From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Complete proof of Gregg Skinner's dishonesty
Date: 29 Aug 92 02:18:00 GMT
Organization: Society For Putting Down Specious Arguments

In article <1992Aug28.193450.21898@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
>
>A blatantly false statement.  Let's look at the "proof."  The proof
>consists of my failure to join Jim Perry in (correctly) pointing out a
>misspelling of the word "jibe" as "jive" by another poster.

This is not at all what happened, as I will demonstrate.

>>  Mr. Skinner misuses the word
>>"jibe" and others challenge his usage.  Twice he is corrected.
>
>He has his facts wrong.  The word "jive" first appeared in another
>post, to which I responded.  Jim Perry corrected the misspelling.
>Without consulting a dictionary, as correctly supposed, I mentioned in
>a post directed to the original poster that I thought "jive" was the
>correct spelling, noting that it was slang anyway.  The whole
>discussion of the spelling of the word was completely aside.

No, the spelling flame is a crucial indicator of the way Gregg's mind
works.  You see, if you won't tell the truth about something trivial,
you certainly won't when your personal beliefs are at stake.  I will
demonstrate that Gregg is once again misrepresenting what happened,
and this is something he has done often in debates here.

Side note: who is "he"?  Last time I checked, I was quite female.

>>  Instead 
>>of turning to an authority, he reasserts his incorrect usage.
>
>Correction: Not my usage, the usage of another poster (I leave out his
>name because I don't want to appear to be flaming him.  I don't care
>if he misspells a word.  We know what he meant).

It was your usage, because you used it several times, and Douglas
Graham used it once.  This is the Skinner Method: deny, deny, deny!
Evidence is forthcoming, and he will still deny he did what he did.

>If Mr. Hausmann wants to take issue with something I've written, he
>will kindly address it directly.  Spelling flames are of no interest
>(especially when I'm not the one responsible for the misspelling).

Mr. Skinner, I have great issue with most things you write.  It is
not because I disagree with them, it is because I have observed that
your discussion style is dishonest.  You have a perfect right to
your opinion.  Were I take offense is when you engage in convuluted
arguments and then deliberately misstate things, hoping to trip
people up.  But, rather than assert that this is your style, allow
me to prove it.  Hang on...


*** First, here's the original source*** 

Article 32742 of alt.atheism:
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist  (long!)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 01:59:50 GMT

[...]
Well, the big one is overpopulation.  If we are to have any hope
of survival, we're going to have to reduce the population of the
planet to some sustainable level.  It would be a nice touch if we
could manage it in a humane manner.  How do you suppose that opposition
to birth control, sex education and abortion jives with this?  Why
                                             ^^^^^
was overpopulation not even on the table at the Rio conference?
[...]


*** and Greg uses the word when replying ***

Article 32770 of alt.atheism:
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 13:25:53 GMT

[...]
When you couple it with advocacy of abstinence (as seems to be the
case with most who oppose the above), it jives well. [...] 
                                         ^^^^^

*** Okay, that's one wrong usage, and not the sort of thing to
    flame someone over, but watch him use it again ***

Article 32784 of alt.atheism:
From: skinner@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:01:16 GMT

[...]
I mentioned nothing about wedlock.  I'm talking about abstinence as a
form of birth control.  It jives with opposition to artificial means
                           ^^^^^
of birth control, sex education, and abortion. [...] 


*** Now, here is the first correction of the word ***

Article 32800 of alt.atheism:
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:07:55 GMT

In article <BtLLu6.Hrs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry) writes:

[...]
I think we're all looking for the word "jibe", here, for what it's
worth.  I notice that in addition to reinserting your disclaimer
you've inserted the phrase "artificial means of" before "birth
control", which is the only way you can support your position
(abstinence as birth control is meaningless if birth control is
opposed). [...]

In the real world, those groups who tend to oppose birth control, sex
education, and abortion also tend to take to heart "go forth and
multiply", rather than whatever form of family planning, so those
groups' teachings still do not jibe well with saving the Earth. [...]
                               ^^^^

*** Note that Jim used the word properly in a sentence as well as
    suggest a correction.  When Gregg replies, he ignores this and
    goes back to the incorrect usage.  (Note the missing sentence
    in the quote) ***

Article 32829 of alt.atheism:
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 19:17:39 GMT

perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry) writes:

>  I notice that in addition to reinserting your disclaimer
>you've inserted the phrase "artificial means of" before "birth
>control", which is the only way you can support your position
>(abstinence as birth control is meaningless if birth control is
>opposed).

[...]
Yes, the latter is what I am talking about.  Unfortunately it doesn't
require much sex education.  Unfortunately it fails in practice.  But
it "jives," which is all that was required.
   ^^^^^^^^


*** Now watch, he does it again! ***

Article 32905 of alt.atheism:
From: skinner@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:14:24 GMT

dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:

>>>How do you suppose that opposition
>>>to birth control, sex education and abortion jives with this?
>>
>>When you couple it with advocacy of abstinence (as seems to be the
>>case with most who oppose the above), it jives well.  Abstinence would
>>control population as well as anything mentioned above.

[...]
No.  You simply asked how they "jive".  [...]
                               ^^^^^^^

*** Now, here is the *second* correction ***

Article 32914 of alt.atheism:
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 16:48:25 GMT

In article <BtnBK1.JG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:

>No.  You simply asked how they "jive".  I explained how they can in

Are you picking on my illiteracy again?  As Jim Perry pointed out,
the word is "jibe."
[...]


*** And finally, this is where he refuses to admit he is wrong, but
    takes the cowardly route of blaming the language!  And then he
    misuses it again! ***

Article 32933 of alt.atheism:
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 20:57:29 GMT

dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:

>>No.  You simply asked how they "jive".  I explained how they can in

>Are you picking on my illiteracy again?  As Jim Perry pointed out,
>the word is "jibe."

I think you were correct with "jive."  As it is something of a slang
                              ^^^^^^^
word, the spelling may vary reigionally.

[...]
When did I say you couldn't criticise it?  You may.  Please do.  I
will join your criticism.  But to imply it doesn't "jive" (ie to call
                                                   ^^^^^^^
the position irrational) belies in this case a lack of complete [...]


........................

Well, sure looks to me like he made a mistake, was called on it,
ignored it, continued making the mistake, was called on it a second
time, and still insisted he was right!

I stand by my entire article.  Mr. Skinner is a dishonest debator.
Anyone who has a discussion with him is wasting his or her time,
because Gregg will not play by the rules.

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

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