carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (08/28/85)
It's really very simple. Just IGNORE THEM. I'm serious. One of the real advantages of the net over face-to-face communication is the ease with which one can ignore people. (Ever try to ignore a jerk at a party or in a classroom?) You are NOT required to read, much less respond to, every article that appears in a newsgroup. One reason that so many netnews articles are written by idiots and jerks is that the non-idiots and non-jerks respond to their articles. Some net-posters write articles simply in order to get a response of some kind (Ken Arndt is the master at this). If you reply to such a person, you gratify his wish and encourage a repeat performance. Clinical psychologists can explain this better than I can. To save wear and tear on your n-finger, rn makes it possible to filter out all articles from someone whose articles you are not interested in reading. I am trying to weed out all articles from persons whose mental, emotional, or chronological age I estimate at less than 7 years. If, say, Ross Greenberg's articles raise your blood pressure, you don't have to read them. (I don't want to be hard on Ross -- perhaps he is an extremely gifted third-grader who has access to his father's or mother's terminal, something I have suspected of a good many netters, especially the ones who whine about women wanting "special treatment.") I understand that net.women.only met an untimely demise. However, I don't understand why this had to happen -- the readers of that newsgroup might have simply ignored articles from persons who violated the spirit of net.women.only, and eventually those persons would have figured out that they were talking to themselves. Any woman who wants net.women to become a net.women.mostly or a net.women.only or a mutual-support group for women can achieve this right now by ignoring articles from confessed males or anyone who violates what one thinks should be the spirit of net.women. If you do this, I guarantee that you won't see any complaints about it from those persons, unless they send you mail, which you are also free to ignore. Ignore 'em, folks. Do it because it FEELS GOOD. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (08/28/85)
In article <172@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: > >.... If, say, Ross Greenberg's articles raise your >blood pressure, you don't have to read them. (I don't want to be >hard on Ross -- perhaps he is an extremely gifted third-grader who >has access to his father's or mother's terminal, something I have >suspected of a good many netters, especially the ones who whine about >women wanting "special treatment.") > Nope....Mom won't let me use her terminal. Says I'll get my peanut-butter and jelly all over the keys which make them stickkkkkkkkkk. One thing I've never done is to put any person in my kill file: I even value your opinion, as shallow as it is. If my articles raise your blood pressure, or you consider that some of the women here are *not* asking for "special treatment", then you should put less in your kill file, and spend more time reading. Remember that this is a group where some of the members feel that an accurate representation of society can be described as "male conspiracy"! Or where "The Women's Room" is thought to be a treatise of major significance. Or where having a group that specifically excludes one sex is not considered sexist. In short, there are things about this group which will raise anyones blood pressure. And if I bring up a sensitive topic which makes many knees jerk, I think it likely to consider that at the same time, it makes many *minds* think. And my private mail seems to be rather supportive: "I don't always agree with what you say, but...." >I understand that net.women.only met an untimely demise. However, I >don't understand why this had to happen -- the readers of that >newsgroup might have simply ignored articles from persons who >violated the spirit of net.women.only, and eventually those persons >would have figured out that they were talking to themselves. > I took a look at my archieves of net.women.only. Less than 5% of the postings were by men. Perhaps it died because the other 95% were tired of talking to *themselves*? Or maybe because the posting volume was never high to begin with? Maybe the group should never have existed at all, because it just wasn't needed? >Any woman who wants net.women to become a net.women.mostly or a >net.women.only or a mutual-support group for women can achieve this >right now by ignoring articles from confessed [sic] males or anyone who >violates what one thinks should be the spirit of net.women. >ignore. > I might be in a number of kill files, Richard, including yours (in which case you won't see this). Is the general idea that whenever someone expresses viewpoints you don't like, you put them in your kill file? Pretty soon, you might as well start sending mail to yourself. The concept seems pretty silly. Although this group may have become an arena of combat (and, for the part I'm responsible, I apologize ), it still is a meeting of the minds. And a meeting of ideas. And a place to discuss differing opinions which are related to the difference between the sexes. But you won't know about that......you've already decided. Pity... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. --- "You must never run from something immortal. It attracts their attention." -- The Last Unicorn
mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (08/30/85)
In article <172@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >One reason that so many netnews articles are written by idiots and >jerks is that the non-idiots and non-jerks respond to their articles. >Some net-posters write articles simply in order to get a response of >some kind (Ken Arndt is the master at this). If you reply to such a >person, you gratify his wish and encourage a repeat performance. > >Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes Gee, this sounds familiar. Maybe what we really need is a new news group just for these people. Call it net.flasher. This also puts such behavior in it's proper category: something that women shouldn't have to put up with. --fini-- Eric McColm UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,trwspp,cepu,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!mccolm ARPA: mccolm@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU Quotes on the Nature of Existence: "To be, or not to be..." -Hamlet (Wm. Shakespeare) "I think, therefore I am." -R. Descartes "<Gleep!>" -Gleep (Robt. Asprin)