From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- thank you for your support)
Subject: So we ALL play this game, huh. (formerly: An argument for better...)
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: Wash. Area Clinic Defense Task Force (WACDTF), Washington, D.C.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 12:46:36 GMT

It looks as though Doug's mistake in interpretation of my response lies
just as much with my wording as with his perception, so I will try again.

I am reposting my original response, with two key phrases added that I
should have used in the first place.  Additions are hilighted in caps.

======== Repost starts ========


What: <1993Jan8.234624.9919@ncsu.edu>
Who:  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)

>> = Stephen Matheson, on Suzanne's "You're blind as a bat.  Just look at
                                     what you married" comment to Patrick

>> Suzanne: your comment is sick.  Your vindictiveness is unhealthy.
>> I think an apology is in order.
>
>Allow me to clue you in to a little game that the pro-choicers
>like to play.  The game is called "enrage the opposition".  [...]

Notice how Doug Holtsinger says "the pro-choicers" with no qualifier,
THUS IMPLYING *ALL* PRO-CHOICERS ON TALK.ABORTION.

Remember how Doug Holtsinger chastized me for using "pro-lifers" when
talking about violence from certain pro-lifers, claiming that I was
trying to implicate the entire pro-life movement, despite thte fact
that I explicitly stated otherwise.

Not that I think Doug Holtsinger actually *means* ALL pro-choicers ON THIS
NEWSGROUP in the above quote, but see how he demands one standard from me,
and another for himself.

Remember how Doug Holtsinger labels people who have souch double standards
"hypocrites."

Notice how the shoe fits him.

Interesting how he considers her comment a "small flame" though.  Coming
from someone who claims to be a compassionate Catholic, it seemed quite
significant to me.

>I'm actually kind of surprised that Ms. Forgach has been as polite
>as she has been towards these people.

======== Repost ends ========

Doug's response to that post, where he flamed me for supposedly
deleting context, contained the following:

>The context that you deleted indicated that I was talking about 
>the pro-choicers on this newsgroup only.  [...flame deleted...]

[...]

>Of course not, you knew that I was talking about the 
>pro-choicers on this newsgroup.  

Doug, you keep proving my point.  Only now it appears that you really *do*
mean ALL pro-choicers on this newsgroup.  I was being sarcastic when I
first mentioned it.

On top of that, you accuse me of "maliciously" deleting context, when
you once deleted an ENTIRE article of mine and commented only on the
subject.  Talk about maliciously deleting context.

>"Making a statement about a movement as a whole is not making a statement
>about each member." -- Jay Stein, trying to explain why he's entitled to
>stereotype the pro-life movement. 

My quoted statement is true.  You can't take statistics on a population
and apply it to individuals in that population.  Of course, in order to
verify the truth of your editorial comment, one would have to know... THE
CONTEXT, which you have deleted.  Imagine that.

So Doug, why are *you* entitled to stereotype the pro-choice contingent
on talk.abortion?  Or is that "different?"
--
     _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        
   |   |  in  |   |  |               Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__               GEnie: J.STEIN18

But still I fear and still I dare not laugh at the madman.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism