From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Value of white het-boys lives
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:53:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.161601.24071@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.025130.25419@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1a9ufjINN5sg@bigboote.WPI.EDU> walkerr@yaya.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker) writes:
>>>
>>>>I do agree with you that if women were more powerful, the world may be
>>>>different, but not any more kinder or gentler.  I don't buy the idea
>>>>that women are naturally more caring or gentler than men.
>>>
>>>	From my observations, women seem to be more underhanded and 
>>>backstabbing than men are.  Men more or less tell it like it is,
>>>but it seems that women will lie to someones face, supposably to keep
>>>from hurting their feelings and then go tell everyone else what they 
>>>couldn't tell this person to their face.  I've also noticed that this 
>>>sort of thing goes away with age.  Now I'm gonna get my head chewed off
>>>for stereotyping, but these are MY OPINIONS so please be gentle.
>> 
>>Sorry, you will be asked for names, dates, and thousands of irrelevant
>>questions to back your -assertions-. Failure to provide proper peer-reviewed
>>references, citations, and your entire lifes history will invalidate your
>>claim, as well as your lifes experiences.
>>
>>Sorry...
>
>Actually, his claim is perfectly valid.  He clearly labels it as his own
>opinion, 

So what, I did also, you chose to ignore/omit it.

>              and states that the whole basis is his own experience.

So you will now accept "From my observations" and I've also noticed" as
the "whole basis is his own experience"? Get real, and get consistant.
He gave no basis whatsoever, and the same qualifications as did I. 

>Of course, it is my opinion that he is seeing the world poorly, that he is
>sexist, that his experience is warped by his sexism, thus giving him a self-
>fulfilling data-gathering sample.  But, hey, that's just my opinion.

I rather thought you acted more like a judge, especially when you made
demands and expressed your dissatisfaction.
 
>>If you have not met Gorden Fitch, and Richard Lynch, and they have a
>>single quantum of consistancy to their attack pattern, you soon will.
>
>My attack pattern, as far as I can tell, is when somebody posts something as
>fact that I don't believe and has no data, I ask for it.  If you want to
>clearly label statements as opinion and or state upfront that it's just your
>impression of the world, you will be safe from my "attacks".

When one is willing to -omit- the qualifiers from a sentence, then claim
that it it unqualified, they can then drop any pretense fairness.
You have ignored all such qualifications in your hunt for blood (or whatever). 
Was it you or Gorden Fitch who claimed that the reference to a previous
thread was a "blanket" statement? And who was it that claimed that my
"point of view" might be "mistaken"? There was no objectivity in the
attack from shortly after the beginning. Apologies IFF I have confused
you and GF (is that acceptable?) anywhere above.

>BTW, you seem to be taking this personally.  I never intended that, and
>certainly don't think of you as an enemy.
>
>>And they give each other points... 
>
>Not quite sure what you mean by this.

I responded afterposting this, it was a clear misattribution of my name in a
thread between Robert Shaeffer and (I think) Gorden Fitch. Below his
little rebuttals he had markers like `[Fitch 2, Payne 0]`. Dare I expect
even a correction?
 
>PS:  Just in case it's not clear Rich, I had no intention of posting a response
>to the original article.

Of course not, you have no intention of answering for your posts, certainly
not in the same fashion as was demanded of me. Or so it would seem. 

Perhaps it's just as well, I doubt the issue could ever be clarified, or
the myriad of assumptions ever totally erased.

And I will have to admit that running 2 similiar conversations (so to
speak) on the same subject line was confusing, especially on little sleep.
I seem to have confused what you posted for what Gorden Fitch posted
once or twice, for which I apologise (only for that). I suggest that
all 3 of us are guilty on that account. 

>-- 
>"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu

Rich

payner@netcom.com