🚀 go-pugleaf

See bickering below.

There are two unfortunate consequences of it:

1) "Re: minority women in science" has been placed in the kill files of 
all thinking people

2) The intent of the original post has been totally ignored because of a 
typical rude USENET response to that post and the overreaction by everyone
except the original poster.

She spammed every newsgroup remotely connected with science.  Let her defend 
herself.  If she has a book to write on something, then she should write it and
then let people decide if they would use it in a course.  How would they 
know if it's any good?

I guess that's just the practical engineer in me.  I always get a sample to 
test before I commit to a major buy.

Jerry Codner
gcodner@lightlink.com


Linda Berris wrote:
> 
> In <4pkf0q$lt0@corn.cso.niu.edu> system@niuhep.phys.niu.edu writes:
> 
> >Granting that "hysterical" has unpleasant connotations, I would
> >have to say that I took your reply as a bit ?overly-agitated?
> 
> Oops...watch that punctuation, or your friend Steve will have to get
> rough with you...
> 
> >"intolerant"?  Compared to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh this is a love-fest.
> 
> Hmmm...a group with which you appear to be familiar.  Why am I not
> surprised?
> 
> >>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.
> 
> But you a certainly familiar with USENET cheap shots, as is evident
> from your post.
> 
> >How long have you been hanging out on USENET? (not meant as an insult)
> 
> Ah yes, you fellows never really MEAN to insult us, yet you just can't
> seem to stop yourself.
> How ARE things in the old-boys-club these days, by the way?
> 
> Linda Berris