Julia Frugoli wrote:
>> At 2:27 PM +0000 10/31/00, taguebwREMOVE at wfu.edu wrote:
> >In article <39FE1B25.794EA15F at hotmail.com>, notmyaddress at hotmail.com (SLF)
> > > As you may recall, some time ago I described to you some derogatory
> > > remarks about women in a recent issue of the MIT alumni association
> > > magazine , which occupies a section in a rather good science magazine
> > > called TECHNOLOGY REVIEW. I told you about them, and wrote a letter
> > > to the magazine to complain. The new issue has printed
> > > both my letter and the editor's response. I'm curious what the readers
> > > here think of the response.
> >A quick response: the editor(s) wimped out. They should have taken
> >themselves to task for publishing the remarks and they should have
> >addressed other issues raised in your letter.
>> I agree, and I think the editors were more focused on the idea of an
> alumni magazine being "feel good" when they see themselves as somehow
> cutting edge journalism. I think they kind of missed the point.
Yep, just goes to show you how people will zero in on one or two
hot-button words and ignore the meat of the message. This can be a
really useful thing in meetings if you work it right (but only in
meetings with a time limit) :-)