Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar
From: mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Ideas for making net.women a better newsgroup.
Message-ID: <1125@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Sep-85 01:19:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: sphinx.1125
Posted: Fri Sep 13 01:19:19 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Sep-85 04:49:42 EDT
References: <623@rtech.UUCP>
Organization: U Chicago -- Linguistics Dept
Lines: 20

No, Jeff, you do not sound at all ridiculous.  The problem here in
net.women (and actually it's more pronounced in some other newsgroups)
indeed seems to be that people want to win arguments.  I suppose it's
a natural impulse.  But there are ways of making a point, including
disagreeing with someone, yet not provoking a series of exchanges that
soon enough turns into a battle about maintaining `honor' in a fight
more than about the original subject.  So, along with Jeff's pointers,
I would add:

	If you're disagreeing with a posting, leave the `other parties'
	a reasonable way out.  Maybe you'll say something that can 
	actually *convince* them, who knows? -- but if you do, they
	should have room to say so without feeling ridiculous.

Sure, be vigorous in support of your position; but direct that vigor at
the content, not at the person.
-- 

            -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago 
               ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar