From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: "Attack Pattern" #2
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:33:27 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct2.001411.16680@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>walkerr@yaya.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker) writes:
>| >  ...   From my observations, women seem to be more underhanded and 
>| >backstabbing than men are.  Men more or less tell it like it is,
>| >but it seems that women will lie to someones face, supposably to keep
>| >from hurting their feelings and then go tell everyone else what they 
>| >couldn't tell this person to their face.  I've also noticed that this 
>| >sort of thing goes away with age.  Now I'm gonna get my head chewed off
>| >for stereotyping, but these are MY OPINIONS so please be gentle.
>
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne):
>| Sorry, you will be asked for names, dates, and thousands of irrelevant
>| questions to back your -assertions-. Failure to provide proper peer-reviewed
>| references, citations, and your entire lifes history will invalidate your
>| claim, as well as your lifes experiences. ...
>| If you have not met Gord[o]n Fitch, and Richard Lynch, and they have a
>| single quantum of consistancy to their attack pattern, you soon will.
>
>Wrong, Rich.  Robert Walker's remarks are just what he
>says they are, stereotyping, vacuous remarks following
>a banal prejudice.  They aren't worth responding to.  It's
>been my experience that women are far more straightforward
>than men, 

SO then you think that -you- are justified in generalizing from your
experiences, while I am not (once again, if I have confused what you
and Richard Lynch have said, apologies. As near as I can tell, you
were in complete agreement however). Why, pray tell, do you feel that
your experiences are valid, while mine are not? And by what means do 
you invalidate Robert Walker's experiences as well? Is it not possible
that there is at least a grain of validity in all views mentiones,
even if you cannot except the conclusions? 

>             possibly because confrontations where women are
>involved are far less likely to result in physical combat,
>but there's no way of proving anything or even gathering
>evidence, because so much depends on interpretation.

Is not your generalization an "interpretation" as well? 
 
>Your remarks, on the other hand, were interesting to me
>because there was some possibility of exploring the
>difference between your perceptions and mine.  

The problem that I had is that you did not deal with what I had
posted, but your conclusions based upon what I had posted. For
example, I post that equality has never existed, and you read this
as 'equality cannot exist because...'. By the time you actually
asked, it seemed like answering would just be asking for my
answer to be misinterpreted and this seemed an unwise thing to do.

Had you asked right off, things would have probably gone much 
differently.

>                                                   For
>instance, on the matter of people advocating anti-male
>legislation, it would have been possible for you to 
>quote some articles and point out why you thought that
>they did what you said they did.  

I did not make this up, imagine what you will.

>                                      Unfortunately, my
>questions seem to elicit a feeling of persecution in
>you.  It doesn't seem useful to pursue our discussion.

You mean when I refused to answer your demands, and when I
refused to support what you claimed was my position but was not?
There was no discussion, not from the first reply. And I really
doubt that there is anything to be gained from this point.

>-- 
> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
>( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )


Rich

payner@netcom.com