From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Observations from male studentnt
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 17:49:48 GMT

In article <JULIE.92Oct2192544@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu> julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright) writes:
>
>	Aack!  I have tried to post a reply to this twice, blithely assuming
>the first time and _even_ the second time that it was working, but there is
>some kind of bug here.  (Did you sabotage our machines, Rich?? :) )  Sorry
>about the delay in ending (I hope!) this thread.

Naaa, just the rest of the net...   :^}
 
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright) writes:
>>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

[my carreer as an editor begins...]

>>I've noticed that one gets criticized just for posting, regardless of
>>content. But in this netgroup, even the smallest non-PC stuff gets jumped
>>on. To avoid this, I have used full names whenever I referred to anyone.
>>Not that it made any difference overall.
>
>If you call a group of minors girls and boys, and people flame you for
>it, I will jump to your defense.  Anyone who makes their intellectual
>and political decisions based on their "political correctness" will eventually
>be revealed as an idiot, so let that comfort you.  If you don't want
>me to call you "Rich", please let me know.  Since I sign myself "Julie,"
>by the way, I certainly don't mind if people call me that.

I would tend to think that college applicants as a group would be more of
a borderline case as far as "minor" status is concerned. Since the original
discussion was on the SAT, I assume the US. Do any other countries use
the SAT?

And yes, Rich is fine. Hi Julie <waving>.
 
>>And I would like to point out at this junction that the both of us have
>>been overly defensive. Can we call a truce? 
>
>	Sure.  I have a lot more fun things to do than to get into a flame
>war with you :) .  I made all my major points vehemently the first time
>so I'd only have to make them once.  
>	(Isn't that "at this juncture"...?  Sorry, I get into these things.)

Hmmm, 'junction' and "juncture" seem equivalant in this case. I just looked
both up to check. Is one more common or preferred? 
 
>[...]
>>>>If the SAT deals with academic subjects taught in schools only, then how
>>>>can group performance be a measure of bias? Why would one expect every
>>>>group to do equally as well? This is just as unfounded as assuming that
>>>>some group (fill in your favorite) will naturally do better. 
>
>>>	I'm *not* assuming all groups will or should do equally well.  I'm 
>>>*telling* you, in the case of male vs. female groups, and guessing, in the 
>>>case of minority-group-of-your-choice students, that the SAT isn't as good a 
>>>predictor as it is within a group of all female white students, for 
>>>example.  I never claimed to know why it isn't as good a predictor, and
>>>I really don't care much.  
>[etc., expressed in, uh, forceful terms]
>
>>Please, calm down. 
>
>But anger is so ... EMPOWERING!!
>(Just kidding!)

Anger -is- empowering, but as a source of motivation, it can lead one
in the wrong direction. 
 
>>I was not trying to get you worked up. You have raised
>>some good valid points, and I understand what you are saying now.
>
>Hooray!

Party at eleven...  (BYOwhatever)  :^)
 
>>>>Rich
>>>--- Julie
>>Rich again
>---Julie again
guess who...

Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1832 soc.men:17158