From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Bill, admit the point before changing the subject.
Date: 22 Jul 92 14:35:58 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
-> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
-> [..]
-> >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.

this strikes me as quite uncharacteristic of you bill. let me be
sure that i understand the implications of your comment. let's
say you purchase a new shirt july 28th and i accuse someone of
stealing that shirt on july 4th. does anything strike you as out
of sync here? let me give you some help here. the shirt, in our
little analogy, didn't exist on the date i accused you of
stealing it. so, you couldn't have done so. that's the corner
siren painted herself into. the faq didn't exist on the date she
accused me of attacking it. (of course, at that time, i was
contributing to the faq as anyone who had read it would have
known). in her case, it was amusing watching her whine about
having been exposed in an out-and-out lie.  i had expected more
of you.

[...]
-> -> 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.

i have bill, several times. my interpretations remains the same.

-> >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.

i read that post too bill. my interpretation is, as i said, that
you seemed to attribute words to here which she hadn't written.

-> -> >>> 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.

i interpreted it otherwise.

-> >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.

so you agree, finally, that there was nothing wrong with my
pointing out siren's hypocrisy?
-> 
-> >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"?

see above. (it was answered in the post you're replying to. i
left it in for you to see again.)

-> -> > 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?

that's probably the case, if one is compelled to tell others what
and how to post, which is what siren did.

-> -> [...]
-> -> 
-> -> >>>> 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.

no bill, you raised that issue in response to one of siren's
posts on what is and what is not appropriate posting.

-> -> > 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.

sure i will. adrienne did what several others did. she posted
good wishes for phil's son. as in the case of all the other posts
on phil's son, the posts were intended to be read by phil. what's
wrong with expressing good wishes about an offspring to a parent?
you are beginning to sound like you have a thing about adrienne.

-> -> >>> 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.

but you never made that point a relevant one.

-> -> >>> 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.  

then just what are you trying to say bill?

-> -> [...]
-> -> 
-> -> >>> 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 am on the recaiving end of her posts bill, just as is everyone
else who reads her posts. as i have said before, i like her
posts.

-> -> >>> 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.

yes they do. and the expression of those differing opinions
should not always be interpreted as a personal attack or a flame.

-> -> [...]
-> -> 
-> -> >> 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.

that's your choice bill.

-> -> >>> 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.  

you're not one of those folks who think if something hurts it
must be good for you, are you?

-> -> >> 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.

then you are winning in a manner of speaking, are you not?

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality