a topic on PCness, or anything else,  and move some or
all of the notes, just ask.

	Mez

	Uh, did I slip into MENNOTES again???

	_peggy

    Uh, I thought PC stood for "physically challenged".
    
    The only person I ever heard use that *other* terminology said
    it tongue-in-cheek!

    RE: -1

    
    Some of the notes in here are beginning to sound like Logical Thinking
    101, one of the most boring courses I've taken.

>    Some of the notes in here are beginning to sound like Logical Thinking
>    101, one of the most boring courses I've taken.

You are right.  They do, and they are boring!

However, Basic Arithmetic was boring, too.  So was Elementary Grammar and
Spelling.   So was Introduction to Physical Sciences.  

But these courses are *necesssary* to carry on further study in those areas.
Unfortunately, it appears that a lot of people here were *not* required to
take that very basic, very boring course in remedial logic.

it always surpruses me that ever agrees that someone needs to have at 
least a minimal command of the language, spelling and grammar to talk here,
but doesn't have to have any concept of Logical Thinking!

This is one of *my* hot buttons - people who make logically invalid arguments
and then say "Oh you are picking nits" or "why do you take everything so
literally" or "Can't you see that this isn't an issue of *logic*?" when I
try to demonstrate the invalidity.

(Definition of invalid: An argument in which at least one of the logical
steps between premise and conclusion is flawed.  ie: no relation to
"invalidating my feelings" or such...
eg: premise: If it is sunny, I want to go biking.  premise: It is not
sunny.  invalid conclusion: I don't want to go biking.)

Logic - not just a good idea!

D!

It's really aggravating to observe "pit-bull noting". The pit-bull noter
gets his or her teeth into an argument, and the harder anybody shakes, the
tighter the jaws clench. What typically happens is that two pit-bull noters
get hold of each other, and an exhaustive growling and wrestling match
occupies mega-disk-blocks while the rest of the audience tries to keep
clear of the spray.

Pit-bull noters in this conference include individuals of both sexes, so it
doesn't appear to be a sex-linked characteristic.

It would be helpful if pit-bull noters would look at some statistics of
previous encounters, to see if anybody has actually changed their
attitudes, or even increased their comprehension of the other's opinions,
after the third or forth bite - I mean, note. If it happens, it's certainly
rare. Unfortunately, with real pit-bulls, when the jaws clench, the eyes
close. Something similar appears to take place with pit-bull noters.

    I have moved several responses to Paul's "pit-bull noting" hot button
    over to 15.* where they belong.  This note is in lieu of mail to the
    respective respondents.
    
    						=maggie

    As a former proofreader/editor, I hate seeing "judgment" spelled as
    "judgement".  We use it so often in this file, it's constantly jumping
    out at me!
    
    JUDGMENT  JUDGMENT  JUDGMENT  JUDGMENT  JUDGMENT  JUDGMENT  JUDGMENT
    Judgment  Judgment	Judgment  Judgment  Judgment  Judgment  Judgment  
    judgment  judgment  judgment  judgment  judgment  judgment  judgment  
    
    The more you type it the worse it looks.  But it's right!  
    
    (And for those people who immediately dive for their dictionary, the
    preferred spelling is JUDGMENT; some dictionaries also list judgement
    as an alternate spelling.  I say blech, phooey!  :-) )
    
    Pam

    And since no one here has misspelled the following in a while:
    
    lose vs. loose
    
    "lose" is the `fail to win' one; it rhymes with "choose".
    
    "loose" is the `not tight' one; it rhymes with "juice".
    
    There is the cause of the problem, of course; "choose" is spelled
    with two "o"s.
    
    So, until a better mnemonic comes along (in the next reply, I hope),
    "lose" is the one which lost one "o", ior "loose" is the one with
    room to spare.
    
    							Ann B.

"Judgment" is a word you just have to memorize because the "correct"
spelling violates a principal of English phonetics, to wit, a soft "g"
sound, as in "judge", requires an e or i after it to soften the sound.
If the letter g is followed by a, o, u, or a consonant, it's supposed 
to be hard.  Mirage, eagle, catalogue, collage, etc. 

This is true of "c" also -- "notice" has the sound of "s", so when you 
add the -able suffix, you retain the "e" -- noticeable.   Manage, manageable, 
management.

I'm not sure how or why judgment became an exception.  Probably some
arbitrary decision by 17th-century English tutors.

--bonnie

    all of which reminds me that when ever I see advise when advice is
    meant or sight or site for cite (or sight for site for that matter)
    I get a feeling like fingernails on a blackboard in my brain.
    
    Bonnie

    re:.352. d*d y*u m**n ast*r*sks???
    
    **

       Those who cringe in pain at certain spellings would do well to
       learn that 'judgement' is the correct spelling in most
       non-American forms of English.  
       
       --Mr Topaz

    
    i think 349.18 is sufficiently offensive that the author should be
    banned from womennotes and possibly earth.
    

    
    What I really dislike in notes, is that, if we want to follow whatever
    rules and policies we are surrounded with, we can't tell somebody "go
    take your deliciously witty - at least to yourself - noting style
    elsewhere, so we can resume meaningful conversations."
    
    Joana

    
    Re .361
    
    Yup - I absolutely agree with that frustration.
    
    My fingers are twitching to write several notes of that tone even
    as I type - directed at one individual whom, because of noting
    etiquette, I will not name, nor will I give any clues to their
    identity.
    
    Rats! I hate being so well-mannered.
    
    'gail
    
    

Stop interacting in the Hot Buttons note. It's a place to let off steam into
the air, not at each other.
	Mez

    In re: .350
    
    The OED prefers "judgement," which is good enough for me.
    
    		- Bruce

    C'mon Mike, just stop.  Okay?  Mez's injunction was very clear and not
    at all personalised.
    
    						=maggie

re: .368:

Funny, I thought it was a hot-button.

Martin (tounge in cheek)

        Cheap shots to maintain 'humour' in newsreading on tv;
        
        Newsreader  (male)    commenting  on  Susan  Butcher's  win  of
        Iditarod:
        
        ..."and now she'll  be  heading  home  to  <pause  for  muffled
        snicker> _Manley_, Alaska."
        
        You had to hear the timing pause and the subtle emphasis on the
        first syllable of Manley.
        
        BTW - it's thanks to  this  file  that such instances now reach
        out and grab.
        
        Andy
        

    	If Butcher keeps winning, they might rename the town to
    	Butcher, Alaska.
    
    	Great win, and she broke the record by about 11 minutes.
    
    	Scott

    
    	Noters (not here) who have nothing better to do but
    	create havoc and frustration for others.....and being
    	d**n sarcastic and arrogant too boot!
    
    	JJ
    

    
    	RE: .374  JJ
    
    	Rough day in Soapbox again today, eh?  ;^)
    

    
    
    	Good guess  =)
    

    Fill in the blank-ism's.
    
    What JJ said.  Here, there, ANYWHERE.  What ever happened to reasoned,
    calm, ADULT discussion?  
    
    ---kim

    I'm going to do it.  I'm sorry, it's unprofessional, it's un-cool,
    people might just bitch at me, but I'm going to do it.  I've reached
    saturation limit.  I'm tolerant, but enuf is enuf.....
    
    For those people who would complain about the noting
    style/baiting/complaining/"over reactions"/sensitivity/general
    personality/pit-bull noting/ad naseum -- but will turn right around
    and just FURTHER the problem by plugging away with their own shots,
    thus doing the SAME THING THEMSELVES (thus turning the whole ugly
    issue into one big, vicious circle - it goes both ways):
    
    STOP IT!!! STOP IT!!! STOP IT!!!!!  Can we just PLEASE have ONE
    LOUSY STINKING SINGLE *DAY* without little factions of noters taking
    pot shots at their rival faction of noters and excusing their behavior
    because "THEY" started it?????  Can we have just ONE DAY without
    finger pointing, accusations, perceived insults and counter insults,
    complaints, and general pissing and moaning about what the other
    person is doing????  
    
    Can we PLEASE start acting like adults now? Huh?  Just ONE day????
    Can we just discuss topics again just ONCE without all this..this
    HE DID IT SHE DID IT HE SAID SHE SAID THEY SAID WE SAID???  Can
    we have just one day where someone ISN'T insulted enough to post
    about it?   Just one??????????   Can we just please get back to
   
                           ************
                       --->?DISCUSSION? <---
                           ************                       
                           
    Just one lousy day.  That's all I'd want to see.  Thank you for
    wearing your abestos.
    
    
                                                           

    I've moved the latest series of responses to 15, where most of them
    belong.  
    
    PLEASE don't respond in here...this is a letting-off-steam place.  If
    you need to respond, do so in 15 or if the button will lead to a new
    topic, start it.
    
    Thanks. (and yes I've been guilty too...but no more)
    
    						=maggie

    Picture if you will......
    
    a man, normally one of those so males labeled as a"misogynistic" type,
    decides to enter one note that might even make him part "of the
    community"......
    
    He contemplates.....
    
    at the NOTES> prompt, he types REPLY....  he does it......
    Why?  he does not knwo.... but he does it.....
    
    
    My hot button?
    
    Yesterday, while being the sensative type that I am, playing outside
    with the chillies, Allan playing on his nice new two wheel bike,
    Ashleigh playing with her little trike (plastic).
    
    I notice that Ashleigh is constantly trying to take Allans bike away,
    and use it....
    
    Now, me being the observant type that I am, I question said
    daughter....
    
    Ashleigh, sweetheart, (I always call her that, incedently, I call AJ
    that also ) why are you pushing Allan from his bike and trying to take
    it?
    
    Ashleigh, being only two years young, states in her own "cutsy" way, "I
    wannit!"  Hmmm, states....  Maybe she is big enough to have one of her
    own, I thinks.....
    
    So I decide to go the next day (today) and get her one so that she has
    her own.
    
    
    I know, getting long but.....
    
    I gets to the store, look franticly for the identical bike so that
    there is no envy from each children........  I FIND IT!  and its on
    sale too!
    
    Then I gets to thinkin (yes, I can think sometimes), maybe it wouldnt
    be such a good idea to get the *EXACT* same thing.... you know, they
    might fight over whos is whos.....  I decide to get the same one but in
    the traditional "girls" bike version.
    
    Now here's where it gets "hot".....
    
    I find the boys bike with no problem, but finding the girls version was
    a treck.  Allans bike is real cool.  It has the pads on the bars, big
    white tires, with "designer" spokes.... sorta the 12 inch version of
    the bmx mountain bike.....
    
    Anyhow, I find the girls version.... the freakin thin is THE SAME PRICE
    but it downright SUCKS!  Eighty dollars for that?  I says.....
    
    compare if you will....
    
    Boys                    Girls
    
    PAdding	            NO padding
    Real tires (see air)    Foam tires
    foam padded seat        Hard plastic seat
    metal pedals            Plastic pedals
    Steel spokes            Plastic spokes
    steel training          One piece plastic trainers
    Lion decal on the bike  CUPCAKE printed on it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    
    Now, granted, boys MIGHT be more evil to bikes, but that still is no
    reason for building AND CHARGING the same price for a bike so god damn
    cheap!
    
    I was really ticked off!  The damn thing is a piece of KAKA!
    
    anyhow, needless to say, I bought her the "boys" version in a different
    color.....
    
    Oh, and the girls were ALL IN PINK!  No other colors....
    the boys were in blue, black (lots of black), red and all sorts of
    sporty stripes etc.....
    
    
    DAMN!
    
    I am tempted to do a little writing myself!
    

Logic. *Logic*.

Having to always and forever discuss things in this file according to
some set of Rules of Logic, debating rules, scientific-theory-rules-of-data.

This is *not* a debating society. This is *not* the Journal of the American
Medical Association. This is *not* a symposium of Debaters and Enthusiasts
of Interaction in Logic. 

We are talking about women's *lives*, here.

And what the h*ll has *logic* had to do with women's lives?

Where is the logic in 400 women dying yearly at the hands
	of men who "love" them?

Where is the logic in the hundreds of thousands of women who are beaten
	regularly by men who "love" them?

Where is the logic in the hundreds of women who are raped by men each day?

Where is the logic in the fact that one quarter of the women who are adults now,
	were sexually abused as children by men who supposedly "loved" them?

Where is the logic in the fact that whenever we bring up these millions of 
	women, our attention is forced away, regularly and predicatably?

These are only a few of the illogical situations that women face every day
of our lives. And yet, we come here to WOMANnotes and are told by MEN that
we must talk to them using some Rules of Logic and Data Presentation that
NEITHER BY RULE NOR BY CONVENTION must we adhere to.

And we do it. Amazingly enough, we do it.

There is, standing behind each of us as we note here, a huge long line of 
women - millions of them. Ghostly presences, they may be. But some of us see
them more clearly than others of us. And some of them *are* us.

The pain these women have endured knows no logic. Our victories, even, do not
come from any sense of logic, or what's "right". They come, in the end, from
too many squeaky wheels impinging on the consciousness of the men who choose,
finally, to be bothered as little as possible by women with problems. 

Women, when we communicate with each other, compare notes, find we are 
not alone...we are not crazy....*we* are not illogical. 

It's real nice that the government is now collecting data on women's lives.

More importantly however , women are talking with other women. We're finding 
out that our sisters are, indeed, being beaten...and abused as kids....and 
raped by men "friends"....and killed by these same men. We're finding out
that our sisters are  as ignored, devalued, underpaid, and under-employed     
as we are. We don't need Rules of Logic to know how badly we are being hurt. 
    In the home. In the workplace. 

So long as this communication goes on among us, we have a fighting chance. 
Derail communication with Rules of Logic, Rules of Data Presentation...
keep us from finding out about each others lives, and we have no unity.

Logic? I'm sick of it. I am not here to debate. Surely there is a notesfile
for that, somewhere. Else.

--DE
                 

    re .381, I couldn't agree more.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    re: .381
    
    I agree too....we don't live in a logical world so how do we
    expect to solve any of its problems 'logically' ...and what does
    that have to do with the price of beans in Boston, or this notesfile?
    
    discussion .ne. debate  so why try to apply the same rules?
    
    oh well...
    
    deb
    

hot button: people who don't understand the use or necessity of logic.
People who think that a request for following logical rules is *derailing*.
I consider it re-railing - logic is a *tool* for discussion.  Without it,
points cannot be made, progress cannot occur.

People have this misconception that if something is emotional or irrational
in nature that logic cannot be used to discuss it.

Tell that to the philosophy professor who had us discuss *Abortion*, of all
things, in class - and graded us not on our feelings on the matter, but on
how logically we defended them.  Logic is a tool, and is therefore not
incompatible with discussing *anything*.  It is no more derailing to a 
conversation to suggest logical arguments than it is to request that people
communicate clearly and straight-forwardly.

Logic is a language, as necessary for communication as English.

Another hot button: people who suggest that logic is a "male thing".  Logic is 
a mathematical thing.  Logic is a tool.  Logic is saying what you mean, and
explaining it in a straight-forward and correct way.   I use logic to discuss
everything, from mathematical proofs to product bugs to love and sex.  Does
that make me "masculine"?  No, it makes me logical - it makes me a good
communicator.

But then, I've talked about this hot-button before.  Maybe I should shut up 
now.  ;-)

D!

re: 5.381

Well said!



>We are talking about women's *lives*, here.

And I think this is the root of much of the pushback we see over
and over in here from a few men: we are indeed (trying) to talk about
women's lives. Not men's lives. Women's. It's a tough concept for
some people.               

Kathy

    Re .381:

    > And what the h*ll has *logic* had to do with women's lives?

    Logic is a way to figure things out.

    Most of people's thoughts are simply thought without any conscious
    design.  When a person approaches a closed door, they do not go through
    a chain of reasoning that they cannot walk through the closed door, the
    door is hinged, and so the door should be opened.  They simply open the
    door because they "know" it is necessary.  No thought about this is
    necessary.

    That works fine for simple things or for common things -- for the
    familiar.  When we get to unfamiliar or complicated things, we have to
    _stop_ and think.  We no longer know the answer automatically; we have
    to figure it out.

    To do this, we can think about our thinking.  We can think that if we
    know A and we know A implies B, then B is true.  The process of
    considering, at least semi-formally, what is true is logic.

    > Where is the logic in 400 women dying yearly at the hands of men who
    > "love" them?

    Thinking logically about tragic situations is a completely separate
    issue from whether or not the people IN the situations are using logic.

    People act emotionally.  They act with and without reasoning.  They act
    for motivations known and unknown.  They act with and without logic. 
    But none of that prevents logic from being used to try to figure out
    what is going on.  If a person is angry and is acting without any
    logical thinking on their part, that does not in any way prevent YOU
    from using logic to think about the situation.  Their illogic does not
    prevent you from using logic to try to figure out why they are angry or
    what you can do about it.

    A person who uses logic is not trying to state that the way people act
    is logical.  A person who uses logic is not justifying beating or
    abuse.  A person who uses logic is trying to figure things out.


				-- edp

    	RE: .386  edp
    
    	Eric, no offense, but I think you missed the point.
    
    	You don't need to teach us what logic is or how it might be applied
    	in the process of understanding events in women's lives.  There are
    	a good number of very logical women in this conference - I happen to
    	have a degree in Philosophy myself (with strong specialties in both
    	Symbolic Logic and Boolean Algebra.)  Our combined strengths in this
    	area make women well-represented in the logical arena here.  ;^)
    
    	The point is that it isn't always appropriate when discussing people's
    	feelings.  It can even be considered callous and intrusive.
    
    	Telling the difference between opinions and feelings isn't always
    	easy, either, for some people in our culture (which is probably why
    	logic is applied inappropriately at times, in this conference and in
    	the world at large.)
    
    	If this isn't terribly clear to you, it will be in time.

    Can we PLEASE not carry on conversations in this string!?!
    
    						=maggie

    Gee, I was enjoying the discussion -- though maybe it's played itself
    out.  If not, would someone move .384ff to a new string?
    
    Nancy

    Ciggarett butts, all over the place. I just had to go in and out
    of two different DEC facilities and the entrances and walk ways
    are littered with butts, Haven't smokers discovered ash trays yet??
    I think it's disgusting and sloppy, if I were a facility manager
    I wouldn't let folks smoke in the entrances.  Some times when the
    weather is nice, you can't even get into the front door because
    the smokers are all standing around them and don't even have the
    manners to step aside to let visitors in the building.
    
    Whew!!!! now I feel better.
    
    +pat+

    Seeing "set hidden" notes put in the Hall of Fame.  I think that should
    not be allowed.

>   <<< Note 5.393 by WEEBLE::SMITH "Passionate committment/reasoned faith" >>>
>                          -< Set *them* hidden, too >-
>
>    Seeing "set hidden" notes put in the Hall of Fame.  I think that should
>    not be allowed.

	 You know, it REALLY FROSTS me to see people censoring
	 opinions.


	 kath

    1.  People who claim to use logic when they are not.  Or: If
    this is logic, why can I drive a truck through the middle of it?
    
    2. People who draw "conclusions" which bear no resemblence to
    the data they use for their support.
    
    							Ann B.

Notes that say

	This is the last note I will write about this.  If you want to
	discuss it further, you should take it to mail.

If the author *really* believed it should be taken to mail, they
would forego the last word and take it to mail themselves.  (But 
of course, everyone believes that the other side has had its say 
in full, but their side just needs that one last bit of explanation...)

    
    i would like to have a topic where i could delete anything i
    wanted to.