Going through the above threads, they are all about personalisms, possibly making Susan feel how little we contribute to mending present global problems.

Reminds one about an old bush comment, there's more to learn in a country bar, especially with a charming chatty barmaid.

Cheers, BB, WA

tomT wrote quote>>This is an interesting twist to the thread.

Would you have treated me differently if I'd been a man not a woman?>>
i would like to think not if it is woman posting as man[but the reality is after finding out the alias i reacted to is female in relity i tend to soften my thinking on the matter]

so yes, but i think you might have your next topic

<<why you would treat me differently,
and how?>>...i figure as a man i am equal to any other man..[i dont asume humility to woman ,nor claim any supiriority]but somehow a woman cant be hit[even verbally]

they may be as wrong as any man but wont be called to account..[because its only a woman being foolish]

that sounds more harsh..[ok ignorant]than even i expected...of course other men will attack knowing the poster is a woman..[so we all will react differently dependant on our life experience]

but we are different..phyciclly, metally and physiclly[we dont have the regular reminder of our humanity wrote in blood,..we dont carry life and fixate on it as being the golden child..dont accept penitration to obtain intimicy,..to presume we are even the same species is at time suspect

anyhow the simple answer is yes..[but to explain why might get complicated..[if revealing],,but you no doudt have the word skills to write it into a new topic[and who knows by then i might have different replies],but tom is unlikely to get the topic through..[but susan clearly could]

just to make it more clear..[read my response again..thinking to know im a wo-man]..a man can make the same complaint[or point]..but the sex of who says what,..will solicite a diveregent response..[again depending on the personality/and sex of the respondant..as well as the same re the questioner]

i hesitate to say those who attacked susan..[wouldnt dare attack tom]

Cornflower, it is as R0bert said. I've no wish to start a gender war....., well not here anyway ;)!

Appreciate the comments in your post though.

I'm getting a bit Arthur/Martha flummoxed here.

(Tom/Susan....which are you? Fess up).

Anyway,-yes. I absolutely DO believe that Tom might have had a harder time than Susan. Do I believe emphatically that this IS the case? Decidedly NO! Because I believe that this is not really a conscious thing; it is a conditioned thing, and I stress that that belief is NOT meant to patronise in any way.

I am simply stating my view.

Susan,

What is really interesting about your post is the number of responses. What is even more interesting is that many responders read things into articles and comments that are not in the articles or comments.

What happens is that people do not read and understand every thing you say but assume that their model of the world is the same as yours and respond accordingly. This is particularly frustrating when you are trying to introduce a different way of looking at things but you have to use words that already have loaded meaning.

Perhaps this is why Shakespeare was so successful He is said to have invented 1,700 words and people had to work out what he meant by reading and understanding the context of the new word. Perhaps next time you write an article you introduce a new word to describe what it is you are explaining. Perhaps for the right of non citizen to vote it could be votalle (all inclusive voting). Perhaps for removal of unhelpfull comments online it could be commsieve (separating out the non civil remarks). I am sure you can come up with better words - but it might be worth a try - and think of the advantage you will have in scrabble.

hi RObert

Thank you, well seen.

Hi Ginx

Whoops, many apologies. I was a little too quick.

Susan,
My comments would have been exactly the same.

A stupid concept is a stupid concept, irrespective of the gender of the author.