From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Date: 23 Dec 92 08:47:23 GMT
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >
madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes: >    >
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >    >>

>    >>Packwood, the boobhead, is initially charge by women with
>    >>incidents that were all MORE than 10 years old. And what has
>    >>he done so far? Well, a lot of pinching and some fondling.
>    >>And the screams for his head mount, most politically
>    >>motivated.
>    >>
>    >Phil, unless you learn to get your facts straight, do not get
>    >into an argument with me. The person you are thinking of is
>    >not Packwood but Inouye. The Packwood charges stem over 15
>    >years and some are recent. Inouye is a Democrat, the charges
>    >are 10 years old, and there is only one accuser. There are
>    >now 15 Packwood accusers. Perhaps this is why they're not
>    >going after Inouye's head. I don't know. But do not confuse
>    >the two. You are prone to mix up facts and I will not let you
>    >get away with it.
>
>Gee, Maddi, why don't you learn to read? See that first word "initially"?
>Know what that means? Think about it, I know you can.

Gee, Phil, why don't you learn to read your own posts?  See those
words "incident*s* that were *all* MORE than 10 years old"?
Not the first "initial" incident, Phil.  Incidents, plural.  And
they are not *ALL* more than ten years old.

I won't be taken in by any of your tricks.  You lie.  You change
the subject.  You engage in the logical fallacies of ad hominem
attack, red herring, straw man, slippery slope, hasty generaliization,
and a number of others, and I intend to call you on them.  Your
posts are full of misstatements, and you think you can get away
with it because most people have put you in their kill file.

I notice you had nothing to say about my asking for attribution
on your claim that r.h.f. had a "PC stamp" to it.  That was a 
direct question, from me to you, and you ignored it.  This
wasn't a case of your dropping in on a post and commenting on
one item, as I did.  So, you avoid tough questions, too.  You're
a regular rhetorical giant.

>Packwood's initial accusation was made almost 2 years ago, over an incident
>that happened 9 year previous to that accusation. After the election, the
>initial accusations (there were more than one) were trumpeted in "the hope
>that more women would [find the courage] to step forward". And they did.
>First ten, then 15.
>
>And as you point out, Inouye, a Democrat, doesn't seem to have his
>scalp in danger. His accusation (assumed to be the first) was from
>Senator-elect Carol Mosley Braun, who [decision] to spur a political
>career was reportedkly outrage over Anita Hill's "mistreatment".

More Ronzone misstatements.  Inouye's accuser is not Braun, but his
barber.  Braun was not the only woman to seek the Senate because of
Hill, so the remainder of your statement is more misdirection on
your part.

>Thge key issue remains -- why NOW, why Republican mainly? These issues
>are a decade or more old in these cases. This has NO suggestion of a witch
>hunt?

What key issue?  It's only an issue for you, Phil, since all you
can see are Deomcrats' conspiracies.  I note you still accuse me
of being a PC-nik despite my comments that I want all harassers
punished.  What's the matter?  Don't like it when I don't fit into
your little theory of what you think I believe?  I suggest you
change your theory, because it's wrong.

>    >>I mean, WHY hasn't NOW gone after Ted Kennedy? Or Clinton for
>    >>Flowers?
>    >>
>    >Because Clinton was never accused of harassing Flowers?
>
>Oh, then NOW approves of a political official getting a State job for
>his mistress? I must be in error again, I thought NOW was against that
>sort of stuff.

The issue I was addessing was sexual harassment.  Stop changing the
subject.

>Of course, if it had been Bush, we would have no doubt been deafened by now
>by the howls of outrage ...

Assertion without proof, coupled with argumentum ad hominem.

>-- 
>I believe Gennifer Flowers.

No you don't.  You just like it when Democrats look bad.


-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553