From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:20:25 GMT

In <Bu25r5.B0w.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
   (Susan Garvin) writes: > 
In article <1992Sep3.194150.11753@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <BtxrKx.E6u.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
   (Susan Garvin) writes: >>>

[old included text deleted]

## Fine.  I was technically incorrect.
##
## It does make you appear hypocritical, however, since you 
## criticize Keegan for making an observation about Holtsinger
## and denial, saying that he doesn't have enough information
## to make that judgment while simultaneously making an
## observation about Jim's behavior.
#
#I thought about that prior to posting.  My intention was to 
#convey that inappropriate inferences can be made about *his*
#(Keegan's) behavior, too.  But your point is still valid.

> A line or two to that effect would have clarified your motive.

It seemed implicit to me, but such are the dangers of implied
communication.

## Again, I was technically incorrect.  I hope that you
## understood my meaning anyway.
#
#My comment to Jim wasn't unethical, but you're basically 
#right.  It would in fact be highly unethical for me to 
#suggest that he was suffering from a mental disorder.

> That's what I thought.  I assume that you're not, then,
> actually suggesting that.

Correct.

## I disagree.  
##
## I think Holtsinger should see a therapist.  
#
#Why?  

> I think he has problems.  He has repeatedly set himself
> up on talk.abortion by quoting (or rather misquoting)
> text from easily accessible texts.  He has to know that
> people will look up his quotations and correct them.
> This is not rational behavior in my opinion.

Unless he's rather eccentric, Usenet surely represents
a rather poor sampling of his behavior in general.  I
don't think we can extrapolate much from this example.
If your inference is correct (that he knew he'd be dis-
covered), all we could safely conclude is that he did
something irrational, which places him firmly among the
rest of the human race.  But he also, might have simply 
thought that no one would follow up on his references.

## I'm not sure
## why you think Keegan doesn't agree with me.  
#
#Primarily because of his flippancy and his (recent) tendency
#to participate only in ad hominem discussions (e.g., Kevin 
#Darcy, Beth Bartley, CJ Silverio).  
#
## Did you gain telepathic powers when you got your MSW?
#
#Oh, I don't think telepathy is necessary in order to make 
#some simple inferences.  

> On the other hand, Jim himself has said that he does agree
> with me.

He also agreed that such comments are designed to denigrate.
Maligning and ridiculing someone who he believes to be mentally 
ill doesn't say much for his character.  I'd rather believe Jim
knows better but prefers to remain oblique.

## No, not "with respect".  Do you condescend to them like you
## do to people on the net?  
#
#My perception is that my posts are relatively mild in comparison 
#to most, but perceptions vary and I'll admit that I do get pretty 
#cynical on occasion.  However, given that you infer condescension 
#in my posts without the aid of telepathy, why do you think I can't
#get along without it, too? 

> I agree that your posts are relatively mild.  I'll even agree
> that Jim may appear flippant to you.  I'm not sure if he
> cares about this impression or not.  Do you care about the
> impression that you make?

Most of the time, yes.  There have been some exceptions. 

## Again, I think that someone who is apparently incapable of
## telling the truth has problems and should get some help.
#
#I don't know of anyone who's "incapable" of telling the truth.
#People lie for a variety of reasons.  Inferring pathology seems
#like quite a leap, especially over the net.

> Again, I may be technically incorrect in my terminology, but
> I do not consider someone who lies when they know that they
> will be exposed as a liar, and does this repeatedly, is
> normal.

This assumes that he knows that such exposure is certain.

## I'm still not sure why
## you think "See your therapist" is an insult.  
#
#Several things.  First, it *assumes* that Doug has one, which
#is highly presumptuous.  He also calls him "doodie" which isn't
#the way I'd expect someone to address a person they were con-
#cerned about (especially in view of the fact that "doodie" is
#apparently a derivative of DOD, which wasn't awarded to Doug
#with any sort of affection).  Last, the most significant thing 
#about such a remark is that it implicitly derogates people who 
#*do* have therapists.  It's like calling someone "retarded" as 
#an insult; such a comment reflects a prejudice toward people
#who are mentally retarded.  Don't you think that's offensive?

> Assuming that DOD has a therapist is, of course, presumptuous.
> I don't see why anyone must have affection for someone to
> hope that they get some help.

I don't know about affection, but certainly there would be
some altruistic motive behind such a sentiment.

> I also don't agree with your opinion that suggesting that
> someone see a therapist is the same as calling someone
> "retarded."  You seem to be implying that it would be wrong
> to refer to a mentally handicapped person as being 
> mentally retarded when it is true.  

You obviously believe Keegan.  If he really knows better 
(which is what I believe), my analogy applies rather nicely,
IMO.

## I'm starting to think that you just wanted to flame Jim
## and this was the only avenue available.
#
#No, I'm not interested in conflict for its own sake.

> As Jim keeps saying, the fact that you chose to respond to
> his comments and no one else's seems to belie this,
> especially when one considers that this is the only thread
> to which you are currently contributing.

I understand.  It's not easy to convince people that your 
motives are honest.  Keegan would be hard pressed (if he
were even interested) to do so with me.

## Susan,
## who is grateful that she won't be getting any e-mail from
## the "Never Argue with Overpeck" bomber this time
#
#Would that have been Siren?  I'm touched.

> I'm sure that you are.  You're not the one who was receiving 
> harassing mail telling you why you must show respect for one
> person and disrespect for another.  You're not the one who
> constantly had their work interrupted by interactive
> messages demanding these things.

:-) I hope you aren't blaming me for all of that - I didn't know
she was doing it. 

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh