From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Another example (Was: Please Tell me about the Male Gaze)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:48:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.205040.2688@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>In article <1992Oct30.210001.12896@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct27.154956.16038@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>>lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>>>>Feminists, civil-rights activists, equalitarians, etc have attempted [with 
>>>>>much success] to question these theories and change these practices.  
>>>>>And if you want an admission that it's gone too far in some ways, fine.  
>>>>>But sometimes it seems like you want to throw out the baby with the 
>>>>>bath-water.
>>>  
>>>>So you think that it is OK to call it rape when the woman 
>>>>did not initiate sex, and to paint men as worshippers of Thantos, 
>>>>and bringers of death while women are the lifebringers and healers. 
>>>>Where in this is there a baby?
>>>
>>>Gosh, that seems like a pretty good example to me.  You seem to want
>>>to lump all "feminists, civil-rights activists, equalitarians, etc" 
>>>into a bunch of people who cry rape, and think poorly of men.  Tch
>>>tch tch tch tch.
>>
>>No, just another matter of "writing" between the lines. That is when
>>you go a step beyond just reading between the lines and add stuff that
>>was not there.
>>
>>There is no mention of "feminists", mush less "all feminists". Your
>>post however is a pretty good example of what may be deliberate 
>>misunderstanding in action, unless you can come up with some 
>>connection between your claims and the quoted text. You have an 
>>active imagination, I have no doubt that you will find something. 
>>Search -all- the other posts, OK?
>
>Actually, in the stuff *I* wrote, there is a mention of "feminists" and it was
>meant to include *all* feminists.
>Context clues to support this are:
>1.  other larger groups were included, which indicates inclusiveness rather
>    than exclusiveness.
>2.  the activities ascribed to "feminists" were extremely general and
>    minimalist.
>3.  I wrote it, and I just said that's what I meant.
 
Speaking of context clues, how about the subtle clue that none of the
text you refer to is here? I recall that I edited it all but the part
that I responded to. ***CLUE*** This was -not- an accident.

And you are not telling me not what -you- were referring too, but what
I was referring too. 
 
>Your reply does not mention feminists per se, but you were responding to what I
>wrote, and it was about all feminists.  Now we all know you would never post a
>non-sequitor, thus it is a forgone conclusion that you were talking about all
>feminists.
 
So now, you are responding to what I wrote, and telling me what I mean.
And you are wrong. It seems to be an OK thing to do, you just did it.

And I would go easy on those forgone conclusions if I were you.
 
>>But your assertion is so clearly false, it is rather funny. Do you still
>>claim to be unbiased? BTW, this does verify to me that you seem to
>>be anti-Rich, and that you are attacking me personally. I think that
>>your irrational bias needs to be spelled out just in case anyone
>>mistakes your posting as rationally based and unbiased.
>
>I'm afraid that you'll simply have to label her anti-Rich-Payne, as she has
>never attacked me.  :-)

You have never indicated that you go by Rich. You do not sign your posts
that way, it is not in the signature field, nor do you refer to yourself
as Rich in posts.

I will accept your point, but not that it is obvious.

>"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism