From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Re: Argue assumptions, ignore the post, was (Re: Property, Patriarchy)
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:20:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: ils.1992Oct2.192026.9500
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <1992Oct1.221655.3482@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.165740.7246@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep30.040201.402@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep24.180027.10232@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>>>[ long discussion about possibility of political and legal equality ]
>>>>
>>>>gf:
>>>>| >                                         ....  In other
>>>>| >words, given your doubts about equality, what is your
>>>>| >conclusion about relations between the sexes?  
>>>>
>>>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne):
>>>>| The nature of any relationship us up too those having said relationship.
>>>>
>>>>gf:
>>>>| >Would you apply the same theory to other groupings, e.g.
>>>>| >races or ethnic groups, religions, regions?
>>>>
>>>>rp:
>>>>| Your relationship to any group is between yourself and the group. 
>>>>
>>>>Okay, then, contrary to what I thought you were saying
>>>>before, your position seems to be that equality between the 
>>>
>>>You mean, contrary to your assumptions, as I posted nothing on this.
>>>
>>
>>He's admitting to an honest mistake about what he thought you said.  What more
>>do you want?  Obviously, you want to label it assumptions.  :-^
> 
>OK, I did not acknowledge the admission, I do now. I still do not see
>how that justifies the invention of the issue so that it could be
>argued. 

The admission is one of a mistake, without intent to harm.  You still seem to
paint it as an intentional violation of your sacred words.  :-)

>>>>sexes, or at least between members of different sexes (and 
>>>>other groups as well) is not only possible but practical, if 
>>>>maybe somewhat difficult and not fully achieved yet.  Have I
>>>>got it right?  I don't think many people around here would 
>>>>argue with that.  Certainly not many feminists.
>>>>
>>>>In this thread, there follows a long discussion that began
>>>>with this passage, which got some people excited:
>>>
>>>No, it got you excited. And then Robert Lynch jumped in, or was it the
>>>other way around? But it has been just the two of you, one with serious
>>>perception problems. I should not be surprised I guess. I have recieved
>>>email from several others who also objected to what I did not say. At
>>>least they accepted clarification rather than attempting to force me
>>>to support their assumptions. The initial product ramp is done, no more
>>>12 hour days, 7 days a week. Lets finish this.
>>
>>RL:
>>Actually, I think we both posted complaints about this passage, and then we
>>(I jumped in, so I'm responsible) ganged up on you.  :-)
>>
>>>>rp:
>>>>>| 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. I mean, it
>>>>>| -is- the PC thing to -say-, is it not? I claim that while most will give
>>>>>| lip service to the idea, many would do differently given the chance. 
>>>>>| This will be justified of course. I'm sure that similiar justification
>>>>>| eased the minds of the Japanese-Americans imprisoned during WW twice. 
>>>>
>>>>This passage seems to me to make the positive assertion that
>>>>"each and every one", or at least many, posters have come
>>>>out "in favor of legislation which requires an anti-male
>>>>basis."  I can't recall seeing a single article of this kind
>>>>in alt.feminism, which is why I asked for references.  After
>>>>a lot of discussion, Rich says, 
>>>
>>>Was it you or Richard Lynch who claimed that this was a blanket statement?
>>
>>RL:
>>I'm not sure, but I THINK:
>>1.  Gordon said it was a blanket statement.
>>2.  You (Rich Payne) said it wasn't.
>>3.  I (Rich Lynch) pointed out passages I believed were "blanket".
>
>One of you two even claimed that the group probably contained 3 or 4
>members, in the same paragraph as claiming that it was a blanket
>statement. Things like this lead me to the conclusion that this
>was a flame-fest, and accusations would fly regardless of what was
>posted. Up till now, that seems to be fairly accurate. This post
>breaks the mold, but it does not validate the events of the past, or
>the topics, most of which were pure invention.

I suggested that your sample size may have been small (eg 3 or 4) and asked
you how large the sample was, as far as you could remember.  Don't think you
ever posted that, BTW.

>>>>rp:
>>>>| I did not save the posts. In my experience (also not recorded for your
>>>>| examination) if it is necessary to save the posts, then it is not worth
>>>>| the trouble. Communication is lost in a word battle. He said this, you
>>>>| said that... The posts have probably expired, if they are archived
>>>>| somewhere, and you must know who said what, go dig them up. I will not 
>>>>| as it will be a pointless waste of time and effort.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not doing word battle, 
>>>
>>>You're so badly in need of clarification only because you misintrepret
>>>what I post, then assume further. And I doubt more words will provide
>>>clarification, you seem to be out for blood for some reason. If that is
>>>the case, a mutual understanding would no doubt be less than satisfactory.
>>>
>>>I'm asking for clarification.
>>>
>>>It's so simple, you probably will not understand it. Those who posted in
>>>response seemed to favor leglislation with an anti-male bias, reasons given
>>>were to 'even things up', more or less. Noone who posted (as I remember)
>>>clearly stated that they did not favor this type of leglisation. Now you can
>>>go assume that everyone reading this netgroup posted their opinion, and that
>>>the survey results will have any relation to the thread, but I doubt you
>>>could show that it was so, so the proof would be as valid as the original
>>>paragraph, which seems to trouble you greatly.
>>
>>RL:
>>Actually, it's so simple, I understand it just fine, I just don't believe it
>>and want some proof.
>
>Proof is not available, unless there are archives avaialable somewhere.
>Conversly, you cannot disprove anything either. So it comes down to
>no more than you remember differently than I. 
>
>>You are absolutely correct that the survey I am taking (see Subject: Survey) is
>>not a fair judge of whether what you said is correct or not.  I *do* think it
>>will be interesting to compare the results of the survey with your statement,
>>just to see if, perhaps, the alleged posts you discuss were, in fact, an
>>anomoly (presuming they exist).
>>
>>>>Maybe you see some articles differently than I do, but I
>>>>can't examine them from your point of view if you won't say
>>>>which ones they are.  On the other hand, my I suggest that
>>>>your point of view may be the mistaken one?  Is that
>>>>possible, do you think?
>>>
>>>A point of view cannot me mistaken. This is nonsense. You may doubt that
>>>what I recall is accurate, and you seem to. But to say that my point
>>>of view is mistaken deserves the same miscroscopic examination as you
>>>have been giving my posts. Please demonstrate that this is in any way
>>>meaningful. If it is not, and it is not, then perhaps your other observations
>>>are also flawed. 
>>
>>RL:
>>FWIW, I also think point of view is a poor choice of words.  It is entirely
>>possible that you were absolutely correct;  It is entirely possible that you
>>fabricated the alleged posts in your own mind.
>
>There has been much fabrication during this exchange of posts. And I have
>not been the fabricator. Most of the issues being pressed are baseless
>fabrication. So I must ask the significance of this claim. And your
>repeated use of the word "deprecating" also comes to mind.

The only issue I've ever pressed has been that of validation of the claim as to
posters.  I've only responded to your denial of deprecation (originated by GF)
with one example (below) that I found deprecating.  ie, I provided data to back
up a claim (made by GF).

>>You are more than welcome to examine these statements as microscopically as
>>you wish.
>> 
>>>>I'm cutting out part of the discussion here which begins
>>>>gf:
>>>>||||||Which feminists, exactly, wish to reverse patriarchy and set 
>>>>||||||up a system that suppresses men as they have been suppressed? 
>>>>
>>>>and comes down to
>>>>
>>>>||I'd like to know who some of the others in the public eye
>>>>||are.
>>>>
>>>>because Rich says I'm putting words in his mouth, so to
>>>>speak.  Just one note; I said:
>>> 
>>>No, you are making something into something which it was not. Which
>>>is difficult without going far beyond the original text. I will
>>>give you an A for effort, unfortunately, your citizenship is unsatisfactory.
>>>
>>>>gf:
>>>>||                                                       If 
>>>>||you're going to deprecate me and others I'd at least like 
>>>>||some facts.
>>>>
>>>>rp:
>>>>| You have taken things personally, for no reason. This is your problem,
>>>>| not mine. Or can you back up that assertion? Since I never mentioned
>>>>| your name or referred to you, this might be difficult.
>>>>
>>>>I'm a feminist and also in the category of persons of whom
>>>>you said -- these are your words --
>>>
>>>Which part of the below sentence fragment do you claim refers to you,
>>>or even to feminists? Again, you make assumptions, and go from there.
>>>As I said, this is your problem, deal with it. Preferably off the net.
>>> 
>>>>     these same posters have (each and every one) come out
>>>>     in favor of legislation which requires an anti-male bias.
>>>>
>>>>Unless you approve of people coming out in favor of
>>>>legislation which requires an anti-male bias, this statement
>>>>is a deprecation.
>>>
>>>No, this was a summary of what was posted. It can be accurate, or not,
>>>but as it refers to a real event, and makes no value judgements ,it 
>>>cannot be depreciating. Lets add this to your assertion that a point of
>>>view can be mistaken, just more noise.
>>
>>There can be no doubt that some of the remarks you made concerning myself (eg
>>that I ask someone who cares like my mother) are deprecating.  
>
>I merely thought that if *anyone* in the world would care what you wanted,
>that you mother was the one likely candidate. If this is not true, then
>I was mistaken, and I will apologize for that. Not for whatever you read
>into it. But then, that has been the main problem all along.
>
>>                                                           *I* certainly
>>found it so.  I can't think of anything in particular that you said about
>>Gordon, but IMO your overall tone has not been exactly polite.  I'm NOT
>>claiming innocence here.
>
>The moment you start acting civil, I will act polite. But when you attack
>me for no reason, or worse, for reasons you have made up, I see no reason
>to be polite. 

I have attempted to be civil for some time now.  I may have failed, and I think
we're all guilty of "does not work and play well with others" in the beginning
of all this especially.

>>>>rp:
>>>>||||||| Further I note that a large part of the 'feminist' movement is not
>>>>||||||| pro-female at all, but quite clearly anti-male. 
>>>>
>>>>gf:
>>>>||||||I think you should justify that statement.   
>>>>
>>>>rp:
>>>>||| ...
>>>>||| And you are asking for numbers, names, and specifics, which I have
>>>>||| not offered, and do not. Especially since you casually disqualify
>>>>||| some because you are tired of hearing about them. If you get to
>>>>||| pick and choose what I can use, I have no interest in dealing
>>>>||| with things in your terms. ...
>>>>||| If you think that I need to justify my experiences, and to you,
>>>>||| I suggest your understanding of the situation is badly flawed. 
>>>>||| Further, what is the value of justification at all? As stated before,
>>>>||| did justification make the internment of the Japanese-Americans
>>>>||| during WW2 right? You may deal in justification, I will not.
>>>>
>>>>gf:
>>>>At this point it doesn't appear that you _can_. 
>>>
>>>At this point, I don't think that I need to. 
>>
>>RL:
>>You have already point-blank refused.
>
>Then you are clear on the simple fact that I do -not- have to justify
>a thing to you or anyone else. And reread the above remarks about the
>value of justification. 

In the first place, it is difficult to see how GF could have "casually
disqualif[ied] some" of the "numbers, names, and specifics which you have not
offered and do not."  :-)

Logical games aside, *I* have not casually disqualified anything.

You have made a statement that we (among others, I believe) disagree with.

This statement is one that should be readily supportable by specific examples.
When we ask you to "justify" it (and context should make it clear that we do
not agree and would like you to re-examine the reality of the situation and
either retract the statement or provide some data to back it up); you start
talking about justification in the context of internment of Japanese-Americans
in WW2; not at all the same meaning of the word.


>>>>rp:
>>>>| The problem is that you want me to justify what you think that I am
>>>>| saying, and I do not agree with your assesment, not at all. 
>>>>
>>>>Correct it, then.  
>>>
>>>I've tried, has'nt worked. I see no point in wasting more time on it,
>>>you will just find some other trivial point to argue, then act as if you
>>>had won a major point. 
>>
>>The major contention I have had (poorly and over-emotionally stated, perhaps)
>>for some time now is that I find it hard to believe that your sampling of post
>>could be accurate when you use adjective phrases such as "each and every one"
>
>Of course, this invalidated the many qualifiers in the paragraph.

RL:
Which qualifiers am I invalidating?

>>>| 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.

Stripping the sentence down while maintaining meaning, we have:
Curiously,
everyone who posted in response to the topic "If sexism is .. the answer."
It seems that
these same posters (each and every one) favored anti-male legislation.

I suppose you could say that "It seems that" is a qualifier, but since it
simply qualifies who posted what, it's not much of a qualifier.
Unless, of course, you meant it to qualify that you had difficulty interpreting
the posts.

Are there qualifiers not in this statement?
What were they?

>>to describe the people who posted responses to two different statements which
>>are diametrically opposed in some way.
>>The only point I have now is that you have point-blank refused to produce your
>>data for the statement you made.  'Nuff said.
> 
>Wrong, I have stated point blank that the posts are -not- available. You
>seem to neither accept nor understand this. What is the problem here?

I was under the impression that our original complaints about your post were
made long before 10 days went by.  I read this group every work day, and turn-
around time from here is overnight.  (ie, I post it, I see it tomorrow.)  I
am also fairly certain that your first response to our complaints was under 10
days.  I will check this also, if an archive is available.
It may be that you were not aware that we wanted data to back up this statement
at that time, though.  I know you were confused on quite a few points then.

>>>>                   I quoted your statement verbatim just 
>>>>above, though, so we're not dealing with my assessment 
>>>>of what you said, but what you did say, are we not?
>>>
>>>But your quotes did not back your assertions, lets not forget that, OK?
>>> 
>>>>rp:
>>>>| And as I said before, who cares what you want? 
>>>>
>>>>I don't know, a lot of people, maybe.  I think the question
>>>>here is what _you_ want -- whether you want to be taken 
>>>>seriously.  
>>>
>>>If you ever took me seriously, you would have read what I posted. And
>>>until you do, we are not arguing the same thing. Do you really think
>>>people take you seriously?
>>> 
>>
>>I know I took you seriously, and got upset because I know I wouldn't have
>>posted a positive response to a suggestion for legislation with an anti-male
>>bias.  I now take you less seriously because you failed to back up your
>>statements about these posts with copies of the posts that should have been
>>readily available to you.
>
>As the thread was older than the 10 day expiration for posts around here,
>I do not understand why you claim that they "should have been readily available
>to you[me]". 
>
>>[At this point, I'd even be willing to look around for archives if you'd be
>>willing to give me a specific thread or phrase to search for, just to put this
>>issue to rest.  This is an open request for information about such an archive
>>if anybody has one.]
>
>I will see if I have any undeleted posts.

I also will check.  For all I know, we have a huge delete-time on this 
newgroup.  (Not bloody likely.)

>>>>You've made a number of derogatory remarks about me and 
>>>>other people in a public forum 
>>>
>>>No, you have assumed tons more, and failed to back these assertions.
>>>Futhermore, they are derogatory only in your eyes, and you need glasses
>>>so badly you cannot read my posts (or so it would seem).
>>>
>>>>                                         -- such as saying that 
>>>>feminists are anti-female -- 
>>>
>>>I assume that this is a typo, and you meant 'anti-male'. And many feminists
>>>ARE anti-male, so what? This is a fact you will eventually have to deal
>>>with, why not start now?
>>>
>>>>                                     and then refused to say what 
>>>>justification you have for making them, which comes down 
>>>>to "Nyah, nyah," mostly.  Maybe you'd prefer it if we 
>>>>ignored you?
>>>
>>>No, I'd be happy if you just got something right. You are not arguing with
>>>me, there is nothing in your complaints that came from my post. But I find
>>>it upsetting when you repeatedly mangle what I post, and claim that I
>>>have made stupid value judgements, when I have made none at all. 
>>
>>While your original statement may not contain any value judgements directly,
>>there is an implicit value judgement about the alleged posters:  specifically
>>that their logic is imperfect or that they are hypocritical.
>
>Or maybe that something as simple as that was what they posted. No value
>judgment required. And there was none.

If it was that simple, why would you have posted it?  Do you just go around
the net randomly sampling posts by the same people and then remark on it? I
don't think so.  At a bare minimum, you implied that these alleged posters
had made contradictory remarks.  There is a value judgement there, like it or
not.

>>>You need a long vacation Gorden. BTW, do you know someone named Ted? Posts
>>>in sci.skeptic.
>>
  [RL for two lines following.]
>>Still wanna claim you haven't made any deprecating remarks?  Or is this a break
>>in your pattern?  Or do you wanna contend that this isn't deprecating?
>
>What you have done in your response is very similiar to what Ted did.
>Except that Ted made assumptions based upon his previous assumptions, then
>attributed them to me. In both cases, the topics pressed were not what
>I had posted, there were massive demands for proof, and I disagreed with
>what was claimed as my words and what it was claimed that I had said. 
>Remarkably similiar to what has happened here. How is it 'deprecating' to 
>point out a similarity, unless you think that what Ted did was wrong, 
>and that you are guilty of the same kind of thing.

RL:
I don't even know what this Ted thing is.  I am only looking at the statements
about needing a vacation and a comparison with Ted in the context of this
argument and for the former can definitely say that it is derogatory.  I find
it hard to conceive a logical reason for the latter to be included other than
derision.

In MY response, I demanded data to back up your statement (put up or shut up).
This was in a not-too-polite tone.  I plead guilty.

The only misattribution I have had for you was in a totally different argument,
and I believe we have cleared that up completely.

The only confusion I have had was that I believed myself to be in one of your
two sets of respondants/posters of the threads;  I retracted this in my second
post in this argument.

Thus, I believe you meant Gordon in the above paragraph, please correct me if I
am wrong.

Meanwhile, you made deprecating remarks toward me (the example about my
mother which you have casually disqualified was but one example), so you cannot
claim total innocence here.
I am not whining about the remarks per se, but rather your claim that you have
not done so.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu