From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Bill, admit the point before changing the subject.
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:10:42 GMT

In <1992Jul24.113957.19769@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
  (James G Keegan Jr) writes: > 
wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >>>

I've trimmed this significantly but tried to retain the 
most relevant parts.

>>>>> 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?
>
>> You're above engaging in hypocrisy?  Does that mean you've
>> never committed a hypocritical act or just that you don't do
>> it anymore?  Either answer is impressive.
>
>as it should be. don't you think that if it were a simply matter
>to point out my hypocrisy here, someone would have been happy to
>do so? but no one has. that should answer your question.

I hate to see people set themselves up like this.

>give it up bill. you lost your point of painting adrienne as a
>vilifier of you long ago. 

I think I proved it nicely.  Funny how perceptions differ.

>>> [...] adrienne did what several others did. she
>>> posted good wishes for phil's son.
> 
>> Come on, Jim.  What a crock.  She did no such thing.
>
>rather than carry thus further than one more iteration, why don't
>you post one example that disproves my statement.

Done.  Ad nauseum.

>>>> 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?        |
>                                                                | 
>> Nothing at all when the intent is clearly one of good will    |
>> and not laced with regrets about the kind of upbring the      |
>> child will be sub- ject to.                                   |
>                                                                |
>who are you to determine someone else's intent?  ---------------+

Let's see now.  You criticize my assumption immediately
after having made one yourself.  I thought you were above 
this hypocrisy stuff, Jim.  I'm disappointed.

>>> you are beginning to sound like you have a thing about adrienne.
> 
>> The post in question ranks right up there with some of the
>> most malicious I've seen on Usenet.
>
>did you forget "marrying blacks is flaky" already, when that
>remark was written to a white woman who was married to a black
>man?
>
>did you forget some of suzanne's baby-killer accusations to woman
>who have had abortions?

Her comments (to Phil) are in good company with those you mention.

>>>then just what are you trying to say bill?
> 
>> That I don't like being vilified.  :-)
>
>you haven't shown that you were.

Disagree.

>>>>> [...]  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.
> 
>> Apparently, though, you think it's fine to interpret them as
>> condescending...
>
>i think it's interesting. whatever makes you think i think it's
>"fine."

The particular adjective is (obviously) irrelevant.  The point
is that you interpret me as condescending yet imply that I should
not interpret Adrienne similarly.  Or will you now deny that as
well?

Bill