regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (08/29/85)
>> There is some problem with selectivity here!!! It doesn't seem to me, with >> my *warped* view of reality, that to "alientate people unnecessarily" is >> any different aimed at men (testosterone poisoning) than at women (PMS)! >Come on, Adrienne. You seem to be missing the point. It is one thing >to discuss something, even to disagree with others; it is quite another >to engage in name calling. As you say, this discussion has gone on too >long -- so long that I no longer recall Ross's exact words but I think >I would if he had said something like "PMS poisoned asshole" which I >assume would be analogous. Scuse me, but my point is that the garbage about PMS incompetency is no more or less offensive than comments about testosterone poisoning -- they both imply that the person on the receiving end is out of control and not to be trusted. After all, we long ago stopped talking about the "issue" of PMS (if we ever did) in favor of discussing the "harmful effects to the whole human race" of PMS. And discussions of testosterone effects never happened -- that was the sauce I referred to served up as (I interpreted it) hyperbolic tit-for-tat. Pretty silly stuff, yes. Pretty pointless, too. And I'm sure my opinion falls right in with yours about such "asshole" remarks. I just am not convinced that one side of this argument has been any purer than the other, and it seems to me to be pretty damned selective of the "conversation" as a whole to pick out comments that illustrate that purpose, while ignoring the rest. >In fact, I seem to recall that Ross asked a simple question; something >like "There is some evidence that PMS causes ... Should this affect >hiring practices?" Ross did pose a question something like this. His further postings contained far more than a question. Sunny replied with her opinion of experiences and multiple postings followed in support and in denigration. I haven't discovered either side to be particularly un-offensive in their comments after that point. >I am not saying that anyone should refrain from disagreeing with >anyone else. I am saying it would be nice if we could manage to do it >without being disagreeable; that there is no reason and no excuse for >name calling. Certainly, I agree wholeheartedly. I just don't find specific words like "asshole" to be crossing the line any more so than blanket assertions and derogatory comments that skirt around the kinds of words Websters won't define, but carry the same message. >I'd hardly agree calling someone an asshole was "sauce >for the gander" when it is a response to someone who simply had the >gall to disagree. That isn't _all_ that "someone" did. This is where I feel you are being rather selective. There have been responses from people who disagree, yours and mine included, and we haven't gathered nasty rebuttals to our terminals in large amounts. I think Sunny lost her temper (along with some others), and I think Ross did, too (they both have admitted the fact). Anyhow, silly to go on at this length over a hopefully dead discussion. I'll stop now. Adrienne Regard