From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Bill, admit the point before changing the subject.
Date: 24 Jul 92 11:39:57 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

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.

that's an odd way of putting it. she lied. she got caught. at
first, some of the group who call themselves pro-choice and at
the same time want to legislate against abortion gave her limited
support. soon, they all bailed out. no surprise.

[re adrienne]
[...]
-> >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?

i won't argue with that, but i don't agree with it fully either.

[...]
-> >> 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?

what's your point?

[...]
-> >>>> 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.

as it should be. don't you think that if it were a simply matter
to point out my hypocrisy here, someone would have been happy to
do so? but no one has. that should answer your question.

[...]
-> >>>> 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.

give it up bill. you lost your point of painting adrienne as a
vilifier of you long ago. 

-> >>>>> 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:
[...]
-> >> 
-> >> 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.

rather than carry thus further than one more iteration, why don't
you post one example that disproves my statement.

-> >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.

who are you to determine someone else's intent?

-> > 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.

did you forget "marrying blacks is flaky" already, when that
remark was written to a white woman who was married to a black
man?

did you forget some of suzanne's baby-killer accusations to woman
who have had abortions?

come now.

-> >>>>>>> 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.

i doubt it. you and i are the only ones talking about it.

-> >>>>>>> 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.  :-)

you haven't shown that you were.

[...]
-> >> 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 can't do that. but i didn't claim i could either. why do you
ask me to support something i never said?

-> >>>>>>> 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...

i think it's interesting. whatever makes you think i think it's
"fine."

-> >>>>>>> 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.

this will please russ since he always tried so hard to emulate
me. but thanks anyway. russ was a brilliant poster when he was
posting. i'll email him your comment, and my reply.

-> >>>>>> 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.

that's life bill.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion