From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: More on guys who aren't dating Ed Wright
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:23:21 GMT
Distribution: soc
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <MARTINC.92Oct3150140@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:


>Ed, here's just one example drawn from your recent post.

>Here's what you quoted of what I said and your reply:

>    In <MARTINC.92Sep30103015@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:

>    >   >   Colucci's post.  Or your quotations from the DUMB Book of Diet
>    >   >   and Fitness about how exercise improves a person's outlook on
>						      ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^
>    >   >   life, increases creativity and intelligence, improves your sex
>	    ^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    >   >   life, etc., etc.

>    >   >Ah.  We're back to "is that your medical opinion, Dr. Wright?"  You've
>    >   >neither the expertise nor the data to have an opinion.  You've proven it
>    >   >time and again.

>    >Ed, you have this consistent problem of conflating "better physical
>    >shape" with "better in every way, physically, morally and spiritually."

>    Gosh, I thought a person's outlook on life, creativity, and intelligence
>    *were* moral, intellectual, and spiritual characteristics.  And when I
>    referred to your statements on those topics, you didn't deny them; you
>    attacked me for daring to *question* them.  Now you're backing off again. 

>And here's the whole paragraph from which you quoted:

>    Ed, you have this consistent problem of conflating "better
>    physical shape" with "better in every way, physically, morally and
>    spiritually."  If you're in better physical shape, you will indeed
>    look better and feel better.  If you feel better, you may well
>    find yourself doing better at other things.  I doubt very much
>    that being in better physical shape will make you a saint.  But
>    then, being in worse physical shape doesn't seem to have qualified
>    you for sainthood either.  However, if you persist in saying that
>    I said that being in better physical shape makes you a better
>    person physically, mentally, morally, and spiritually, then I'll
>    persist in feeling I've been misquoted.

>Now, let's just look at what you deleted for your reply:  "I doubt...
>that being in better physical shape will make you a saint."  I do doubt
>that: In fact, I wonder whether physical conditioning can really make
>you "better" mentally.  (I think you may well find yourself being more
>creative, but that I suspect is a side effect of not being troubled by
>other complaints.)  I don't think I've suggested anything about the
>morals of people who exercise.

>But the real problem with this whole argument is that one cannot argue
>*with* you -- one can only argue *at* you.

>You don't read closely.


You can feel any way you like, Charlie.  Reading closely, I note that 
your original did *not* say that exercise wouldn't make you mentally,  
morally, or spiritually better.  Yes, you did say it wouldn't make
you a saint, or rather that you doubted it would make you a saint.
But making a person morally, intellectually, and spiritually better
is a far cry from making him a saint.  You now appearing to be backing
off on the mental part -- sort of.  You do still claim that exercise
may well make you more creative, and while you no doubt try to argue
the point, creativity is an intellectual, moral, and spiritual activity.

You've also attempted to sneak in a lie by interpreting "moral" in
its most limited sense.  And you flat out lied again when you said
you'd never suggested anything about the morals of people who exercise.
You have said time and time again that exercise "builds character,"
etc.

Please note that I didn't delete a single word of your lurid, purple 
prose above.  So you can't claim I "misquoted" you by leaving out one
of your long, rambling, off-the-topic passages this time. 

>You don't listen to the arguments.

>You remember, at best, selectively.

Well, it's really hard for me to remember "facts" about my life
that never happened.  All those long bicycle rides you tell me
I took, for example.  Or my saying that I wouldn't go out with
anyone who didn't have a PhD, to take a more recent example.

Now, let me tell you a few of your vices.

You waffle on your position.  You say something in one post,
then appear to deny it in another, then reaffirm it in another.
You refuse to allow yourself to be pinned down on anything.

You lie.

You lie about things I have said.

You lie about things you said.

You lie about things you said and then accuse me of misquoting you.

You change the subject and then, when I make a reply on the original 
subject, you interpret it in the context of the new subject and accuse
me of misquoting you. 

You lie so often you can't even keep track of what you've said. You
are now telling lies that contradict yourself.

You lie, and then when I catch you, you tell new lies to cover
up your lies.

>And for all the thrashing about that you do, you can't quite hide from
>the fact that you feel like shit, and you are so frightened of the
>threat to your identity that you can't risk change, even if it would
>make you feel better.

Thanks for telling me again how I feel, Charlie.  But once again,
here are the unpleasant facts for you.  I'm proud of the way I
live my life.  That's something that you can't say with a straight
face.  Not in light of your repeated statements about how awful it 
is that you don't exercise more.  You have allowed other people --
the authors of that book you're so proud of -- to set your standards
of self-worth.  I haven't.  And that's the one thing you really can't
stand.







Newsgroups: soc.singles