From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: Gays, the military and "privacy"
Organization: Society for Putting Things Over Phil Ronzone
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:52:31 GMT

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >
madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes: >  >
Phil: >   >>

>    >>Michels stepped down NOT because of lawsuits (any company
>    >>that size has lawsuits against it on an ongoing basis) nor
>    >>because of EEO complaints (again, any company that size will
>    >>have continual EEO complaints), but because of FOA.
>    >>
>    >Assertion without proof. Elaborate. At no point do you show
>    >he stepped down due to FOA. Your later remark shows he
>    >stepped due because of money, so you destroy your own
>    >argument.
>
>Multiple discussions of this very issue have been in both the WSJ, BW,
>and our own SJMN. As you seem to be of the very PC/fascist bent, I don't
>think you can even see the point, much less understand it.

That's not an elaboration, that's a sidestep.  Demonstrate how
the concept of FOA led to Michel's resignation by summarizine
these articles, not by alluding to them.

Your name-calling ("PC/fascist") only shows the utter worthlessness
of your arguments.  When I ask for proof, you insult.  No wonder
everyone here keeps telling you what a fool you are.

>A good size number of people, all of which have a financial stake in the
>IPO, put pressure on Michels to step down. He may very well return after the
>IPO. No coercive laws, no PC hysteria (although that is growing), just basic
>FOA.

You have yet to explain what FOA has to do with this.  The issue
is not FOA but money.

>    >Fine. You have now advanced the hypothesis that the senior
>    >Michels stepped down due to money. Demonstrate what this has
>    >to do with FOA.
>
>Boy, you really ARE dense. Probably the MOST effective way to use FOA is
>by money -- we even have names for some forms of this, like "boycott".
>Ever hear of the word "boycott" Maddi? Ah, good entity, I knew you could
>read it ...

No, you're the dense one.  You think I'm going to fall for your
uglt little bully games, but I won't.  Quit the rudeness and
answer the question: What does Michels stepping down have to
do with FOA.  You have NOT answered it, even if you claim you
did.  What you have answered is that he stepped down due to
monetary loss, and scandal.

>    >I've already addressed this issue, and it's even included in
>    >this article, but you choose to ignore it. Charges occur for
>    >rapes. Short of that, the way to go is a lawsuit or an EEO
>    >complaint. It's that simple.
>    >
>    >Your problem is you think FOA and PC apply to every
>    >situation. Get help. You're seriously off the deep end.
>
>Excuse me, let's try a "maddi rant" -- duh, this is the N'th time Maddi,
>are you ready to admit you were wrong aboyut Michels stepping down because
>of criminal charges?

Another lie.  I never said he stepped down due to "criminal charges,"
I said "charges."  Again you redefine terms.  You claimed that
charges = criminal charges.  Then you say I claimed he stepped
down due to "criminal charges."  I never said that; I said he
was *charged* with harassment.  Not criminally charged, charged.
Surely you can understand the difference.  This is the logical
fallacy of amphiboly, Phil.  You're so versatile!

My, my, looks like the seventh mistake Phil made in this one
thread.  You really ought to go into another field than
debate, because you're terrible at it.

>Michels did not step down because of any coercive law. He stepped down because
>it was shown to him that it was going to hurt his pocketbook and others if
>he didn't. I.e., an important group of people were NOT going to associate
>with him because of his actions -- actions which have yet to see any criminal
>charges (and from the accounts, there aren't any).

Another lie.  He stepped down because the lawsuits and EEO complaints
were in process and on their way.  If he hadn't left, he'd find his
ass in real trouble.  Since he's planning on fighting the lawsuits,
he's probably going to suffer even more financial loss. 

Quit deliberately shading the difference between civil and
criminal charges.

>Which brings up another point -- you seem to say that it is O.K. for a woman
>to put up with this shit because "she needs the job". Is this correct?
>And, what do we call a woman that accepts unwanted sexual advances in return
>for money? And, how many other women suffer because the first one or two
>encouraged it by their silence?

My, my, back to the loaded question.  This is boring, Phil; please
use a logical fallacy that you haven't tried yet.

I never said it was "okay," Phil, I said it was reality.  What do
we call a man who blames the victim?  I call him either scum or
vile.  Wear it, Phil.


-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
Newsgroups: ba.politics