From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Value of white het-boys lives
Date: 2 Oct 92 20:25:54 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <1992Oct1.195338.20358@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.161601.24071@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep30.025130.25419@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>In article <1a9ufjINN5sg@bigboote.WPI.EDU> walkerr@yaya.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>I do agree with you that if women were more powerful, the world may be
>>>>>different, but not any more kinder or gentler.  I don't buy the idea
>>>>>that women are naturally more caring or gentler than men.
>>>>
>>>>	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.
>>> 
>>>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.
>>>
>>>Sorry...
>>
>>Actually, his claim is perfectly valid.  He clearly labels it as his own
>>opinion, 
>
>So what, I did also, you chose to ignore/omit it.

Don't see anything here that remotely looks like you said your own opinion or
experience;  I see a statistical claim:

>>>| Curiously, while everyone -claims- that if sexism is the problem, it
>>>| cannot also be the answer (when the topic was raised here anyway), it
>>>| also seems that these same posters have (each and every one) come out
>>>| in favor of legislation which requires an anti-male bias.

Even if there is more context that contains a claim of opinion or personal
experience, I don't see how such could pertain to this statement, except that
your opinion of what constitutes "anti-male" may not match mine.
(More below.)

>>              and states that the whole basis is his own experience.
>
>So you will now accept "From my observations" and I've also noticed" as
>the "whole basis is his own experience"? Get real, and get consistant.
>He gave no basis whatsoever, and the same qualifications as did I. 

The difference is that his statement is of observations colored by his world-
view; yours is of a more straight-forward count the articles nature.

>>Of course, it is my opinion that he is seeing the world poorly, that he is
>>sexist, that his experience is warped by his sexism, thus giving him a self-
>>fulfilling data-gathering sample.  But, hey, that's just my opinion.
>
>I rather thought you acted more like a judge, especially when you made
>demands and expressed your dissatisfaction.

I've already apologized several times for my tone when asking for data to back
up your count of posters.  I'll do so, sincerely, again, now.

>>>If you have not met Gorden Fitch, and Richard Lynch, and they have a
>>>single quantum of consistancy to their attack pattern, you soon will.
>>
>>My attack pattern, as far as I can tell, is when somebody posts something as
>>fact that I don't believe and has no data, I ask for it.  If you want to
>>clearly label statements as opinion and or state upfront that it's just your
>>impression of the world, you will be safe from my "attacks".
>
>When one is willing to -omit- the qualifiers from a sentence, then claim
>that it it unqualified, they can then drop any pretense fairness.
>You have ignored all such qualifications in your hunt for blood (or whatever). 
>Was it you or Gorden Fitch who claimed that the reference to a previous
>thread was a "blanket" statement? And who was it that claimed that my
>"point of view" might be "mistaken"? There was no objectivity in the
>attack from shortly after the beginning. Apologies IFF I have confused
>you and GF (is that acceptable?) anywhere above.

Didn't we go through this already?  Yes, we did.  I won't repeat it.
I do think *I* have been objective except for the first (and maybe second) of
my posts.  I have certainly become more objective as time goes on.
I will await responses to other posts for information about what qualifiers
were omitted by me.

>>BTW, you seem to be taking this personally.  I never intended that, and
>>certainly don't think of you as an enemy.
>>
>>>And they give each other points... 
>>
>>Not quite sure what you mean by this.
>
>I responded afterposting this, it was a clear misattribution of my name in a
>thread between Robert Shaeffer and (I think) Gorden Fitch. Below his
>little rebuttals he had markers like `[Fitch 2, Payne 0]`. Dare I expect
>even a correction?

No, it was me (RL) and Shaeffer.  (At least it was me with the score-card.
GF had nuttin' to do with that.
Correction has already been sent, with apologies.

>>PS:  Just in case it's not clear Rich, I had no intention of posting a response
>>to the original article.
>
>Of course not, you have no intention of answering for your posts, certainly
>not in the same fashion as was demanded of me. Or so it would seem. 

I said that I had no intention of flaming the original post until you said I
should to be consistent.
I then posted to explain the differences so that you would understand why I
ever started arguing with you.
You now claim that I have no intention of answering for my posts, especially
not in the same fashion as was demanded of you.

1.  I have apologised for every valid complaint you have had against me.
2.  I have already said that you are welcome to challenge any statement I have
made and I will provide data for it.

You HAVE confused me with GF on several occasions, and I suspect that is the
source of most of your (presumed) dislike of me.  You have apologised twice
here for this, and I cheerfully accept your apologies on this.

>Perhaps it's just as well, I doubt the issue could ever be clarified, or
>the myriad of assumptions ever totally erased.

One clarification that you seem to have missed here.  I saw the post, and chose
not to respond because of the disqualifiers in it.  I responded to *your* post
only after having already decided this.  So, (if you are willing to take my
word on this) it should at least be clear that if the issue is that I will
automatically flame anybody saying something non-PC/feminist, the answer is no.
I will flame statements of a statistical/stereotypical nature and request data
for such.

>And I will have to admit that running 2 similiar conversations (so to
>speak) on the same subject line was confusing, especially on little sleep.
>I seem to have confused what you posted for what Gorden Fitch posted
>once or twice, for which I apologise (only for that). I suggest that
>all 3 of us are guilty on that account. 

Again apology accepted, and agreed that none of us are innocent.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism