From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry (was Re: supporting allegations)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 00:46:13 GMT

In article <92311.175856ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>In article <1992Nov2.032636.29543@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy says:
>>In article <92305.065719ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:
>>>In article<1992Oct25.235140.24530@midway.uchicago.edu>e elizabeth bartley says
>>>>In article <92297.173453ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:
>>>>>In <1992Oct20.184633.12546@midway.uchicago.edu> e elizabeth bartley writes:
>>>>
>>>>>>That way, my KILLfile will catch all of Keegan's harrassment and I
>>>>>>won't have to see it.  It then won't bother me so you should be happy.
>>>>>>Keegan can continue needling me and believing he's making me look like
>>>>>>a hypocrite so *he* can be happy.
>>>>
>>>>>Oh I don't think you need Mr. Keegan to make you look
>>>>>like a hypocrite, Ms. Bartley.  IMHO, a post such as
>>>>>this does that all on its own.
>>>>
>>>>Why?  Because I don't think Doug has much standing to object to Keegan
>>>>harassing me if Keegan harassing me doesn't bother me?
>>>
>>>No.  Because you frequently describe the behaviour of
>>>Mr. Keegan while stating you have not read his posts
>>
>>Ever hear of second-hand quotes, Ms. Birmingham? Killfiles are FAR from a
>>perfect mechanism.
>
>Mr. Darcy are you suggesting one should base their
>opinion of someone on "second-hand quotes"?

No, of course not. But "opinions" are not at issue here, are they, Ms.
Birmingham? Ms. Bartley's opinion of Keegan, good, bad or indifferent,
has probably been formed long ago, based on FIRST-hand knowledge of that
person(a)'s character, tactics, etc. from what they have directly written. 
What we are discussing here, on the other hand, is variations in behavior 
over time, which CAN be ascertainable via second-hand quotes, especially
if, as Ms. Bartley has explained, one bypasses one's killfile once in a while
as a "quality control check" on the value of those second-hand quotes. Your
criticism of Ms. Bartley's method of dealing with Keegan seems to be very
misplaced, Ms. Birmgingham -- I think she has struck a very good medium 
between, on the one hand, becoming constantly enmeshed in Keegan's immature,
hateful vendetta against her, and, on the other, being completely ignorant
of what he is saying about her. What would you have her do differently?

>>>...and
>>>define his choice of responding to your publicly posted
>>>statements in this newsgroup as harassment.
>>
>>Since Ms. Bartley is highly unlikely to respond to any given attack of his,
>>we can reasonably assume that his purpose isn't constructive dialogue, right,
>>Ms. Birmingham? And if not constructive dialogue, is "harrassment" such an
>>implausible second choice?
>
>Are you suggesting that a post in a newsgroup can only
>be responded to those addressed in the header?  

I'm not sure what you mean by "those addressed in the header", Ms. Birmingham.
To whom is this article "addressed", for example? The header says 
"talk.abortion". (???)

>Here
>I thought a public post was, well, public and that anyone
>was permitted to respond?  

Permitted, yes. Of course.

>Are you harassing Ms. Garvin
>when you follow up one of her posts after she said she
>she won't respond to you?

That's a fine line, Ms. Birmingham, and one which I tread very carefully.
I try to restrict my followups to the ever-hiding Ms. Garvin only to

	a) outright lies or smears against me (I feel I have the right to
	   address these, regardless of whether she sees my response)

		and

	b) correcting errors in logic or fact which I feel it is useful to 
	   the group as a whole to see.

Unlike Keegan, however, I try to abstain from endlessly thrashing old 
differences of opinion with the non-responding poster around, or calling the 
non-responding poster names. Such posts directed at a non-responding poster, 
I feel are not productive.

>>>The latter
>>>being, imho, merely a variation on the theme of declaring
>>>abortion related questions in t.a to be flames.
>>
>>Just because a question is "abortion related" [sic] doesn't mean it can't
>>still be inflammatory, Ms. Birmingham. Surely even you with your overriding
>>biases and your severely-limited powers of reading comprehension don't
>>actually believe that the two are mutually exclusive (?).
>
>It would depend I presume on how one defines a flame.
>I define a flame as "Kebbie you are a scum sucking slime
>whose own mother would abort you today given half a chance".
>I do not define a flame as "I thought you were prochoice?"

Everything is context-dependent, Ms. Birmingham. Quite frankly, I wouldn't
find the first sentence particularly troublesome. I would hurt the speaker's
credibility far more than mine. The question "I thought you were prochoice?"
is, of course, a misquote. The actual question was "Didn't you say once that
you were pro-choice?". I am disappointed to see that this subtle difference
escaped you, Ms. Birmingham. Have you not claimed superior abilities in the
area of reading comprehension? The ACTUAL quote presupposed "non-pro-choice"
much more strongly than the question you quote. And, given the context of
the discussion at the time, wherein the speaker very clearly had implied
that she considered herself "pro-choice", this question constitutes nothing
more than a smarmy, cowardly form of "you're a liar: you're not pro-choice".
It was very insulting and inflammatory in its context, Ms. Birmingham.

>>If anything, I'd expect a abortion-related question to be MORE inflammatory
>>than the average...
>
>So what you are saying is that every post to t.a is a flame?

That's not what I said. I was comparing abortion-related questions to 
"average" questions, and noting a statistical likelihood of higher level
of flammatoriness. Try comparing abortion-related questions to, say, sewing
questions sometime. Which do you suppose would be more likely to be 
inflammatory?

>>>>Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth
>>Bartley
>>>
>>>You do realize, don't you, that there is not a single
>>>prochoice organization that supports imprisonment
>>>for those who obtain restricted abortions?
>>
>>But it has yet to be proven that a single "prochoice" [sic] organization
>>exists which would disassociate itself from Ms. Bartley or anyone with similar
>>views
>
>Name one pro-choice organization that wants or even supports
>jailing women for obtaining banned abortions?

I'll gladly admit, for the sake of argument, that none exists. But I find
this fact irrelevant.

>Nor dear boy, has anyone stated Ms. Bartley would be
>disassociated from anything.  What has been said is
>no pro-choice organization would agree with her stated
>desire to criminalize abortion.

But they WOULD agree with her stance on earlier-term abortions, would they
not? And they WOULD probably prefer that she be counted in the ranks of
"pro-choice", as she wishes to be, than the ranks of "pro-life", if for no
other reason than to bolster their numbers, would they not? You have yet to 
prove that the minor DISagreement over third-tri restrictions outweighs the 
agreements _enough_ to make her "not pro-choice" as Keegan has declared. You 
have only been looking at her stance on the abortion issue through one tiny 
aperture -- the 100 or so annual third-trimester abortions -- instead of
seeing the overall picture -- approximately 1.5 million annual total abortions.
Your view is understandably warped and distorted, given the arbitrary 
parameters you have set for yourselves. If I were limited to those parameters, 
I'd probably think she was pro-life too. But, since I'm looking at her 
_overall_ stance, she appears to me to be clearly pro-choice. Please consider 
changing your parameters. Judging a view on 1.5 million abortions based only 
only 100, is, as the old saw goes, much like the tail wagging the dog, don't 
you think?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion