From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:40:41 GMT

In <1992Sep2.114515.10758@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
In article <1992Sep1.190144.141@acd4.acd.com>
   wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1992Aug31.225918.13549@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >>>
In article <1992Aug31.144107.23778@acd4.acd.com>
   wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>>>
In <1992Aug30.040031.5439@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
    (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >>>>>
dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu 
   (Doug Holtsinger) writes: >>>>>>

>>>>>> I don't believe that I've ever insulted Ms. Garvin.
>
>>>>> denial is unhealthy doodie.  see your therapist.
>
>>>> Passive-aggressive behavior is also unhealthy, Jim.
>
>>> that is is, bill, that it is.
>
>>>> Your implication is extremely prejudicial.  
>
>>> what implication is that, bill?
>
>> i.e., "Who, me?"  
>
> this is beneath you, bill, at least i think it is.
> suggestions that crazies (chaney, DOD, darcy, franklin,
> etc.) seek help are made daily, sometimes more often
> than that. 

If these people are "crazy", I'm unaware of it.  Chaney
(for example) is outrageous but certainly no more so 
than Novak, who is never characterized as disordered.  
Nora Rivkis, on the other hand, does/did suffer from 
some form of clinical depression, yet one would be hard 
pressed to make such an inference had she not discussed 
it openly.  I have to believe that armchair Usenet diag-
nosticians simply have too little information to label 
other participants as mentally disordered.  But my major 
objection has to do with the way such remarks characterize 
people with real mental illnesses.  That's what I think
is prejudicial.

> there were, in fact, several examples of
> that on the day my post appeared. (i replied to two of
> these, noting your comment.) the reason i did this was
> to illustrate that your "prejudicial" reply to my post
> was itself a good example of a prejudicial remark.

Because I responded to your post and not others?  That
makes no sense.  Given that the scope of discussion in
t.a. is limited to a finite set of arguments that occur
over and over, the similar contentions could be made by 
many people every day, no?

>>>> Are people in therapy somehow unworthy of your
>>>> respect?
> 
>>> i don't know where you'd get that idea bill. can
>>> you tell me? do you think there's something
>>> unhealthy with suggesting that a person may need
>>> help gets it?
> 
>> Only when it's done to derogate.
>
> i think you're wrong, bill, even if you do have the
> power to read intent whenever any of these posts are
> made. i find it amusing that mine was the first of
> the hundreds that appear all the time on which you
> commented. of course, this could simply be an
> illustration of your intent-reading capabilities.

I don't find your (predictable) evasiveness amusing. 
You don't really expect anyone to believe that you're
sincerely concerned about Holtsinger's mental health,
do you?  You infer "denial" when there is clearly no
way for you determine his involvement in such a complex
pattern of behavior.  You call him "doodie" instead of
using his name, which doesn't seem consistent with your
"sincerity".  And then you say "see your therapist",
as if you know that he already has one.  Do you know
that, Jim?  One needn't be especially proficient at 
"intent-reading" to understand that yours was less 
than altruistic.

> perhaps your singling out of my remark was a sign of
> something else. if that's the case, feel free do
> discuss your feelings which appear, well, erratic.

In retrospect, I think the reason that I responded to 
you (instead of someone else) had something to do with 
the fact that 1) we've corresponded before, 2) your posts 
have become increasingly ad hominem over the last year 
or so (which I don't understand), 3) your responses are 
usually terse and, unlike others, don't take much time 
to read, and 4) I object to the implications such comments
have for people who really do suffer from some form of
mental illness.

Bill