From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Bill, admit the point before changing the subject.
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:01:09 GMT

In <1992Jul15.015126.27523@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
-> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes: 
[..]
-> > i don't think so. after all included text above indicating that 
-> > a well-respected, credible, long-time poster called you a liar. 
-> 
-> And I subsequently *proved* that poster incorrect, so her
-> knee- jerk reaction was inappropriate - but she never
-> retracted or apologized.

>i haven't seen you prove that, bill. but your secondary point is
>interesting, the one about retractions and apologies. you do
>recall that the same siren who you've been defending lied about
>me, used as proof of her lie a post of mine dated 2-weeks prior
>to the event she claimed the post was in response to, and then
>whined about leaving the newsgroup because i was asking her to
>retract and apologize, do you not? i'm glad that you agree that
>these absolutely clear-cut matters should be resolved and i hope
>you'll point that out to siren, should she ever return.

As I didn't follow that particular exchange in any detail (though I 
was aware of it), I can't really offer much in the way of an opinion.  
But if the standard of proof by which you measure Siren's behavior is 
the same one you apply to me, then I will remain skeptical of your 
assessment.  

-> > i's say that was a problem.   
-> 
-> Yes, but not for me.  Here's the entire text, in case you
-> missed it:
-> 
->    From: regard@hpsdde.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
->    Message-ID: <1991Mar27.164821.25527@sdd.hp.com>
-> 
->    >>> ... she proceeds [Ms Regard] from the rationalistic position 
->    >>> that "man is the measure of all things".  
-> 
->    > I'd like to see where I actually *wrote* this, Mr.
->    > Overpeck.  Double quotes generally indicate a quotation
->    > attributable to the subject involved.
-> 
->    You didn't write that, Ms Regard.  Double quotes are used
->    for a variety of other reasons, including references to
->    common phrases, innuendo, and cynicism.  Have I assumed too
->    much in thinking that you would be familiar with the
->    phrase?  You nonetheless seem to be familiar with the
->    practice, as you demonstrate in the following
-> 
->    (<1991Mar27.172427.27234@sdd.hp.com>): 
->        Can you say "no-win proposition"?  I thought you could.
-> 
->    > You are a liar, Mr. Overpeck.
-> 
->    How so?  
-> 
-> End repost.
-> 
-> So, Jim, given that she called me a liar for doing something
-> that she herself had done previously, I'd say her
-> characterization was unfounded, wouldn't you?

>from what you've just posted, i'd say she did not do that which
>she criticized you for doing. you quoted her as saying something
>she didn't say. 

Reread it, Jim.  I didn't quote her at all, nor did I claim to.
I've heard and read the phrase many times, so I thought it best
not to claim authorship of it.  

>she did not quote you as saying something you
>didn't say.

She said:
    > Double quotes generally indicate a quotation
    > attributable to the subject involved.

And then proceeded to call me a liar.  I not only asserted that
double quotes are used for other purposes, but used a post of
hers to demonstrate that she realized as much.  

-> >>> it seems to me that that you were used in a personal
-> >>> matter by siren who repeatedly tried to impose her
-> >>> personal views of appropriate posting styles on a
-> >>> newsgroup, and who labeled anyone who didn't accept those
-> >>> personal views as a flamer.
-> > 
-> >> Siren attempted to "impose" nothing.  She had some ideas
-> >> about what constitutes appropriate communication.  Impose?
-> >> Please.
-> >
-> > certainly she did. we're discussing her standards of
-> > villification here. don't you remember the post you replied
-> > to?
-> 
-> None of us are *capable* of imposing any new structure on an
-> entire newsgroup, so the word doesn't even apply.  This sounds
-> like the standard "pro-lifers, don't impose your religious
-> beliefs on the rest of us" rhetoric.

>i agree that siren's approach was much like the anti-choicer's
>approach. 

I didn't mention any "anti-choicer's approach".  I referred to
pro-choice rhetoric.

>that's what began this thread; siren's personal
>distaste for adrienne's posting style. siren apparently felt that
>anyone who disagreed with her was flaming or villifying. so she
>flamed people whose style she disliked while at the samne time
>criticising flaming.

I'll address this further down.

-> >>> you've been around far too long to be taken in my that
-> >>> kind of silliness, haven't you? actually, i speculated
-> >>> that you might have been sniggering to yourself about
-> >>> so-called pro-choicers calling for legislation to ban some
-> >>> abortions and saying that wanted to imprison women for
-> >>> having abortions. are you now saying you'd like these same
-> >>> hypocrites to set the standards for appropriate posting to
-> >>> t.a.?
-> > 
-> >> Are people for whom you have no respect not permitted to
-> >> offer some suggestions?  Since such suggestions might have
-> >> little or nothing to do with their position on abortion,
-> >> your reaction to this seems inappropriate.
-> >
-> > what reaction is that, bill? 
-> 
-> The one that prompted you to criticize Siren.

>are you suggesting there is something wrong with pointing out
>hypocrisy? 

Not if one is above engaging in it.

>because that is precisely what prompted me to
>criticize siren. of course that resulted in her lying when she
>tried to reply to the first criticism.

How did she "lie"?

-> > and what suggestions are you referring to?
-> 
-> I don't have her posts, but as I recall the suggestions were
-> along the lines of demonstrating a little respect for each
-> other.

>you mean like the respect she displayed to those who disagreed
>with her, like tommy kelly, adrienne, linda birmingham, me ....?

Can an appeal to stop malicious posting only be made by those
who've never engaged in the practice?

-> [...]
-> 
-> >>>> I guess it just depends on how we define villify, Jim.
-> >>>> My dictionary includes the following synonyms: abuse,
-> >>>> asperse, debase, revile, slander, defame, calumniate.
-> >>>> Seems like a pretty good fit to me.
-> > 
-> >>> not to me. 
-> > 
-> >> I'll bet you are (or were) in the minority.
-> >
-> > perhaps. that of course has nothing to do with whether or not i'm
-> > right, does it? 
-> 
-> Actually, it probably does, since appropriate social behavior
-> is both defined and informally governed by the expectations of
-> the majority.

>nice try. we're not talking about appropriate social behavior.
>we're talking about siren's views of what is and what is not an
>appropriate post.

No we were not.  We were talking generally about Adrienne's posting
style, and specifically about her cruel response to Phil Buckland.

-> > and you did note that adrienne expressed good wishes for
-> > phil's son, did you not?
-> 
-> She expressed *her* wishes for Phil's son, knowing very well
-> that such sentiment would be offensive to Phil.  That post had
-> *nothing at all* to do with Phil's son - it had to do with
-> Phil.

>have you been reading adrienne's mind again, bill?

No need.  Just takes a bit of simple deductive reasoning.  Phil's 
newborn son could not read, so it was apparently not written to him.  
Phil is the only one for whom her response could have any significant 
meaning.  Do *you* think Phil would have responded favorable to her
reply?  Now you probably won't answer this since you're "not a reader 
of other people's minds", but you *were* willing to make some assump-
tions about Siren a few paragraphs ago, as in:

   >siren apparently felt that anyone who disagreed with her 
   >was flaming or villifying.

So maybe you will answer my question.
 
-> >>> i think adrienne said what a lot of people thought.
-> > 
-> >> If so, why was she criticized by numerous pro-choicers for
-> >> her comments?
-> >
-> > you'll have to ask them, bill. unlike some others, i don't
-> > read minds. btw, are you sure the criticisms were from
-> > pro-choicers?
-> 
-> Yes, I'm sure.  Dean Kaflowitz for one (sorry to bring you
-> into this, Dean).  There were a number of others.

>i like dean. and i respect him. but i'm not ready to accord him
>the mantle of determining what is appropriate and what is not.
>he'll be pleased, no doubt, that you seem to be.

I like Dean, too.  But he wasn't the only pro-choicer to take
exception to Adrienne's post.  As I said, I think you were in
the minority.

-> >>> perhaps you don't like the way she said it, but that's not
-> >>> the issue, is it?
-> > 
-> >> I think that's a big part of the issue here.  
-> >
-> >then you agree that your argument is with style, rather than
-> >substance?
-> 
-> Getting past the derogation to the content is often rather
-> difficult.  It makes one wonder which is more important to the
-> actual meaning of the respective post.

>is that a 'yes?'

No.  

-> [...]
-> 
-> >>> i like the way adreinne posts bill. 
-> > 
-> >> Gee, Jim, maybe you'd have a different opinion if she
-> >> treated you the way she treats the average pro-lifer.
-> >
-> > and what wat is that, bill?
-> 
-> You're becoming oblique; "that" is what we've been talking
-> about for several days, now.

>are you "villifying" me now?  i asked you to explain what you
>wrote. you didn't.

Oh, I suspect you understood "what I wrote" quite well, given that
you're a fairly articulate guy.  But I'll rephrase it if you like.
For an intersting intellectual exercise, try a little empathy - put 
yourself on the receiving end of her posts and then tell me how much
you like them.

-> >>> i like what she writes to you; i like what she used to
-> >>> write to tommy kelly and phil buckland. she makes her
-> >>> points strongly which, i imagine, causes you discomfort
-> >>> ... and it should, imo.
-> > 
-> >> Oh, no, I enjoy being regularly condescended to.
-> >
-> > you don't do too badly at it yourself
-> 
-> Certainly, we all do.  But it's not characteristic of my
-> posts.

>that's your opinion, bill. if someone were to ask me to describe
>the way your posts have been described to me over the years, it
>would be "condescending."

Opinions vary.

-> [...]
-> 
-> >> Tell you what, I'll ignore her posts if you ignore Darcy's,
-> >> which seem to have a similar effect on you.
-> >
-> > how is that, bill?
-> 
-> No point in elaborating on observations already made by
-> others.  Nor is there any point in you being evasive about it.

>that's exactly why i wasn't.

:-)

-> >>> i just don't see how you can think "villify" in terms of
-> >>> adrienne's posts when you've lived through a newsgroup
-> >>> peopled by wackos like hillel, rasmussen, chima, darcy,
-> >>> franklin, kellmeyer, chaney, suzanne, the fetus, and
-> >>> brawley.
-> > 
-> >> Hmm.  I'm post-Hillel.  Heh heh, I remember "the fetus",
-> >> though.  What a guy.  But I'm not locked into "vilify".
-> >> That's simply how it feels.  Derogate is also good.
-> >> Condescend isn't too bad.  Disparage is real accurate.  But
-> >> apparently, when the people on your list do it, they're
-> >> wackos, but when Adrienne does she's "making points
-> >> strongly".  Perspective is a wonderful thing.
-> >
-> > oh don't be petty. even adrienne's biggest enemy wouldn't
-> > compare her with that crew.
-> 
-> Sorry, I'm not taking the bait.

>i'm glad you understood my point.

No, I simply won't permit you to rope me into criticizing other
people, as is your custom.  You did that with me a very long time 
ago wrt Rassmussen and while I didn't really mind at the time, I
think I'll pass on this occasion. 

-> >>> btw, how many of these folks have you accused of
-> >>> villification?
-> > 
-> >> Are you keeping track?  
-> >
-> > not really. but i do have a sense that you've not accused
-> > any of them of villification, except rasmussen, and that
-> > just once when you were kinda embarassed into doing so.
-> 
-> Maybe it's just flaw in my character, but I'm reluctant to
-> vilify anyone.

>it must pain you to argue so long about adrienne then.

You bet.  

-> >> But it's really unnecessary - there are plenty of
-> >> pro-choicers doing that for me.  At any rate, I really try
-> >> to avoid making such accusations.  Messy stuff, and
-> >> normally a no-win proposition since someone will always
-> >> come back with "but what if you *are* a liar?"  Uh huh.
-> >
-> > not a bad point. you probably wish you'd never begun this
-> > villification thing, eh? in any case, if you do see it as a
-> > no-win proposition, feel free to drop it.
-> 
-> Participation in talk.abortion is, itself, a no-win
-> proposition.  

>then why do you do it?

To learn about pro-choice values, primarily.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion