From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: for bill overpeck
Date: 15 Sep 92 02:40:19 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

In article <1992Sep14.164256.5715@acd4.acd.com>
	wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
-> In <3t7yrrg@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.acm.rpi.edu 
->    (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: > 
[...]
-> >>> 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.

you appear confused again, bill. you made a silly, and
obviously mistaken allegation. i simply pointed it out.
you appear to want my opinion to be something else.

-> >> 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.

they're all in your imagination bill.

-> > 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?

it's your imagination again bill. here's what i said:

	"denial is unhealthy doodie."

perhaps you read that as a suggestion you observed
DODie denying at the time.

-> 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.

your prejudices are getting the best of you, bill. in
this ongoing debate, you're the only person to have
suggested that "one is naturally inclined....." to
assume something that wasn't there. broaden your
perceptions bill.

-> >>>> 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).

so now you agree with my "nice point" comment?




-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.