(This is my last post regarding this matter; please, email me personally if anything else needs saying.)
Well, from all the confusion associated with this string of messages-
1) was Nesta's remark sexist or or not?
2) is there any content in the Foucault archive?
3) where is the Foucault archive?
4) what did Nesta (na.devine) mean by her original comments?
- this whole mess is a good example of how things get out of hand when people don't properly communicate--i.e., write clearly, give precise information, and read with "charity."
Let's end all this: I'm sorry Nesta; I should have asked you before reading into your comment. But, honestly, your comments did seem rude and sexist.
In any event, each of us, as readers and writers, have responsibilities to communicate clearly, which is difficult in a text-only communicative medium, since it lacks all the visual and acoustic cues, like body language and tone of voice, that we depend on so heavily in speech.
Now, to directly answer Nesta's question (which is attached below), here's my answer:
My angry reply comes from combination of your curt answer ("Read the archives"), which seems rude, and your follow-up question, which seems sexist, about whether women could "last the distance" on this list. First, I'll address your curt answer, "Read the archives." Here's an analogy: Let's say you ask me if I could recommend any good books, and I answer, Go to the library. Wouldn't that be rude? Second, your comment about women "lasting the distance" seems to imply that women can't cut it.
That's it. That's why I was offended. And, by the way, I'm male but was still offended by what I took as a slam against women. So I took you as an openly prejudiced person. Hence my asking which minority would you slam next.
Anyway, I hope this clears everything up. And to make sure, I'd appreciate hearing from you, Nesta.
--
Mitch.
At 03:25 PM 7/17/98 +1200, you wrote:
>Mr(?) Mitch,
>
>What assumptions were you making or reading into my answer?
>
>I think there might be a tiny bit of liberal feminism in my post, if I
>am honest about it, but where does such an angry reply come from? Do you
>think I am denigrating those women who do not take part in such a
>communication system as this? Or what? I do not actually see how the
>'homosexuals, Asians and Catholics' got into this story. In fact I think
>this suggests a list like Foucault's Chinese list.
>
>Nesta
>
--
m-
<italic>http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~ifmq322/</italic>
Well, from all the confusion associated with this string of messages-
1) was Nesta's remark sexist or or not?
2) is there any content in the Foucault archive?
3) where is the Foucault archive?
4) what did Nesta (na.devine) mean by her original comments?
- this whole mess is a good example of how things get out of hand when people don't properly communicate--i.e., write clearly, give precise information, and read with "charity."
Let's end all this: I'm sorry Nesta; I should have asked you before reading into your comment. But, honestly, your comments did seem rude and sexist.
In any event, each of us, as readers and writers, have responsibilities to communicate clearly, which is difficult in a text-only communicative medium, since it lacks all the visual and acoustic cues, like body language and tone of voice, that we depend on so heavily in speech.
Now, to directly answer Nesta's question (which is attached below), here's my answer:
My angry reply comes from combination of your curt answer ("Read the archives"), which seems rude, and your follow-up question, which seems sexist, about whether women could "last the distance" on this list. First, I'll address your curt answer, "Read the archives." Here's an analogy: Let's say you ask me if I could recommend any good books, and I answer, Go to the library. Wouldn't that be rude? Second, your comment about women "lasting the distance" seems to imply that women can't cut it.
That's it. That's why I was offended. And, by the way, I'm male but was still offended by what I took as a slam against women. So I took you as an openly prejudiced person. Hence my asking which minority would you slam next.
Anyway, I hope this clears everything up. And to make sure, I'd appreciate hearing from you, Nesta.
--
Mitch.
At 03:25 PM 7/17/98 +1200, you wrote:
>Mr(?) Mitch,
>
>What assumptions were you making or reading into my answer?
>
>I think there might be a tiny bit of liberal feminism in my post, if I
>am honest about it, but where does such an angry reply come from? Do you
>think I am denigrating those women who do not take part in such a
>communication system as this? Or what? I do not actually see how the
>'homosexuals, Asians and Catholics' got into this story. In fact I think
>this suggests a list like Foucault's Chinese list.
>
>Nesta
>
--
m-
<italic>http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~ifmq322/</italic>