From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: The end of Ms. Hausmann's defamation campaign.
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 15:51:55 GMT

I dug out my dictionaries from the moving boxes to check the meanings
of jibe and jive.  Here's what I found!

jive
  v. slang (orig. U.S.).
  1 b intr.   To make sense; to fit in.   U.S.   Cf.  JIBE v.

I guess that puts and end to Ms. Hausmann's defamation campaign.

Let's suppose, though, that this is not a valid meaning of "jive."
I wish to reply to Ms. Hausmann's accusations.

madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:

>No, the spelling flame is a crucial indicator of the way Gregg's mind
>works.  You see, if you won't tell the truth about something trivial,
>you certainly won't when your personal beliefs are at stake.  I will
>demonstrate that Gregg is once again misrepresenting what happened,
>and this is something he has done often in debates here.

Despite the claim above, Ms. Hausmann made no attempt to demonstrate
the latter.  In short, she was dishonest.

>Side note: who is "he"?  Last time I checked, I was quite female.

My apologies to Ms. Hausmann for any unintended offense.  I believe
this is our first encounter.  I also suspect it will be our last.  Ms.
Hausmann has taken a trivial aside in a discussion and attempted to
give it significance.  And she claims *I'm* wasting our time!

>>If Mr. Hausmann wants to take issue with something I've written, he
>>will kindly address it directly.  Spelling flames are of no interest
>>(especially when I'm not the one responsible for the misspelling).

>Mr. Skinner, I have great issue with most things you write.  It is
>not because I disagree with them, it is because I have observed that
>your discussion style is dishonest.  You have a perfect right to
>your opinion.  Were I take offense is when you engage in convuluted
                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^
>arguments and then deliberately misstate things, hoping to trip
 ^^^^^^^^^          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                   ^^^^     
>people up.  But, rather than assert that this is your style, allow
 ^^^^^^^^^
>me to prove it.  Hang on...

The example described is that of my continuing a spelling error (which
really wasn't an error after all, but let's ignore that for now) after
I was corrected.  I neither "deliberately misstated" the spelling, as
I thought it still correct, nor did I hope to "trip anyone up" by
misspelling a word (how would one do so?).  Neither have my arguments
been demonstrated to be convoluted, as spelling mistakes do not a
twisted argument make.  In short, the promised proof did not appear.

[I'll shorten this as it contains headers and entire chunks of
unrelated text.  Ms. Hausmann's words remain intact.]

>*** First, here's the original source*** 

>#How do you suppose that opposition
>#to birth control, sex education and abortion jives with this?
>#                                             ^^^^^

>*** and Greg uses the word when replying ***

(As long as we're being picky about spelling, note that it's "Gregg"
as is obvious just two lines later in the post.)

>Article 32770 of alt.atheism:
>From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)

>#When you couple it with advocacy of abstinence (as seems to be the
>#case with most who oppose the above), it jives well. [...] 
>                                          ^^^^^

>*** Okay, that's one wrong usage, and not the sort of thing to
>    flame someone over, but watch him use it again ***

Gee, no one corrects the spelling, and I spell it again the only way
it has been spelled so far.  Is anyone surprised?

[second example of my using the word "jive" deleted]

>*** Now, here is the first correction of the word ***

>#I think we're all looking for the word "jibe", here, for what it's
>#worth.

Jim notes that this is a trivial part of our discussion ("for what
it's worth").

>*** Note that Jim used the word properly in a sentence as well as
>    suggest a correction.  When Gregg replies, he ignores this and
>    goes back to the incorrect usage.  (Note the missing sentence
>    in the quote) ***

>#Yes, the latter is what I am talking about.  Unfortunately it doesn't
>#require much sex education.  Unfortunately it fails in practice.  But
>#it "jives," which is all that was required.
>    ^^^^^^^^

>*** Now watch, he does it again! ***

>#No.  You simply asked how they "jive".  [...]
>                                ^^^^^^^

If we're going to be picky, I'll have to say that both these examples
are invalid.  The words in quotation marks are quotes.  Thus, the
spelling should be attributed to the person quoted.  (Of course, I
thought the spelling correct, but that matters not.)

>*** Now, here is the *second* correction ***

>#Are you picking on my illiteracy again?  As Jim Perry pointed out,
>#the word is "jibe."

Notice that Mr. Graham asks whether I am picking on his illiteracy.
That was not my intent at all.  I thought his usage was acceptable.
As we have not always gotten along well, I knew I'd better say
something conciliatory in my reply to smooth over any unintended
insult.  That is what I did:

>*** And finally, this is where he refuses to admit he is wrong, but
>    takes the cowardly route of blaming the language!  And then he
>    misuses it again! ***

>#I think you were correct with "jive."  As it is something of a slang
>#word, the spelling may vary reigionally.

I'm no language expert, but it looks like I got this much right.

>Well, sure looks to me like he made a mistake, was called on it,
>ignored it, continued making the mistake, was called on it a second
>time, and still insisted he was right!

And guess what?  He was!  I hope an apology is forthcoming.
--
Gregg Skinner                 I do not speak for any organization.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:16532 alt.politics.bush:4096 alt.politics.marrou:1045 talk.politics.misc:43789 alt.politics.elections:12440 talk.politics.theory:4045