From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:56:49 GMT

In <1992Oct10.024526.16500@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
   (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >
In article <1992Oct9.152415.12666@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1992Oct6.150454.27077@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
   (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >>>
In article <1992Oct5.190140.19923@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>>>
In <6693@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu 
   (Susan Garvin) writes: >>>>>

>>>>>>> What purpose is served by repeating vile, unsubstantiated rumor 
>>>>>>> about a dead young woman?  
> 
>>>>>> Perhaps it has something to do with her parents malicious anti-RTL 
>>>>>> crusade.  
> 
>>>>> I suspect it's just more of your misogyny-on-parade.  
> 
>>>> I wonder why you tend to see misogyny around every corner...
>
>>> Probably because of the evidence, old darling.  It tends to lead
>>> one to conclusions.
>
>> In true Kaflowitz tradition...
> 
>> All lies and jests
>> Still a man hears what he wants to hear
>> and disregards the rest
>
>First, I don't think Susan does see misogyny 'round every corner,
>but she certainly does see it enough on talk.abortion, as do I
>and quite a few others.  

I think invoking "misogyny" is a convenient attempt to undermine
the credibility of any substantive arguments.  It suggests that
there's some diabolical motive at work when, most often, there is
no reason to suspect any.  I'll admit there are times when such 
inferences seem entirely appropriate (e.g., when some bozo starts 
ranting about the need for women to just keep their legs together, 
etc.), but those are the exception, IMO.

>WHich point, I think, does answer your
>question as to why, though I deny your hyperbole.  Furthermore,
>one can hear both what one wantstohear and what one doesn't and
>conclude that both are there.  

True enough.  

>While I am not so quick to call you
>a misogynist, I would venture that you've said enough that is
>arguably misogynistic to support my remarks about the evidence.

I have never indicated that I have feelings of hatred for women 
(mainly because I don't...) but it's certainly possible to infer 
all kinds of feelings from people on the net.  But I think charac-
terizing someone as a "hater of women" in the context of a heated 
argument has more to do with insult than any actual inference.

>I leave it for others, who would call you a misogynist, to present
>the evidence (a pointless enterprise as it may be since I can't
>for the life of me think what the purpose would be of holding a
>public Misogyny Trial, except it might be more entertaining than
>that extended debate on electronic diagnosis and its accuracy).

I want a male judge (just kidding, *really*!).

>Now, as regards Kaflowitz tradition, I can't recall ever quoting
>the wisdom of Simon and Garfunkel, though I believe I once
>did quote a few lines from Simon's "Graceland."  Usually, for
>the subject of lies, I turn to the Stones' "Lies."  But we
>Kaflowitzes have our traditions, it's true.  I would say more, but
>modesty prevents me from naming these excesses.

You are too modest, sir.

>>> Now don't get above yourself, Billy dear, and accuse anyone
>>> of paranoia.
> 
>> Paranoia, sweet pea, is irrelevant when someone is out to get
>> you... 
>
>Paranoia will destroy ya.
>Instant karma's gonna get ya, better watch your step.
>
>If karma is, then there are an awful lot of pro-life males who
>will return as women in their next lives.  I suppose that will
>satisfy the silly buggers who occasionally bemoan their lack
>of uteruses (uteri?).

Too bad that empathy is a trait not easily acquired by many.
Sadly, it often seems to be in short supply among pro-lifers.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion