Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    
    Are you offering seminars..?

    Re: .0
    
         Mike, you are a true scholar of behavior.  That described so
    many noters perfectly that I could attach names to the list.  However,
    some of them came a bit too close to home.  I'm coming for you.
    
                                 Greg

    
    RE: .0
    	You should post this in soapbox::.   After all, that's where
    the macho action is...
    
    					Alan.

    Was it something we said?  

	I finally got off *my* Soapbox, probably to the delight of Eagle...

	.0 is so true, it should be in the Britannica!

	Side note: Alan Cramer and I killed off (at least temporarily) the
	Gay Rights note in Soapbox when we agreed to disagree. It was truly
	hilarious - I think we'll avoid that topic if we ever meet.

	Of course, y'all realize� that .0, .1 and .5 are all 'Box.

--lizzie borden took an AXE--

    my ex-father-in-law was a preacher...
    he danced (stomped) o my toes a *lot*, it seemed...

    Now I remember how that feels like.  Thanks for reminding me.
    There is NEVER a bad /wrong time to behave gentlemanly!
    
    tony

    
    I have an ex-wife who fits .O discription to the Tee.  I gave up
    trying to reason and be polite.  I just stopped [which really pi__ed
    her off].  What do you call a woman who behaves this way?
    
    ;-{) bill

    RE: -1
    
     What do you call her?
    
     "Ex" of course!
    
    Ben

    Thank you for .0--it is eerily accurate.
    
    RE:  .3
    As far as I'm concerned, this should be posted all over the network. 
    I've never seen a conference where the main title was broad enough to
    emcompass controversial topics where this type of behaviour wasn't
    rampant.  If you know of one, I think there should be some mechanism
    for rewarding its participants.
    
    							-- Mike

    I would agree with the base note if it hadn't substituted "manhood"
    for "macho" at the end.  I have seen this behavior in women as well.
    I don't consider macho behavior to be a good thing.
    
    However, it is not worth being "posted all over the network" - that
    very act could be another item on the list of .0.  (Thinking that,
    because you thought of something, EVERYONE ought to be forced to
    read it.)
    
    				Steve

    
    re:  .12
    (chuckle 8^)  You're right.  I was mostly responding to .3's seemingly
    denying that this behaviour happens anywhere other than in SOAPBOX.
    
    								-- Mike

    
    re .12
    
    I would strike me as an act of militant self-righteousness...

        The best way to electronic manhood is to agree with the
    majority and to deny one's masculine traits.

    Gee, it seems to me that you can find this type of behavior displayed
    in any discussion and/or argument on any contraversial topic.  Hmmm,
    

    RE: .0
    
    Noter manhood?
    
    So, if I understand correctly, you think only men are afflicted with
    this sort of behavior.  I see just as much intransigence and
    insensitivity from women noters as I see from men.  I also see a lot of
    people falling all over themselves trying to be sensitive and coming
    across like so many Mr./Ms. Milquetoasts.  You, on the other hand aren't
    ever bothered by either of these maladies, are you? 
    
    Listen, when people have strong opinions, they are going to express
    them with strong words sometimes.  If they strongly believe in
    something, many people will resort to all the tricks known to debaters,
    including some of the ones you mentioned, in order to feel victorious
    about having made their point.  These practices seem to be most often
    used by people who people who refuse to think about their beliefs.  They
    *feel* they are right and that is good enough for them.   Does this
    make them "Macho Noters"?  No.  They just expose themselves as people who
    don't think.       
    
    You may not like this sort of behavior, but you aren't going to change
    it.   Particularly by indulging in such sarcastic polemics. 
    
    Mike

    Acyually the base note is easily translated to:  If your opinion
    is different than mine and you make valid arguments by adressing
    specific passages that I use to make my point, and make your note
    long and thorough, then you are trying to be macho.  Different styles
    and ideas have nothing tho do with it.

    re: .18
    
    I think Mike's (.0) note was meant primarily as a bit of humor
    (vs. "sarcstic polemics").  
    
    re: intrangsigence and insensitivity from women noters 
    
    My experience is just the reverse
    
    
    Steve
    

    re: .20
    
    >    I think Mike's (.0) note was meant primarily as a bit of humor
    > (vs. "sarcstic polemics").  
    
    
    If the writer of note .0 agrees with you, then so will I.  Personally,
    I saw no humor in his note.
    
    >        re: intrangsigence and insensitivity from women noters
    >
    >    My experience is just the reverse

    You are entitled to your opinion.  I find that women noters are no
    better or no worse than men noters.  The women noters who exhibit the
    above mentioned traits just seem to use milder terms when expressing
    themselves. 
    
    Mike                                    
    
                                                  

    Mike (S) -
    
    Even if the base note's author *does* agree with me, it's perfectly
    legit for you to find it humorless, sarcastic polemics.  If it
    doesn't strike you as funny, it doesn't, regardless of it's intent.
    
    Seems to me that part of what we're engaged in here is, in a small
    way, the day-to-day mechanics of "valuing differences"
    
    Steve
    

    re: .22
     
    >Seems to me that part of what we're engaged in here is, in a small way,
    >the day-to-day mechanics of "valuing differences" 
    
     Can't argue with that!   Sounds to me like we have agreed to disagree.
    
    Mike