🚀 go-pugleaf

Linda Berris wrote:
> 
> In <31BB8E62.7BAC@concentric.net> "S. A. Maas" <smaas@concentric.net>
> writes:
> 
>> >If you're going to write a book, you need to learn a little about
>> grammar,
>> >spelling, syntax, and usage.
>> >
>> >Good luck, though.
>> >--
> 
> That was an incredibly arrogant, mean-spirited and uncalled-for remark!
> By the way, when one writes a book, one gets a professional editor to
> help with errors of spelling and grammar.  If you had ever written a
> book yourself you might be aware of this.
> 
> Linda Berris

LINDA, 

Steve's comment is niether arrogant nor uncalled-for (in fact it was quite 
fair; and, overtly solicited).  There is nothing wrong w/ steve giving that 
opinion because it cannot be *assumed* this person would 'get an editor' 
nor that this person has a clue.  Since this person is asking for advice, 
and the specific advise given by Steve is point blank the most apearantly 
needed,  i don't see a problem.  Furthermore if the inquirer is writing 
this for a thesis or other scholarly purpose they will have to get use to a 
little 'tough luv' :-)
Cheers
Todd

Shirley Vining Brown wrote:
> 
> Hi!  I posted this few weeks ago and received some wonderful responces.
> Nevertheless, I'd like to contact those who did not respond.  (Hopefully by
> June 15th :-))
> 
> Dear Colleagues:
> 
> I am writing a book on minority women in science and engineering (S/E).  The
> book would be comprised of about 6 chapter, beginning with: (1) A discussion
> of the theoretical framework  (2) status and trends of minority women in S/E
> (3)  document of the race/ethnic differences by career field  (4) document
> the gender differences among minorites by career field  (5) provide
> ethnographic data from interviews with the minority women (6) provide
> implications from public policy.A university press is interested in publishing
> the book but would like to know what kind of market the book might attract.
> 
> I would appreaciate it if you would e-mail me the following information.
> 
> 1) Would you use this book in your course (give name of course)?
> 
> 2) How many students do you generally have in your course?
> 
> 3) Would you assign this book as required or optional reading?
> 
> 4) Would your students pay on average $22 for a paperback?
> 
> 5) Are there other topics you would like to see addressed?
> 
> Thanks!  And look forward to hearing from you.
> 
> SVB
> sbrown@umbc.edu


If you're going to write a book, you need to learn a little about grammar, 
spelling, syntax, and usage.

Good luck, though.
-- 
* ------------------------------------------ *
* Steve Maas                 s.maas@ieee.org *
* http://www.concentric.net/~smaas/index.htm *
* Nonlinear Technologies, Inc.               *
* PO Box 7284                                *
* Long Beach, CA 90807, USA                  *
* ------------------------------------------ *

In <31BB8E62.7BAC@concentric.net> "S. A. Maas" <smaas@concentric.net>
writes: 

>If you're going to write a book, you need to learn a little about
grammar, 
>spelling, syntax, and usage.
>
>Good luck, though.
>-- 
>* ------------------------------------------ *
>* Steve Maas                 s.maas@ieee.org *
>* http://www.concentric.net/~smaas/index.htm *
>* Nonlinear Technologies, Inc.               *
>* PO Box 7284                                *
>* Long Beach, CA 90807, USA                  *
>* ------------------------------------------ *

That was an incredibly arrogant, mean-spirited and uncalled-for remark!
By the way, when one writes a book, one gets a professional editor to
help with errors of spelling and grammar.  If you had ever written a
book yourself you might be aware of this.

Linda Berris

Todd Muscat wrote:
> 
> Linda Berris wrote:
> >
> > In <31BB8E62.7BAC@concentric.net> "S. A. Maas" <smaas@concentric.net>
> > writes:
> >
> >> >If you're going to write a book, you need to learn a little about
> >> grammar,
> >> >spelling, syntax, and usage.
> >> >
> >> >Good luck, though.
> >> >--
> >
> > That was an incredibly arrogant, mean-spirited and uncalled-for remark!
> > By the way, when one writes a book, one gets a professional editor to
> > help with errors of spelling and grammar.  If you had ever written a
> > book yourself you might be aware of this.

I've written three.  I'm aware of this.  I'm also aware that book proposals require a 
sample chapter, and if the sample is not acceptable, the book won't be published.  
Copyeditors have limited ability to fix poor writing. 

Now, I'll apologize for my intolerance. (See below.) Perhaps you should think a 
little about yours. 

> >
> > Linda Berris
> 
> LINDA,
> 
> Steve's comment is niether arrogant nor uncalled-for (in fact it was quite
> fair; and, overtly solicited).  There is nothing wrong w/ steve giving that
> opinion because it cannot be *assumed* this person would 'get an editor'
> nor that this person has a clue.  Since this person is asking for advice,
> and the specific advise given by Steve is point blank the most apearantly
> needed,  i don't see a problem.  Furthermore if the inquirer is writing
> this for a thesis or other scholarly purpose they will have to get use to a
> little 'tough luv' :-)
> Cheers
> Todd


Actually, if we may remove her overstatement, hysteria, and invalid assumptions, 
Linda is probably right.  I don't know what came over me.  Perhaps my lack of 
tolerance for illiteracy momentarily overcame my lack of tolerance for intolerance.  
We all screw up occasionally.  Sorry.

-- 
* ------------------------------------------ *
* Steve Maas                 s.maas@ieee.org *
* http://www.concentric.net/~smaas/index.htm *
* Nonlinear Technologies, Inc.               *
* PO Box 7284                                *
* Long Beach, CA 90807, USA                  *
* ------------------------------------------ *

Linda Berris wrote:
> 
> In <31BB8E62.7BAC@concentric.net> "S. A. Maas" <smaas@concentric.net>
> writes:
> 
> >If you're going to write a book, you need to learn a little about
> grammar,
> >spelling, syntax, and usage.
> >
> >Good luck, though.
> 
> That was an incredibly arrogant, mean-spirited and uncalled-for remark!
> By the way, when one writes a book, one gets a professional editor to
> help with errors of spelling and grammar.  If you had ever written a
> book yourself you might be aware of this.

STEVE's email was mean-spirited?  Perhaps you would care to imply that
he is a racist and a sexist while you're at it?  That last remark was
really cheap.

I have to object to the implication that authors of books don't need to
worry about spelling and grammar because there is always someone else to
clean up the mess.  Good writing skills are AT LEAST as important in
this business as scientific skills.  One does not generally hire
professional editors for much more important documents like professional
correspondence, grant proposals, and (some) journal articles.

Also, an editor is likely to do a much better job of suggesting
structural improvements when they are working with a well-written text
(which is what they are trained for) than when they have to play a
fifth-grade grammar teacher (which would certainly give me a bad
attitude about my job).  Even if you have a housekeeper, your home will
still show if you are a slob.

Kudos to the original author for accepting criticism well.  I've seen
really bad flame wars started over genuine, helpful advice.

-Jim Phillips
 jcphill@uiuc.edu

S. A. Maas wrote:
> 
> Todd Muscat wrote:
> >
> > Linda Berris wrote:
> > >
> > > In <31BB8E62.7BAC@concentric.net> "S. A. Maas" <smaas@concentric.net>
> > > writes:
> > >
> > >> >If you're going to write a book, you need to learn a little about
> > >> grammar,
> > >> >spelling, syntax, and usage.
> > >> >
> > >> >Good luck, though.
> > >> >--
> > >
> > > That was an incredibly arrogant, mean-spirited and uncalled-for remark!
> > > By the way, when one writes a book, one gets a professional editor to
> > > help with errors of spelling and grammar.  If you had ever written a
> > > book yourself you might be aware of this.
> 
> I've written three.  I'm aware of this.  I'm also aware that book proposals require a
> sample chapter, and if the sample is not acceptable, the book won't be published.
> Copyeditors have limited ability to fix poor writing.
> 
> Now, I'll apologize for my intolerance. (See below.) Perhaps you should think a
> little about yours.
> 
> > >
> > > Linda Berris
> >
> > LINDA,
> >
> > Steve's comment is niether arrogant nor uncalled-for (in fact it was quite
> > fair; and, overtly solicited).  There is nothing wrong w/ steve giving that
> > opinion because it cannot be *assumed* this person would 'get an editor'
> > nor that this person has a clue.  Since this person is asking for advice,
> > and the specific advise given by Steve is point blank the most apearantly
> > needed,  i don't see a problem.  Furthermore if the inquirer is writing
> > this for a thesis or other scholarly purpose they will have to get use to a
> > little 'tough luv' :-)
> > Cheers
> > Todd
> 
> Actually, if we may remove her overstatement, hysteria, and invalid assumptions,
> Linda is probably right.  I don't know what came over me.  Perhaps my lack of
> tolerance for illiteracy momentarily overcame my lack of tolerance for intolerance.
> We all screw up occasionally.  Sorry.
> 
> --
> * ------------------------------------------ *
> * Steve Maas                 s.maas@ieee.org *
> * http://www.concentric.net/~smaas/index.htm *
> * Nonlinear Technologies, Inc.               *
> * PO Box 7284                                *
> * Long Beach, CA 90807, USA                  *
> * ------------------------------------------ *Wimp!

It seemed to me that the original post from the author-to-be was not 
soliciting advice on how to write, but rather what type of market might 
be out there for her.  She made a few mistakes in spelling/grammar, as 
many people posting on the net do.  She was not requesting advice on her 
net writing style.  My impression of Steve Maas' reply was that it was 
quite snide, not to mention condescending, in tone.   

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).  

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.  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".

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?

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

Linda Berris

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

Linda S. Berris wrote:
> 
> It seemed to me that the original post from the author-to-be was not
> soliciting advice on how to write, but rather what type of market might
> be out there for her.  She made a few mistakes in spelling/grammar, as
> many people posting on the net do.  She was not requesting advice on her
> net writing style.  My impression of Steve Maas' reply was that it was
> quite snide, not to mention condescending, in tone.
> 
> 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).
> 
> 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.  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".
> 
> 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?
> 
> Hoping that while my ideas may offend some, my grammar and syntax does
> not,
> 
> Linda Berris

Linda, you did indeed overstate your case and overreact. I took my lumps for my stupid remark, however 
innocently intended. Now, grow up and take your lumps for your stupid remarks. 

-- 
* ------------------------------------------ *
* Steve Maas                 s.maas@ieee.org *
* http://www.concentric.net/~smaas/index.htm *
* Nonlinear Technologies, Inc.               *
* PO Box 7284                                *
* Long Beach, CA 90807, USA                  *
* ------------------------------------------ *

"James C. Phillips" <jcp@viking.lanl.gov> wrote:

>I have to object to the implication that authors of books don't need to
>worry about spelling and grammar because there is always someone else to
>clean up the mess.  Good writing skills are AT LEAST as important in
>this business as scientific skills.  One does not generally hire
>professional editors for much more important documents like professional
>correspondence, grant proposals, and (some) journal articles.

>Also, an editor is likely to do a much better job of suggesting
>structural improvements when they are working with a well-written text
>(which is what they are trained for) than when they have to play a
>fifth-grade grammar teacher (which would certainly give me a bad
>attitude about my job).  Even if you have a housekeeper, your home will
>still show if you are a slob.

Actually, I think you have to be good in grammer and language use to
protect yourself against Editors whether they are well intentioned or
not.  Everyone I know has their horror story to tell of editors and I
have yet to see a paper go out of our lab that didn't involve some
serious correcting of the editor's corrections.  My favorite story on
big goofs was the editor that went through a scientific paper and
changed  all of the "significant at" the such and such level to
"important at" the X level.  DK

>Kudos to the original author for accepting criticism well.  I've seen
>really bad flame wars started over genuine, helpful advice.

>-Jim Phillips
> jcphill@uiuc.edu

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

In article <4pl3eg$5om@abel.cc.sunysb.edu>, dkat@psych1.psy.sunysb.edu (DK)
writes: 
>
\/   serious 
/\		snipping

> My favorite story on
>big goofs was the editor that went through a scientific paper and
>changed  all of the "significant at" the such and such level to
>"important at" the X level.  DK
>
my favorite story is from the times before Gorbachev etc when, 
in my native Poland, the censor changed every !! to ! in a math
book. too much emphasis...

In article <4plhgq$of1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, ik@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu writes:
|> In article <4pl3eg$5om@abel.cc.sunysb.edu>, dkat@psych1.psy.sunysb.edu (DK)
|> writes: 
|> >
|> \/   serious 
|> /\		snipping
|> 
|> > My favorite story on
|> >big goofs was the editor that went through a scientific paper and
|> >changed  all of the "significant at" the such and such level to
|> >"important at" the X level.  DK
|> >
|> my favorite story is from the times before Gorbachev etc when, 
|> in my native Poland, the censor changed every !! to ! in a math
|> book. too much emphasis...
|> 
|> 

My favourite story (though I did not find it funny then) happened to me
last year. A french editor managed to introduce grammatical errors, as 
well as changing the sense of some sentences by substituting words he did
not know by words he did know, into an english text which before was perfectly 
correct (we had a native speaker go over it before submitting it). He (or she)
didn't even bother to notify us of the changes made, we found out when we got
the galley proofs and there was a mistake in every third sentence. So we 
changed everything back, wrote them an angry letter, and they really managed
to get it right again and still publish the paper on time. 

Recently, I saw a paper in the same journal containing mistakes (of grammar)
which I did not notice in the preprint I had of it - sounds like the same
editor.... Just to warn any physicists out there - the journal in question
was J. Phys. (France).

Sabine

Linda,

If this was intended as purely a lesson in what it feels to be attacked
unfairly ... it worked.  But was it justified?

What exactly are the publishing requirements for USENET?  Personally,
I am far more tolerent of typing/spelling/punctuation errors on replies
or quick comments than on original, allegedly well thought out posts.

That said I rarely engage in grammer flames, and when I do it is to
point out that perhaps the poster isn't quite as brillent and perfect
as sie is making hirself out to be.

The original post was made by somebody who was presenting herself as 
an academic and was asking us to make use of her book in our classroom.
If I were a professor and received it in the mail, it would have gone
into the garbage.  But this is USENET.  

I do think we ought to try for half-way decent grammer/spelling/punctuation
in our posts, esp. in a situation such as the original poster.  None-the-less
I don't care for grammer flames.  Had Mr. Maas' post been email instead...
Well I would have chosen different words.

The point of MY post was that this IS USENET and while I would object to
a.f.rush-limbaugh type flames in these groups, a relatively thick skin
should be cultivated here and your response was a bit strong. ( <sigh>
It was you who were accused of being hysterical wasn't it?)  And
I think it has been demonstrated that the comment about editors was 
off-base in more ways than one.

(long off-topic thought process about whether the problems faced by
Kurds/Arabs in Israel/Blacks in Rhodesia(sp?)/... would have been
recognized if certain members of those groups hadn't engaged in terrorism)

OYAH I think at least some of the response to you were a bit much as well,
I hate being in the middle.

Now, if the below quoted post was an honest attack on me...

mamacoon@ix.netcom.com(Linda Berris) writes:
>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...

Steve can kiss my *ss.  This is USENET, I am not presenting myself
as an academic, the purpose of the question marks is fairly clear.

>>"intolerant"?  Compared to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh this is a love-fest.
>
>Hmmm...a group with which you appear to be familiar.  

Obviously since I cited it.

>Why am I not surprised?

I am cut to the quick.  My argumentation was very low-key thus
you can not be "not surprised" because of that, thus you must think
I am a follower of the bloated one. (Generally I do not engage in such
personnal attacks, I prefer to attack his less than towering intellectual
arguments, but somehow it seemed appropriate here)

If you get it do a search on posts from morphis.

>>>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.

clearly as I was able to spot them, <sigh> I was going to get all noble and
argue that I personally did not make any cheap shots, but there in front
of me is one I aimed straight at Steve.

>>How long have you been hanging out on USENET? (not meant as an insult)
>
>Ah yes, you fellows never really MEAN to insult us, 

"'Why?' is a question, it doesn't mean I think you are wrong."

I was genuenely curious as to how long you had been on USENET, I wanted
to get a better gauge on your experience and your motivation for your
posts.  If you are a newbie then regardless of whether it changes your
opinion you need to be appraised of the realities of USENET so you can
make an informed choice about how to deal with various behaviours here.
If you are experienced, well then you have made a decision and if I had
time I might want to discuss that decision with you... believe it or not
I am concerned about abuse on (as well as "of") USENET.

>How ARE things in the old-boys-club these days, by the way?

<sigh> what response to make?  Ignore it? Ask "Have you stopped beating your
husband?"  ?  Suggest you go over to info.wisenet or misc.kids.breastfeeding
(or alt.fan.rush-limbaugh though I haven't made any posts really relavent to
this type of thing) and ask them whether they think I am a member of the
old-boys-club?  My home page doesn't help much (but if you care:
http://www.physics.niu.edu/~morphis)

>Linda Berris

good luck,
Robert

In article <31BDB1FC.59E3@uic.edu> "Linda S. Berris" <lberri1@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 

That is a sexist remark.

>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, 

I can see that. Stereotyping is in the eye of the beholder.

-- Pieter J. Mosterman
pjm@vuse.vanderbilt.edu

"Let's toss this one in bed with Madonna and see if she
sleeps with it."			A. Bundy

I took my lumps for my stupid remark, however
> innocently intended. Now, grow up and take your lumps for your stupid remarks.
> 
> --
> * ------------------------------------------ *
> * Steve Maas                 s.maas@ieee.org *
> * http://www.concentric.net/~smaas/index.htm *
> * Nonlinear Technologies, Inc.               *
> * PO Box 7284                                *
> * Long Beach, CA 90807, USA                  *
> * ------------------------------------------ *

As you well know, your remarks were never innocently intended, but rather
were an attempt to publically humiliate the original poster, as your 
current remarks ("grow up", "stupid")are an attempt to publically 
humiliate me.

Now why don't you go back to your old-boys-club, and let the women in 
this group get back to discussing science.

i.e.:  get lost, old man.

Linda Berris

 "S. A. Maas" <smaas@concentric.net> writes:
>Linda S. Berris wrote:
>> 
>
>Linda, you did indeed overstate your case and overreact. I took my lumps for 
>my stupid remark, however 

How about taking your lumps for not hitting the return key at the end
of a line?

IMHO you took your lumps somewhat less than gracefully

earlier you wrote:
> Actually, if we may remove her overstatement, hysteria, and invalid
> assumptions, Linda is probably right.  I don't know what came over 
> me.  Perhaps my lack of tolerance for illiteracy momentarily overcame 
> my lack of tolerance for intolerance.
> We all screw up occasionally.  Sorry.

took you lumps with a good two or three jabs and a defensive move thown in.

>innocently intended.

The point was raised, why not via email?

> Now, grow up and take your lumps for your stupid remarks. 

While I agree that the volume of her remarks was a bit much it is clear
to me from this discussion that they were not stupid

>* Steve Maas                 s.maas@ieee.org *

Robert Morphis

Linda S. Berris wrote:
> As you well know, your remarks were never innocently intended, but rather
> were an attempt to publically humiliate the original poster, as your
> current remarks ("grow up", "stupid")are an attempt to publically
> humiliate me.
> 
> Now why don't you go back to your old-boys-club, and let the women in
> this group get back to discussing science.
> 
> i.e.:  get lost, old man.

Dear Linda,

I doubt that you can claim to be tolerant after that diatribe.  You have clearly indicated that 
you are sexist ("old-boys-club") and that you discriminate on the basis of age ("get lost, old 
man").  I think that your original post prompted the assumption that you were into this sort of 
labeling was your use of the phrase "mean-spirited" in your description of his criticism of the 
original poster's grammar and spelling.  It is my observation that this phrase is only used by 
liberal demagogues.

It is also important to note that the original post was widely crossposted to the following 
groups:

sci.stat.edu,
alt.education.research,
misc.education.science,
sci.edu,
sci.misc,
sci.engr,
sci.engr.mech,
bionet.women-in-bio,
misc.education,

and the responses are still being crossposted to these groups.  Steve Maas is probably not in 
"your" group bionet.women-in-bio.  I myself picked up the thread in sci.engr.mech.

-- 
Todd R. Rose
Engineering Mechanics and Astronautics
The University of Wisconsin
1500 Engineering Drive, Madison, WI  53706  
  rose@cae.wisc.edu        (608)265-4498  Rm. 538 ERB
  trrose@students.wisc.edu (608)233-7340  Home
  http://www.cae.wisc.edu/~rose

In article <31BEF324.38A9@uic.edu>, "Linda S. Berris" <lberri1@uic.edu> says:

>i.e.:  get lost, old man.

Wow, what a tolerant person. First, she tells us about "stereotypical
male responses," now we get both age and sex discrimination.

In article <31BE490D.16C1@concentric.net>, "S. A. Maas"
<smaas@concentric.net> wrote:

> Linda, you did indeed overstate your case and overreact. I took my lumps
for my stupid remark, however 
> innocently intended. Now, grow up and take your lumps for your stupid
remarks. 

Really, I thought this newsgroup was above this petty tit-for-tat kind of
bickering.  If you're going to continue this unproductive flaming, please
keep it to private e-mail.  Please leave the public posting for useful,
relevant comments.

Just trying to keep the net sane (as much as that can be done, anyway),

Sylvia J. Hysong

-- 
Sylvia J. Hysong

"Grad school is the snooze button in the clock radio of life."
 - comedian John Rogers (who holds a graduate degree in physics)

So, did anyone ever give the researcher information on minority women in 
science?  Guess y'all were too busy nit-picking...

:-(

Mark J. McClellan
Norseman    6443
Western Australia

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

In article <31BF0225.39E5@students.wisc.edu>,
Todd Russell Rose  <trrose@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>Linda S. Berris wrote:
>> 
>> Now why don't you go back to your old-boys-club, and let the women in
>> this group get back to discussing science.

>It is also important to note that the original post was widely crossposted 
>to the following groups:

[list of newsgroups snipped]
...

>sci.engr,
>sci.engr.mech,
>bionet.women-in-bio,

>and the responses are still being crossposted to these groups.  Steve 
>Maas is probably not in "your" group bionet.women-in-bio.  I myself 
>picked up the thread in sci.engr.mech.

Why assume that, because she is a woman, she must be reading the
article in bionet.women-in-bio ? (Granted, it's a possibility, but
not a certainty).

FWIW, I'm reading this in sci.engr, which is where I'm directing
followups to ....

Diana.
--
|Diana Galletly <93dag@eng.cam.ac.uk> URL http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~93dag |
|IRL: Clare College, Cambridge, CB2 1TL   ytalk galletly@earthquake.no-net |
|       "L'amour, comme s'il en pleuvait, nu sur les galets ..."           |
|     Francis Cabrel, `Je t'aimais, je t'aime et je t'aimerai ....'        |

Diana Galletly wrote:
> Why assume that, because she is a woman, she must be reading the
> article in bionet.women-in-bio ? (Granted, it's a possibility, but
> not a certainty).
> 
> FWIW, I'm reading this in sci.engr, which is where I'm directing
> followups to ....

Dear Diana,

Because I asked her!!!

-- 
Todd R. Rose
Engineering Mechanics and Astronautics
The University of Wisconsin
1500 Engineering Drive, Madison, WI  53706  
  rose@cae.wisc.edu        (608)265-4498  Rm. 538 ERB
  trrose@students.wisc.edu (608)233-7340  Home
  http://www.cae.wisc.edu/~rose

"S. A. Maas" <smaas@concentric.net> writes:
>Linda S. Berris wrote:
>>
>
>Linda, you did indeed overstate your case and overreact. I took my lumps for
>my stupid remark, however

How about taking your lumps for not hitting the return key at the end
of a line?

IMHO you took your lumps somewhat less than gracefully

earlier you wrote:
> Actually, if we may remove her overstatement, hysteria, and invalid
> assumptions, Linda is probably right.  I don't know what came over
> me.  Perhaps my lack of tolerance for illiteracy momentarily overcame
> my lack of tolerance for intolerance.
> We all screw up occasionally.  Sorry.

took you lumps with a good two or three jabs and a defensive move thown 
in.

>innocently intended.

The point was raised, why not via email?

> Now, grow up and take your lumps for your stupid remarks.

While I agree that the volume of her remarks was a bit much it is clear
to me from this discussion that they were not stupid

>* Steve Maas                 s.maas@ieee.org *

Robert Morphis
__________________________________________________________________
Come on ! Where's the Minority women in science ?? We're supposed
to argue !! The reason there's a minority of women in science is
cause the female mind can't understand science. Science shows the
female to have a reversed brain from the man, her left cerebral 
cortex is larger than her right...with men it's opposite . There
has never been a female Einstein and there never will be...not even
close . The closest a female can get is to memorize science but unlike
men she can't conceptualise ( a walking book) science . This is not a put
down this is a put in your place . They were put on this earth not to
do science . What of the exceptions ? The .01% ? Let'm go to school,
compete with all others and if they score at the top then let them be
at the top ( but no tricks...AA/EEOC)
______________altavoz@azstarnet.com  says above________

 altavoz <altavoz@azstarnet.com> attempts to express hirself while 
failing to understand the use of editors and/or newsreaders.

[chomp]

Hopefully those few of us who haven't kill-filed this discussion will ignore
the deleted flame-bait.

Robert

altavoz wrote:
> 
> "S. A. Maas" <smaas@concentric.net> writes:
> >Linda S. Berris wrote:
> >>

> __________________________________________________________________
> Come on ! Where's the Minority women in science ?? We're supposed
> to argue !! The reason there's a minority of women in science is
> cause the female mind can't understand science. 

I admire your ego. Who grew it for you? your mother? You are undoubtably a 
scientist of the highest qualifications, and you used scientific methods 
to gather data to support your case. I would like to see nonfudged published data to
support the argument and I will then accept it as possible. But, being of sound mind
I will not blindly follow you into your highly overstated male dominwasted 
egostatistical, mathemagical land of listen-to-me.


>Science shows 

Lets see it.

>the female to have a reversed brain from the man, her left cerebral

Are you in the right place here? try the group alt.male.love

> cortex is larger than her right...with men it's opposite . 

the implication here is that you know what every part of the brain does, and that
each part performs a specific function, which disallows the possibility that other,
previously unknown parts of the brain may be performing tasks which allow us to do 
things we had never dreamed of. That may be true, and then again it may not. Are
you considering yourself the example here? In which case your argument is convincing,
or are you prepared to show logic that leads to this conclusion?

> There
> has never been a female Einstein and there never will be...not even
> close . 

Nor has there been one with red hair, or a black one or an american born one or
for that matter one by the name of altavoz. Who'd of guessed?

>The closest a female can get is to memorize science 

you should be so lucky.

> but unlike
> men she can't conceptualise ( a walking book) science . 

And you obviously can or you wouldn't make such a ridiculus statement. You sound
like a student. Possibly one who has had a rough go of it, probably dropped a few 
classes and is teetering on the edge of becoming a buisiness major. You may have had
a bad experience with a young lady, a smart one, and feel insignificant. Get over it
and accept the fact that we are humans, and are capable of much more than you will ever 
be as an altavoz.

> This is not a put
> down this is a put in your place . They were put on this earth not to
> do science . What of the exceptions ? The .01% ? Let'm go to school,
> compete with all others and if they score at the top then let them be
> at the top ( but no tricks...AA/EEOC)
> ______________altavoz@azstarnet.com  says above________

Respectfully,

W.T. Adams, PhD

Remember this: No leader who tells you it is worthwhile to die for your country
has tried it.