In bionet.women-in-bio bmartin at utmem1.utmem.edu wrote:
: In article <35A3C5B1.9F83C0B2 at nospamsalk.edu>, forsburg at nospamsalk.edu wrote:
: > But, apparently that makes me a hazer, so I will now withdraw from this
: > thread and go beat my graduate students.
: This is exactly what Caroline was citing. No post has suggested that
: criticism be withheld. No post has equated criticism with hazing. It is
The phrase "Is it my imagination or does this discussion look like a
debate on hazing?" does not appear to be a case of equating
criticism with hazing to you? Given that the debate, such as it
is, *was* on criticism and suddenly the word 'hazing' appears,
someone most certainly *has* drawn a parallel.
: Surprisingly, you SEEM to be becoming defensive when your views are
: challenged. I would have thought you would welcome a healthy discussion.
Why shouldn't she be defensive? She's defending her views. To
defend something one has to adopt a 'defensive' posture. And,
perhaps, off-topic, why is it that being defensive is considered
a Bad Thing?
The discussion *is* healthy...it's positively fecund. Look at
all the offspring it has given rise to and look at the interaction
it has engendered. This is, IMO, *exactly* the sort of discussion
which belongs in this newgroup and it's creating a marvelous forum
of give and take.
Deirdre
--
| Deirdre Sholto-Douglas | e-mail: finch at mcs.com |
| | |
******* The only acceptable substitute for intelligence *******
is silence.
