🚀 go-pugleaf

lberrie1@uic.edu writes:
>My reply was not intolerant, nor was it hysterical (however, that seems 
>to be a typical male response to women who voice strong opinions).   I 
>voiced an opinion, that what I read seemed rude and uncalled for.  I 
>stand by that opinion, and I'd add that I have the same reaction to the 
>remark that I must somehow be "hysterical" (actually, I feel quite calm, 
>though a bit disgusted).  

Granting that "hysterical" has unpleasant connotations, I would
have to say that I took your reply as a bit ?overly-agitated?

"intolerant"?  Compared to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh this is a love-fest.
(that was aimed at both sides)

>Finally, I would say that if Steve Maas sincerely felt that he would be 
>doing the original poster a service by pointing out that she had problems 
>with her writing style (tough luv, you say?), then he might have emailed 
>her privately.  Making a  comment as he did on the newsgroup smacks of an 
>attempt at subtle humiliation.  

"subtle"?  You must have a different dictionary from mine.
Just a standard USENET cheap shot.  I will not 
debate what noble motives were behind it, not being a net.mind-reader.
"Humiliation"?  I don't know...

>The woman appears to be writing her first 
>book--that takes some courage.  She appears to be well-educated.  Your 
>comment, in my OPINION, (oops, does that seem hysterical?), seemed to 
>attempt to "put her in her place".

Now that last comment clearly suggests to me that you think Steve is sexist.

How long have you been hanging out on USENET? (not meant as an insult)

>BTW, to whomever made the comment that I might be suggesting that Steve 
>Maas was also "...racist and sexist", I'd like to know where that notion 
>came from.  I don't see it anywhere in my post.  A bit reactionary, 
>perhaps?

but of course.

>Hoping that while my ideas may offend some, my grammar and syntax does 
>not,
>
>Linda Berris

Robert Morphis