From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: Is this wrong, or what?
Organization: Society for Making a Fool of Phil Ronzone
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:06:09 GMT

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >
madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes: >    >
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >    >>
mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes: >   >>>
    
>    >>>Question: Why are you keeping the identities of John Doe and
>    >>>the company secret?
>    >>>
>    >>Very good question. Tell you what, I'll answer it now, if you
>    >>in turn answer MY question ("is this sick or is it just
>    >>me?").

Looks pretty clear to me.  You said "I'll answer it now, if you in turn..."
But then you don't answer it now:

>    >>O.K.
>    >>
>    >>In a few days, I'll reveal the name of the company. Plus
>    >>details that make it even more sickening (but couldn't be
>    >>revealed without giving it away).

I observed this and said so:

>    >Note that Phil offers to answer the question "now," asks for
>    >a quid pro quo in return ("answer MY question"), and then
>    >says he'll answer it "in a few days."
>    >
>    >Phil, your lies are getting even sloppier. At least before
>    >you'd contradict yourself between posts, but now you're doing
>    >so only two paragraphs apart.

Then Phil gets all bent out of shape and goes on the
attack again.  Note how his statements are either
invective or misstatement:

>Your inability to comprehend English is astounding.

Standard Ronzone insult, nothing too unusual.

>Mr. Friedman ask me a question. The question is, as you quoted but obviously
>did not read or comprehend, is "Why are you keeping the identities of John Doe
>and the company secret?".

More beration, coupled with typical Ronzone ploy of shifting
the issue.  At no point did I deny you were asked a question.

>I told him why I was keeping the name of the company secret, and that the name
>of the company would be revealed in a few days.

BZZZT!  Another untruth!  Congratulations!  You told him you
would tell him "now," then you said "O.K....in a few days."
You ignore the "now" portion that I had highlighted earlier.

>Perhaps English is not your native language? Although, the question and
>answer above IS pretty basic. Now, I know that being Politically Correct(tm)
>requires turning much of your brain off, but THAT much???

More Ronzone insults, along with the mandatory PC comment,
without which his newsreader will not allow the article
to be posted.

Methinks your last paragraph is better applied to you, since
you fail to observe how you contradicted yourself, and then
attack me, while leaving the evidence of your contradiction
intact for all to see.  Truly amazing.
>
>Tsk tsk tsk ...

Another typical remark.  Nothing new here, either.
>
>BTW - I'd send the following joke to r.h.f., but, A. It may have already
>been submitted, and B. You probably wouldn't see it as a joke.

It hasn't been submitted to me, but while I see it as an attempt
at humor it simply isn't funny enough.  

Oh, by the way, <mathew>, the keeper of the alt.atheism FAQ,
says r.h.f. is far more offensive to all groups since I took
over, and that your "it's more PC" claim only shows that you are, 
once again, a packet of fries short of a Happy Meal.
>
>Brawwwwkkk bawwk bawkkk .....

Typical Ronzone insult.  Yawn.

Also, the careful student of Ronzone's illness should note that
Phil did *not* reply to the gist of my article.  The question
he avoided was: "tell us the whole story, including the company
name, because I don't believe your version."

-- 
Maddi Hausmann                       |  The Truth is still The Truth, forsooth 
madhaus@netcom.com                   |  Even if believing It you refuse
Centigram Communications Corp        |  Complete disproof's uncouth and moot
San Jose California  408/428-3553    |  A Fundie's brain is dead.