From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: for bill overpeck
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:42:56 GMT

In <3t7yrrg@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.acm.rpi.edu 
   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: > 
In article <1992Sep11.152129.21600@acd4.acd.com>
	wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1992Sep11.004555.14711@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >>>
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes: >>>>
james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes: >>>>>
#wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>>>>>

>>>>>> I read each of them.  You seem to be confusing
>>>>>> immaturity with mental illness.
>
>>>>> i suspected that you'd say that. it's too bad,
>>>>> really, that you don't think therapy might help.
>>>>> perhaps you're just doggedly hanging on to a point
>>>>> you've already lost.
> 
>>>> I think that Overpeck is caught in the "don't
>>>> criticize another pro-forcer too strongly" trap.  He
>>>> seems to think that it's reasonable for Holtsinger
>>>> to not expect to have his sources checked, even
>>>> though I had given advance notice that I would do
>>>> so.  He seems to think that it's only a sign of
>>>> immaturity when a 21 year old is convinced that he
>>>> is a fictional entity (or an inanimate object.)
>
>>> it's a consistent reaction for him, if that's what he's
>>> doing now. he did the same thing with djr for a long,
>>> long time. from what i read as the tone of his notes, i
>>> think he tried to use this particular thread as an
>>> extension of an older disagreement. of course, i could
>>> be mistaken here. he seems to have jumped on what
>>> appeared to be an opening and when that turned out not
>>> to be the case, then things got convoluted for him.
> 
>> My, for someone who's fond of cynically accusing others 
>> of being "mind-readers", you're awfully willing to engage
>> in some serious presumption, yourself.
>
> where have i done that, bill? are you referring to the
> paragraph preceeding yours? if so, do the phrases "from what
> I read," "i think," "i could be mistaken," he seems" strike
> you as anything other than an expression of opinion?

Ah.  So mind-reading is not a prerequisite for making inferences?
Please remember this in the future.

>> However, I, in my convolution, am still waiting for a list 
>> of symptoms to substantiate your diagnostic impressions.
>
> are you referring to the "diagnostic impressions"
> you claim i've made here?

Those are the ones, yes.

> since i haven't made any "diagnostic impressions," it's
> difficult to see what you're getting at.

When you suggested that Doug suffered from "denial", what
exactly were you referring to?  In the context of "see your
therapist", one is naturally inclined to assume you were
referring to a clinically significant pattern of denial.
If not, perhaps you should clarify this.

>>>> Teenage women who want to make decisions for
>>>> themselves, on the other hand, are deemed to be in
>>>> desperate need of couselling.
>
>>> nice point.
> 
>> It would be, if I'd ever made such a ludicrous assertion.  
>> Attributing such a claim to me is disingenuous.
>
> are you implying that counseling teenage girls who
> wish to have an abortion is ludicrous, bill?

Not at all.  If you'll reread my comment, I said that the
*assertion* was ludicrous (meaning grossly inaccurate).

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion