From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Date: 6 Oct 1992 21:48:37 GMT
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com
Summary: He who lives by the sword will die by the sword.


In article <1992Oct5.221616.24946@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu writes:
|Would it be correct to state that you would not object to CJ posting
|such a message if she believes one to exist?

In a recent post, Keegan has made it clear that he is not going
to give permission.  However, he leaves me no other manner of
responding to his allegations.  His behavior leaves me with the
choice of letting the allegations go unanswered, or violating
netiquette by posting the email.  I resolve the dilemma in the
only way I can see.  I consider posting the email to be the
lesser of two evils.

I realize, also from his post, that he will simply accuse me of
forging this email.  The only response to that is to ask the
other recipients whether their archives (if they have them) or
memories match mine.  Such dishonesty astounds me, but maybe I'm
just naive.  I hope instead that he's simply forgotten about
this email, and will admit a mistake.  I would be happy if he
does this.

Two emails from Keegan, which were cc-ed to a number of other
people.  Note that he twice admits sending the mail to the
list.

------------------------------------------------------------------

From keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com  Thu May 28 22:36:25 1992
Received: from palladium.corp.sgi.com by eno.corp.sgi.com via SMTP (920330.SGI/911001.SGI)
	for cj id AA00587; Thu, 28 May 92 22:36:25 -0700
Received: from sgi.sgi.com by palladium.corp.sgi.com via SMTP (911016.SGI/911001.SGI)
	for cj@eno.corp.sgi.com id AA14320; Thu, 28 May 92 22:36:21 -0700
Received: from crdgw1.GE.COM by sgi.sgi.com via SMTP (911016.SGI/910110.SGI)
	for cj@eno.corp.sgi.com id AA26597; Thu, 28 May 92 22:36:11 -0700
Received:  by crdgw1.ge.com (5.57/GE 1.139)
	 id AA20072; Thu, 28 May 92 22:44:08 EDT
Received: from daisymae.crd.Ge.Com by sungod.crd.Ge.Com (4.1/SMI-4.0/GE-CRD @(#)sun4.ease	1.13 4/13/89)
	id AA17827; Thu, 28 May 92 22:43:09 EDT
Message-Id: <9205290243.AA17827@sungod.crd.Ge.Com>
From: keegan@crd.GE.COM (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Date: Thu, 28 May 92 22:43:34 EDT
       "Re: Strange Bedfellows" (May 28, 21:12)
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.4 1/31/90)
To: "Suzanne Lucia Demitrio" <GB0012@siucvmb.siu.edu>
Subject: Re: Strange Bedfellows
Cc: keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com, cj (C J Silverio)
Status: OR

"Suzanne Lucia Demitrio" writes:
-> In <1992May28.184105.26227@odin.corp.sgi.com>,
->                          cj@eno.corp.sgi.com  (C J Silverio) writes:
-> 
-> | I know that Keegan used the mailing list to try to get
-> | people to post in support of him.
-> 
-> Well, I *don't* know that, since I've been off that mailing
-> list since *last fall*.  You know *that* because you took me
-> off of it, at my request, when I got my new account.

whoops. i should have remembered this. but i didn't. i did try to
gain support from the list but i have forgotten that you no
longer received mailings.

cj. i think you should make a post to clear up any questions
about suzanne's integrity in this matter. retractions never get
the strength of reaction that an original does, but it seems to
me only fair.

-> Your comment sure does a great job of discrediting Keegan and
-> the people who agree with him, though, doesn't it?

i think cj has enough clas to handle this one.

-> | Are you letting
-> | friendship take precedence over thoughtfulness?
-> 
-> No.  Are you letting dirty debate tactics take precedence over
-> both?
-> 
-> I'll discuss this further in e-mail with you, Keegan, and the
-> other people from the mailing list.  I don't think that issues
-> of private friendship belong in public posts.

i agree.

if one of the arguments used against me publically, the one about
how all the pro-choicers should be nice to each other, has a
shred of validity, then we who have some ties should be able to
work through this, should we not?




-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.


------------------------------------------------------------------

From keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com  Sun May 31 14:38:21 1992
Received: from palladium.corp.sgi.com by eno.corp.sgi.com via SMTP (920330.SGI/911001.SGI)
	for cj id AA04697; Sun, 31 May 92 14:38:21 -0700
Received: from sgi.sgi.com by palladium.corp.sgi.com via SMTP (911016.SGI/911001.SGI)
	for cj@eno.corp.sgi.com id AA05905; Sun, 31 May 92 14:38:17 -0700
Received: from crdgw1.GE.COM by sgi.sgi.com via SMTP (911016.SGI/910110.SGI)
	for cj@eno.corp.sgi.com id AA00120; Sun, 31 May 92 14:38:12 -0700
Received:  by crdgw1.ge.com (5.57/GE 1.139)
	 id AA16332; Sun, 31 May 92 17:31:55 EDT
Received: from sunroof.crd.Ge.Com by sungod.crd.Ge.Com (4.1/SMI-4.0/GE-CRD @(#)sun4.ease	1.13 4/13/89)
	id AA14410; Sun, 31 May 92 17:29:57 EDT
Message-Id: <9205312129.AA14410@sungod.crd.Ge.Com>
From: keegan@crd.GE.COM (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Date: Sun, 31 May 92 17:31:07 EDT
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.4 1/31/90)
To: cj (C J Silverio)
Subject: wrapping things up
Cc: GB0012%SIUCVMB.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (suzanne lucia),
        eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu,
        keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com
Status: OR

having just returned from my long weekend, i thought i'd take a
crack at this.

C J Silverio writes:

-> On May 28, 10:43pm, James G. Keegan Jr. wrote:
-> | whoops. i should have remembered this. but i didn't. i did
-> | try to gain support from the list but i have forgotten that
-> | you no longer received mailings.
-> 
-> I found this action despicable, but I said nothing.  My
-> principles, after all, might not be shared.  It didn't seem
-> important to me.

i think mailing lists are for the express purpose of sharing
personal opinions/data. if i communicated with my email
correspondants with the same level of restraint i ue on the net,
there's be no reason for the mailing lists.

-> You're attacking Elizabeth the same way you attacked Darcy.  

i protest and object strongly to this comment. i've received more
complimentary mail on this thread than i have since the early
rasmussen days. once consistency that runs through the mail i
received is that i've been complimented at showing remarkable
restraint in the face of heavy flames ("uncharacteristic
restraint" was used a few times). i feel strongly that i've been
focusing on issues pretty much. i accept that the issues are
causing discomfort. and i admit that i enjoy that my posts are
generating petty flame as replies.

-> I expect this useless & foolish flamewar to last interminably,
-> for months and perhaps for years.

i don't know why.

-> Just like the one with Darcy.  

uh oh. well i haven't seen the net since thursday night. i may or
may not look later tonight. i hope this doesn't mean there are a
lot of flames i'll feel compelled to respond to.

-> But this time, instead of abusing an obvious twit, you two are
-> attacking one of the most articulate & principled people to
-> post to talk.abortion.  You may disagree with her opinions,
-> but she holds them because she's thought carefully about them.
-> She is utterly above your petty flames.

thank you for allowing disagreement with ms. bartley.

-> Hell-- *I* disagree with her position.  But I think I
-> understand why she holds it.

how is my disagreement with ms bartley, and suzanne lucia's any
different than your disagreement?

-> If this continues, to save myself unnecessary stress, I will
-> simply killfile you both.  It's the Right Thing to do when one
-> finds other poster's writings to be utterly worthless and/or
-> upsetting.  If I keep reading you two, I will only get angry &
-> start flaming people I don't really want to flame.  I don't
-> hate you, after all.  I just disagree with your points & your
-> tactics.

it's your right not to like the way anyone else expresses their
views in a talk group.

-> I found Suzanne's post accusing her of something like moral
-> bankruptcy to be thoughtless, flamish, and empty-headed.  I
-> said so politely.  I stand by what I said.  I have not seen
-> either of you acknowledge any of the points I made in that
-> post.  If you choose to concentrate on the issue of abusing
-> mailing lists to get support, you can certainly do so.  I will
-> simply say this:

->     - I found Keegan's mail to this list disgusting in
->     principle.  

i found it consistent with my understanding of all the mailings i
participate on, and there are quite a few of these. i'll respect
your opinion. i assume you'll respect mine.

->      - I'm afraid I assumed that he sent mail to everyone
->     saying approximately the same thing. If he did NOT discuss
->     this in mail with Suzanne, then I will retract that
->     charge, and merely register my continued disgust over such
->     baseless flames of a decent person.

no. suzanne and i never discussed this until long after the
discussion broke out. that was a bad assumption to post from.

-> This argument is stupid.  Think about it. What does it do,
-> other than alienate people who used to agree with you?

i don't think the argument is stupud, although i'm surprised it
has gone on for so long. i think it positions people. i think
understandign where people stand is relevant, particularly when
the stance we're talking about is one of the most critical ones
in the abortion debate, if not the most critical: that being the
wish to legislate against some abortion.

-> You've certainly alienated me.  I am sickened by what I read.
-> And now I've probably alienated you.  Sigh.

i'm not really alienated. i am a bit irritated as the way this
has been handled. you certainly have a right to disagree with me.
i think it was wrong for you to post something that you assumed
(based on no evidence whatsoever) in a way that could raise
questions about suzanne lucia's credibility and mine.

but i'll probably feel better after i read the way you handled
your corrections in t.a.

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