From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: What's Muffy's Purpose, Here? (Was: What's the purpose here?)
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<fb-ngrn.tyger@netcom.com> <MUFFY.92Aug24152039@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<ATAYLOR.92Aug26154422@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<MUFFY.92Aug26181314@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<ATAYLOR.92Aug28172644@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<MUFFY.92Aug28173420@remarque.berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 00:58:00 GMT

<In article <MUFFY.92Aug28173420@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
<   In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug28172644@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
<   ><In article <MUFFY.92Aug26181314@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:<

<   ><>In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug26154422@gauss.nmsu.edu> 
<   ><ataylor@nmsu.edu (brainless) writes:
<   > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<   >Here we see Muffy at her finest; by editing the above line
<   >she "refutes" me.

<   Not at all...*laugh*...by editing the above line, I *insult* you.  You
<   simply don't *understand* it.

	Wonderful. Muffy admits to insulting me. I'll save
	this for the next time she claims not to insult people
	instead of debating them.


<   >Can you say "Ad Hominem"? I knew you could....

<   Amazing...you mean you actually know something about logic?  Or did
<   someone else advise you to say that?

	More insults. 

	One wonders what Muffy's point is, if any.

<   >Indeed, some days on soc.feminism it appears that
<   >certain rather poorly written posts are allowed 
<   >on that group for the primary purpose of providing
<   >Muffy with flame fodder....<

<   Unfortunately, we are not allowed to reject posts for poor writing or
<   logic unless they are incomprehensible.  One might wonder where I *get*
<   these posts to respond to...I don't *write* them, you know.

	Yawn. Muffy has made it clear that posts are rejected
	for many reasons, then claims she cannot reject poorly
	written ones.

	Muffy's like a newspaper editor who allows poorly
	spelled letters to the editor to be printed, in
	order that they can be made fun of.

<   ><Nonetheless, I prefer to argue with
<   ><actual facts, as opposed to idiotic insinuations like yours.
<   >At least I have never claimed that men cannot get 
<   >breast cancer, Muffy...

<   >Can you make the same statement?

<   As I recall, I stated that breast cancer was a "woman's problem."  A
<   couple of people then informed me that men also get breast cancer.  I
<   then stated in a later post that I had been told that this was the case,
<   and discussed that in light of my other views.  Therefore, I ACCEPTED
<   the truth and CORRECTED my mistake.  I have never claimed to be
<   infallible.  Nonetheless, I *was* attempting to argue with facts (even
<   if they were initially incorrect ones).

	Piffle. Muffy; was arguing with blatant lies as her "support".

<   ><>< Still, it's probably a
		    ^^^^^^^^
<   ><>< good thing that you don't want to.  
<   >Oh, but you have. You've stated quite clearly that
<   >it is a good thing that Tyger doesn't want to
<   >post to soc.feminism;

<   READ.  READ READ READ.

	Muffy issues orders; all must obey.

<   >could it be that you *do*
<   >*not* *want* to have her opinions posted to your
<   >playpen?

<   Um...yes, I think that was the gist of my statement, except for the part
<   about a "playpen."  (I think you mentioned something about "Ad Hominem"?
<   Why do you think it is that you object to my defending myself with the
<   same tools you attack me with?)  

	It is hardly ad homenim to observe that soc.feminism is her
	'playpen' when observing that Muffy DOES NOT WANT Tyger
	to post there.
	
	Muffy flunks her logic 101 exam.

<Nonetheless, the fact remains that her
<  opinions *could* get posted, which she claimed was not true.

	This "fact" is an unproven assertion.

	Muffy flunks logic again.

<   ><I don't like it when anyone makes inaccurate statements.  What can I
<   ><say, I think the truth is a valuable thing.

<   >Tell me, do you believe that men cannot get breast cancer? 

<   Nope.

	Yet Muffy once posted that "breast cancer is a WOMEN'S
	issue"; thus once Muffy did assert that men could
	not get breast cancer which is false. So the truth	
	that can keep men from dying is obviously not valuable to 
	Muffy.

<   >Do you believe that gays cannot commit rape?

<   Nope.  Nor have I ever said anything to this effect.  I recall the
<   incident in question, though.  What *I* said was that gays do not, by
<   virtue of being gay, commit rape.  
	
	Sadly, I did not save the post. Careless of me, to let
	such an example slide by.

<Was that your post/mail (damn, there
<   goes my memory again...I guess I just blank a lot of terrible things
<   out) claiming that all gays were rapists (male/male, I think), or
<   something to that effect?

	Hardly. I emailed Muffy and asserted that her claim
	that "gays cannot commit rape" (which is how *I* recall
	her rambling) was absurd. 

	If Muffy is going to assert that I made such an absurd
	claim, I wish she would either prove it or admit that
	she's making it up as she goes along.

<   >Or have those "muffyisms"  been changed, now?

<   Hey, not only my own subject line, but my own word!  Do y'all think I
<   can start a net.religion and become rich and tax-exempt?

	Certainly, so long as you accept that "muffyism" is
	'a gross lie on the net'.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism