[Jane Holland]

Originally Posted by Laura Heidy-Halberstein

Then the subject might be the common denominator, yes?

Anyhow, sorry if you thought I was lecturing or unpleasant - I was only offering some thoughts on what might best get your points across if that's what you were trying to do. Coming in and calling people unpleasant and lecturing and offensive and accusing them of " utter vitriol" in your first few posts just doesn't seem the best possible way to promote your cause.

You're right - no one needs it.

This is just an astonishingly unself-aware denouement to this thread. Thank goodness there are a few sane and courteous voices here, to counterbalance yours.

The common denominator, since you seem determined to find one, is the blind rage that drives so many members of online forums to gang up on individuals they dislike and to drive them away, although, in a face-to-face situation, they would behave in a more civilised manner. Or one would hope so, at any rate. Though that's not always the case, is it? Sometimes real stones are used.

The main question to my mind is why so many people are getting so wildly irate about the idea of a group of people discussing something they don't believe exists. If we were publicising a new forum for the discussion of fairies or little green men from Mars, who would care? Who would put vast amounts of energy and time into trying to drive them from the board?

But feminism ... gender equality ... these concepts would appear to be a serious threat, judging by the efforts made here to discredit them.

[peter richards]

Originally Posted by Eva Salzman

(...) I mean think of ten examples - without trying to find the exceptions - and see what the percentage is.

Around 100%, I would think, unless there were some other way of identifying exceptions. Exceptions can only prove the rule if they are proved to be exceptions.

I propose an anthology of contemporary, slovenly, white, heterosexual, protestant, non-exceptional, Anglo-Saxon males. I'd not recommend reading it, mind...

[Eva Salzman]

"I propose an anthology of contemporary, slovenly, white, heterosexual, protestant, non-exceptional, Anglo-Saxon males. I'd not recommend reading it, mind..."

Good idea. Unless, unless... it exists already....?

[peter richards]

Lost in a fog of apathy...

[Roger Slater]

Originally Posted by Jan Iwaszkiewicz

Oh dear Bob,

Be calm, it will help.

Jan

I am happy that you have abandoned ad hominem attacks on my honesty in favor of mere condescension. They are both just tactics to avoid actually discussing the points to which there is no logical retort, but I must say that I do prefer the tactic that makes me out to be merely lacking calmness to the one that makes me out to be lacking honesty. So thank you for the promotion from liar to lunatic. You're too kind.

[Eva Salzman]

Peter,

Are you a friend of Jan's? Is "lost in a fog of apathy" some spurious pleasantry, usual terms of engagement? Why one wonders why?

One wonders what some people are DOING here? Just to be accusatory/condescending/nasty for the hell of it?

Clearly this subject is touching some nerves! So, "apathy"? Methinks not.

[E. Shaun Russell]

Originally Posted by Jane Holland

The common denominator, since you seem determined to find one, is the blind rage that drives so many members of online forums to gang up on individuals they dislike and to drive them away, although, in a face-to-face situation, they would behave in a more civilised manner.

Right. Better to have one all-powerful administrator who personally selects who is and is not allowed to participate in discussion, "unregisters" those who she dislikes, then closes the forum to public view once outsiders comment about the bigotry posted within.

Yup, that's a civilised course of action right there.

[peter richards]

The verloren hoop of contemporary, slovenly, white, heterosexual, protestant, non-exceptional, Anglo-Saxon males is lost in a fog of apathy. It's a joke.

[Clive]

Eva, Jane - whatever has happened in this thread, can I make a personal request for both of you to stick around? I've enjoyed poems by both of you in my real, offline life and I was rather surprised and chuffed to see you on here.

Perhaps this should have gone in a PM, but I didn't want to come across all stalky-weird.

[peter richards]

-Rest assured that Stalky Weird is Clive's nom de plume - most of us don't even wear plumes, let alone talk to them and give them names...