>
> On Sat, 18 Jun 1994 11:45:51 EDT, Anthea Tillyer wrote:
> >I know it sounds ridiculous, but I get really, really
> >upset by nastygrams.  Does anyone have a
> >good way of dealing with nastygrams? Please don't tell me to get a thicker
> >skin and please don't tell me that with an address in New York City I should
> >know all about how to deal with nastiness :-)
>
> The May 16 issue of NewsWeek's cover story (men, women, and computers) may
> be worth a quick read.  Whether conscious or not those who flame INTEND to
> intimidate.
>
> Becoming upset does NOT soundsridiculous.  Frankly, I'd be worried about
> your mental health if you didn't.  However, I URGE you not to permit
> yourself to become a victim.  What I've read is consistent with what I've
> observed: most flames are immature expressions of male inadequacy.
>
> The first line of defense is simply ignore nastygrams entirely (curse, yell
> at the walls, whatever, but) don't reply and try to avoid any action or
> LACK of action that lets intimidation succeed (when bullies can't succeed,
> they often simply vanish).
 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 
  Murph is certainly right about this. I believe in total silence.
  Often, these people are desperate for some sort of contact and any
  reply at all will only encourage them and in a strange way your
  reply no matter how caustic is fulfilling because it is a reply.
  Some of these people are hard core sadists venting their own sense
  of inadequacy on the listowner who is perceived in their strange
  logic as an authority figure to challenge. Now, we all know that
  this illusion is far from reality and that what we are most
  frequently faced with is a staggering work load in a baffling medium
  which is both very complicated and whose operating rules are not yet
  clear. I think that this situation adds to the listowner's
  indignation and sometimes rage when some wants adds to this burden
  with nastygrams.
 
> I agree with your sentiment that blaming the victim ("hey, you're a New
> Yorker," "a man's world is a rough world") is entirely the WRONG attitude.
> We should all act to make a kinder, gentler cyberspace an integral part of
> netiquette.  The last couple of instances of flaming on MAC-L were greeted
> with a few public (and many more private, apparently) polite but firm "we
> don't do that here" replies that seem to have been effective.
 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 
  I lived and worked in New York and it was one of the great
  experiences of my life. Most New Yorkers are actually quite
  gregarious with each other. I had very kind colleagues and
  neighbours. I certainly had lots of opportunities. As for the man's
  world, I never took that Long Island railroad that I didn't meet a
  lovely New York area lady who usually found some very comfortable
  way to engage in a conversation. New York women know how to take
  care of themselves and are extremely capable, charming and
  intelligent companions. Don't blame the flaming on New York.
 
 
> I too have been guilty of occasional intemperate email, but I'm trying hard
> to repent.
>
> /s Murphy A. Sewall <[log in to unmask]> (203) 486-2489 voice
>    Professor of Marketing                          (203) 486-5246 fax
>
 
 
--
 
Dr. Paul S. di Virgilio,  University of Toronto  [log in to unmask]