From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Bill, admit the point before changing the subject.
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:28:18 GMT

In <1992Jul22.143558.17964@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >>>

>> As I didn't follow that particular exchange in any detail
>> (though I was aware of it), I can't really offer much in the
>> way of an opinion.  But if the standard of proof by which you
>> measure Siren's behavior is the same one you apply to me, then
>> I will remain skeptical of your assessment.
>
>this strikes me as quite uncharacteristic of you bill. let me be
>sure that i understand the implications of your comment. let's
>say you purchase a new shirt july 28th and i accuse someone of
>stealing that shirt on july 4th. does anything strike you as out
>of sync here? let me give you some help here. the shirt, in our
>little analogy, didn't exist on the date i accused you of
>stealing it. so, you couldn't have done so. that's the corner
>siren painted herself into. the faq didn't exist on the date she
>accused me of attacking it. (of course, at that time, i was
>contributing to the faq as anyone who had read it would have
>known). in her case, it was amusing watching her whine about
>having been exposed in an out-and-out lie.  i had expected more
>of you.

Well, if that's how it really happened then I'll admit that Siren 
is/was in a rather difficult position.  

>>>she did not quote you as saying something you
>>>didn't say.
> 
>> She said:
>>     > Double quotes generally indicate a quotation
>>     > attributable to the subject involved.
>> 
>> And then proceeded to call me a liar.  I not only asserted
>> that double quotes are used for other purposes, but used a
>> post of hers to demonstrate that she realized as much.
>
>i read that post too bill. my interpretation is, as i said, that
>you seemed to attribute words to here which she hadn't written.

Seems like verifying the accuracy of one's interpretation is a good 
idea before engaging in name-calling, don't you think?

>>>> None of us are *capable* of imposing any new structure on
>>>> an entire newsgroup, so the word doesn't even apply.  This
>>>> sounds like the standard "pro-lifers, don't impose your
>>>> religious beliefs on the rest of us" rhetoric.
> 
>>> agree that siren's approach was much like the anti-choicer's
>>> approach. 
> 
>> I didn't mention any "anti-choicer's approach".  I referred to
>> pro-choice rhetoric.
>
> i interpreted it otherwise.

See now, it's rather easy to misinterpret something without any
subsequent name calling, isn't it?

>>>>>> Are people for whom you have no respect not permitted to
>>>>>> offer some suggestions?  Since such suggestions might
>>>>>> have little or nothing to do with their position on
>>>>>> abortion, your reaction to this seems inappropriate.
>
>>>>> what reaction is that, bill? 
>
>>>> The one that prompted you to criticize Siren.
> 
>>> are you suggesting there is something wrong with pointing out
>>> hypocrisy?
> 
>> Not if one is above engaging in it.
>
>so you agree, finally, that there was nothing wrong with my
>pointing out siren's hypocrisy?

You're above engaging in hypocrisy?  Does that mean you've never
committed a hypocritical act or just that you don't do it anymore?  
Either answer is impressive.

>>>>>> I guess it just depends on how we define villify, Jim.
>>>>>>>> My dictionary includes the following synonyms: abuse,
>>>>>>>> asperse, debase, revile, slander, defame, calumniate.
>>>>>>>> Seems like a pretty good fit to me.
> 
>>>>>>> not to me. 
> 
>>>>>> I'll bet you are (or were) in the minority.
>
>>>>> perhaps. that of course has nothing to do with whether or
>>>>> not i'm right, does it?
> 
>>>> Actually, it probably does, since appropriate social
>>>> behavior is both defined and informally governed by the
>>>> expectations of the majority.
> 
>>> nice try. we're not talking about appropriate social
>>> behavior.  we're talking about siren's views of what is and
>>> what is not an appropriate post.
> 
>> No we were not.  We were talking generally about Adrienne's
>> posting style, and specifically about her cruel response to
>> Phil Buckland.
>
> no bill, you raised that issue in response to one of siren's
> posts on what is and what is not appropriate posting.

...in which my comments to Adrienne (re vilification) were 
addressed, which is the only reason I'm having this conver-
sation with you.  

>>>>> and you did note that adrienne expressed good wishes for
>>>>> phil's son, did you not?
> 
>>>> She expressed *her* wishes for Phil's son, knowing very
>>>> well that such sentiment would be offensive to Phil.  That
>>>> post had *nothing at all* to do with Phil's son - it had to
>>>> do with Phil.
> 
>>>have you been reading adrienne's mind again, bill?
> 
>> No need.  Just takes a bit of simple deductive reasoning.
>> Phil's newborn son could not read, so it was apparently not
>> written to him.  Phil is the only one for whom her response
>> could have any significant meaning.  Do *you* think Phil would
>> have responded favorable to her reply?  Now you probably won't
>> answer this since you're "not a reader of other people's
>> minds", but you *were* willing to make some assump- tions
>> about Siren a few paragraphs ago, as in:
>> 
>>    >siren apparently felt that anyone who disagreed with her 
>>    >was flaming or villifying.
>> 
>> So maybe you will answer my question.
>
> sure i will. adrienne did what several others did. she posted
> good wishes for phil's son. 

Come on, Jim.  What a crock.  She did no such thing.

>as in the case of all the other posts
>on phil's son, the posts were intended to be read by phil. what's
>wrong with expressing good wishes about an offspring to a parent?

Nothing at all when the intent is clearly one of good will and not
laced with regrets about the kind of upbring the child will be sub-
ject to.

> you are beginning to sound like you have a thing about adrienne.

The post in question ranks right up there with some of the most malicious
I've seen on Usenet. 

>>>>>>> i think adrienne said what a lot of people thought.
>
>>>>>> If so, why was she criticized by numerous pro-choicers
>>>>>> for her comments?
>
>>>>> you'll have to ask them, bill. unlike some others, i
>>>>> don't read minds. btw, are you sure the criticisms were
>>>>> from pro-choicers?
> 
>>>> Yes, I'm sure.  Dean Kaflowitz for one (sorry to bring you
>>>> into this, Dean).  There were a number of others.
> 
>>> i like dean. and i respect him. but i'm not ready to accord
>>> him the mantle of determining what is appropriate and what is
>>> not.  he'll be pleased, no doubt, that you seem to be.
> 
>> I like Dean, too.  But he wasn't the only pro-choicer to take
>> exception to Adrienne's post.  As I said, I think you were in
>> the minority.
>
> but you never made that point a relevant one.

Seems relevant now.

>>>>>>> perhaps you don't like the way she said it, but that's
>>>>>>> not the issue, is it?
> 
>>>>>> I think that's a big part of the issue here.  
>
>>>>> then you agree that your argument is with style, rather
>>>>> than substance?
> 
>>>> Getting past the derogation to the content is often rather
>>>> difficult.  It makes one wonder which is more important to
>>>> the actual meaning of the respective post.
> 
>>> is that a 'yes?'
> 
>> No.  
>
>then just what are you trying to say bill?

That I don't like being vilified.  :-)

>>>>>>> i like the way adreinne posts bill. 
> 
>>>>>> Gee, Jim, maybe you'd have a different opinion if she
>>>>>> treated you the way she treats the average pro-lifer.
>
>>>>> and what wat is that, bill?
> 
>>>> You're becoming oblique; "that" is what we've been talking
>>>> about for several days, now.
> 
>>> are you "villifying" me now?  i asked you to explain what you
>>> wrote. you didn't.
> 
>> Oh, I suspect you understood "what I wrote" quite well, given
>> that you're a fairly articulate guy.  But I'll rephrase it if
>> you like.  For an intersting intellectual exercise, try a
>> little empathy - put yourself on the receiving end of her
>> posts and then tell me how much you like them.
>
> i am on the recaiving end of her posts bill, just as is everyone
> else who reads her posts. as i have said before, i like her
> posts.

Then please provide a sample of a post wherein she's directed 
some derogatory comments toward you.

>>>>>>> i like what she writes to you; i like what she used to
>>>>>>> write to tommy kelly and phil buckland. she makes her
>>>>>>> points strongly which, i imagine, causes you discomfort
>>>>>>> ... and it should, imo.
> 
>>>>>> Oh, no, I enjoy being regularly condescended to.
>
>>>>> you don't do too badly at it yourself
> 
>>>> Certainly, we all do.  But it's not characteristic of my
>>>> posts.
> 
>>> that's your opinion, bill. if someone were to ask me to
>>> describe the way your posts have been described to me over
>>> the years, it would be "condescending."
> 
>> Opinions vary.
>
> yes they do. and the expression of those differing opinions
> should not always be interpreted as a personal attack or a flame.

Apparently, though, you think it's fine to interpret them as
condescending...

>>>>>>> btw, how many of these folks have you accused of
>>>>>>> villification?
> 
>>>>>> Are you keeping track?  
>
>>>>> not really. but i do have a sense that you've not accused
>>>>> any of them of villification, except rasmussen, and that
>>>>> just once when you were kinda embarassed into doing so.
> 
>>>> Maybe it's just flaw in my character, but I'm reluctant to
>>>> vilify anyone.
> 
>>> it must pain you to argue so long about adrienne then.
>
>> You bet.  
>
> you're not one of those folks who think if something hurts it
> must be good for you, are you?

Classic Russ Lawrence.  But no, I'm not.

>>>>>> But it's really unnecessary - there are plenty of
>>>>>> pro-choicers doing that for me.  At any rate, I really
>>>>>> try to avoid making such accusations.  Messy stuff, and
>>>>>> normally a no-win proposition since someone will always
>>>>>> come back with "but what if you *are* a liar?"  Uh huh.
>
>>>>> not a bad point. you probably wish you'd never begun this
>>>>> villification thing, eh? in any case, if you do see it as
>>>>> a no-win proposition, feel free to drop it.
> 
>>>> Participation in talk.abortion is, itself, a no-win
>>>> proposition.
> 
>>> then why do you do it?
> 
>> To learn about pro-choice values, primarily.
>
> then you are winning in a manner of speaking, are you not?

Yes, despite the accompanying disappointment.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion