From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Peter, do you even know how to READ? (Was: 3 docs in a 3-way).
Date: 15 Sep 1992 14:39:50 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...

In article <nyikos.716579432@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <192brnINNpbo@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>Did you also read the part where I say you seem to 
>Glad you saw it.

I'm beginning to wonder if the simple acknowledgement of your postings is
what you are really after, Peter.  Nah.  It couldn't be that simple....

>No, but I have seen some repeats of posts and messages by you, by 
>Bill Overpeck, if memory serves, when I was still in Wollongong.

Ah. Some some subset of postings you observed in Wollongong is enough
'evidence' for you to make a judgemental statement about my 'growth' on
the net over a 7 year period?  Interesting.  What *would* Mr. Overpeck say
about that?

>So I am not entirely clueless, even though I am a newbie.

I think that many of the reading audience will evaluate this claim for
themselves, Peter.

>..., but your reaction
>to Will's seems to indicate that you drew the wrong lessons from them.

Ah,  I see.  The "wrong" lessons.  According, I guess, to you, hmm, Peter?

Let me borrow a page from someone else's book for just a moment, here and
ask:  What if, just what if I have drawn the *right* lessons, Peter, and it
is you who drew the 'wrong' ones????  What would you do then!?!?!?

>Wait a minute.
>Is it possible that you are NOT as thick-skinned as Bill Overpeck's posts
>indicated?

No it's not.  If Bill Overpeck has decided I'm thick-skinned, then I *must*
*be*.  Haven't you been reading his defense of *not* diagnosing a person's
health over the net?  If he said something, you can be *sure* (can't you?)
that he's actually performed a thorough non-net analysis and his conclusions
are sound.

That's a joke, son.

>One detail that sticks in my mind from that July series is how you 
>behaved like a jerk in a letter "congratulating" him on the birth
>of one of his children. 

That was Phil Buckland.  I hoped for him that his son would become an
evolutionary scientist.  I admit it was in poor taste.  It's an unfortunate
facet of humorous things.

But maybe that clarifies some things for us.  If Bill Overpeck tells you
I'm thick-skinned, and he's infallable ((-:), it must be so.  But I am not
sure that Phil Buckland gets to make net.diagnoses.  Bill/Phil, do you 
*authorities* have a ruling for us?

Or was it Phil's view that the viewpoint of the rapist was more important
than the rape victim's viewpoint that you figured I took the "wrong"
lesson from, and was a jerk about?  Or was it the fact that he would (and
did) demand the freedom for his mother to choose her own medical treatment,
but wouldn't accord that same freedom to other women on this planet that
I was a jerk about?  I've frequently been a jerk about things, I'm sure.
Trust me, I'm a *real* jerk about people who imagine their opinions have
diddly to do with the contents of my body.  I also tend to be a real jerk 
to people who would generally stick their foolish noses in business that
don't concern 'em.  And people who revel in their ignorance, and people who
don't look beyond their foolish 'morality' to the RAMIFICATIONS of the
legislation they suggest is 'good' for this country, and people who refuse
to learn from history.  And especially people who figure the 'real issue'
in abortion can be analyzed in the absence of the woman. 

I spend a whole lot of time on this net being a jerk about these things.

Though you may note that it is also true that, while I may call people names,
and even imply worse things than those I'll come right out and say, I don't
threaten people, I don't harm people, and I don't legislate other people's
choices.  I happen to believe that you have every bit as much right to be a
complete idiot as I have to be a complete genius.(-: If you want to grow into
an honest person, Peter, you'll have to begin recognising the differences
between persons who understand debate and persons who merely shout loudly.

>"Anyone like you, who has been on a newsgroup like this, which deals with
>so many deeply felt convictions and raw emotions for 7 years, is obviously
>someone who can not only dish it out, but also take it.  And I have a
>tremendous amount of respect for someone like that."

Why?  Or do I now presume that this same statement of 'respect' would be
accorded to, say, Suzanne Forgach?  I'm not real sold on your notion of
social groupings, so let me preempt you and request that you not do so.
I tend to respect people for making sense, for living their own lives,
for learning in areas where they are ignorant.  I don't necessarily have
a whole lot of respect for people who post to the net simply because they
post to the net.

>I showed the post to both Doug Holtsinger and Steve Chaney so they could
>give me some idea as to what the effect might be.  Both advised me
>not to post it.  Chaney even said, "If you post it, Adrienne will
>turn you into flaming horseflesh."

So, you asked for free advice, and you got what you paid for.

Note, Peter.  When you make a joke, put a smiley on it, like this ->  (-:.
Believe me, your statement above is a joke.

(Can anyone BELIEVE this!?!?!  I died laughing!?!?!?!?!?)

>>You really haven't a clue how much damage you do yourself, do you, Peter?
>Well, according to Chaney, I avoided worse damage.  But maybe he 
>misjudged you.

Like I said.  The appropriate punctuation is   " (-: "


 OK, OK, so this has degenerated into a stand up routine.  Let it go./

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion