From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:23:31 GMT

In <1992Sep5.115326.2501@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
In article <1992Sep4.145501.16114@acd4.acd.com>
	wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1992Sep2.120609.11146@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >>>

[deletions]

>>> he did just post and say that this type of remark
>>> is prejudicial when it is made to denigrate; an
>>> opinion i don't share.
> 
>> It reflects prejudice toward people who are truly
>> suffering from legitimate mental disorders, to be
>> sure.
>
> no it doesn't. it reflects an opinion towards the
> person to whom it was directed. i think DODie needs
> help.

Which is it?  In the comment just below, you suggest
that all such remarks are made to denigrate.  If so,
either the statement above is insincere, or you think
it's acceptable to denigrate the mentally disordered.
Neither seems particularly flattering for you.

>>> in fact, i'm not at all sure that i've ever seen
>>> this type of remark made in this newsgroup when it
>>> doesn't appear to be made to denigrate, at least
>>> denigrate to some degree.
> 
>> Me either.  Your admission is refreshing.
>
> all you had to do was ask.
>
>>> i've seen days where remarks like this are made
>>> several times, by several people. perhaps my post
>>> was the first bill ever noticed, although that
>>> does seen quite unlikely, doesn't it? in fact,
>>> several people posted remarks like mine on the
>>> same day that i did.
> 
>> "Gee Mom, it's not so bad.  Everyone else is doing
>> it, too".
>
> more likely, it implies that a lot of people share my
> opinion of DODie. i'm rather surprised that you don't,
> actually.

I'm only aware of one person on the net whose commentary is
markedly indicative of some cognitive disorganization.  That
person doesn't post in t.a.  Every other time I've seen the
mental health of various individuals questioned, the motive 
of the questioner seems far more obvious than mental status
of the target.

-> > i suspect he probably had another reason for
-> > singling out my remark. i hope he's not irritated
-> > at the outcome of our net.discussions on other
-> > matters.
-> 
-> The only thing that's mildly irritating about you,
-> Jim (and only over the past year or so), is your
-> evasiveness about your ad hominem behavior.

> perhaps you'd provide an example of what you're
> referring to bill.

This thread is itself an excellent example.  

You flippantly characterized Doug as mentally disordered.  
When I confronted you about the ad hominem (and prejudicial) 
nature of such a remark, you hastily retreated by claiming 
that you actually believe that he suffers from some mental 
illness.  If you *really* believe that, why would treat him 
so badly?  Either you're amazingly indifferent to the suf-
fering of others, or you're not honestly convinced that he 
has such a problem.  Which is it?

>> You and I have had a number of enjoyable discussions
>> in the (more distant) past, but your style has
>> changed significantly since then.
>
> i'm glad i've continued to grow, and develop, bill.

I preferred the pre-lowercase, WYSIWYG Jim.  He seemed far
more real.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion