From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Overpeck's problems (Was: Re: Have you herd about the ram?)
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:05:34 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Sep29.150203.10822@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
> 
> 
> Jeepers, Dean, thanks.  I missed that word "major" the first
> time I read CJ's flame.  I guess I was silly enough to think
> that she was flaming me, since she included my text in her reply.

Well, she may well have been.  Actually, I was just trying to
point out to Jim that I was not the right person to include
in his list.  I don't think you're a twittering fool, and
I think you had a point with what you said.

> (I'll admit that my reply to Overpeck wasn't my best effort,
> but, frankly, the man makes me ill.)  I still can't understand
> how only one participant in the thread can look foolish, but
> I'll let you really smart people decide those things.

The problem here is the question of how CJ defines a "major
participant."  I'm not sure who she regards as a major
participant.  We need a definition of terms.  I thought, and
I may be wrong, she was refering to all those in the thread
who had been in military service and attained a rank greater
than captain but less than colonel.  That lets me out right
off and, I suspect, lets you out as well.  Now Jim Keegan
may have been a major.  I confess to not knowing anything about
his connection or non-connection to the military.  I also think
that CJ was disappointed that she found Bill Overpeck to not
be making a fool of himself, as she viewed it.  In all events,
I just thought it was a silly thread and tried to have a little
fun with it every now and then.  But that's me all over.

> You're no twittering fool, though, that's for sure.  

'preciate it.  I agree with you, but then I am a biased source
and therefore subject to question.  I am grateful to have
independent verification.  For the record, you're no
twittering fool either.

> I think this discussion is even more boring than the
> original thread, though.  (And who knows - maybe soon
> Overpeck will use the "I'll let you have the last word
> as soon as I say this" method and drop the damn thing.)
> Of course, DOD is back and telling the same old lies,
> knowing that he'll get caught again.  There is a real
> possibility that Keegan will tell him to see his
> therapist, and then we'll have to see it all over
> again.

I have no problem with that.  Hell, we have a whole bunch
of recent college attendees popping up with "It's a baby
and you shouldn't kill it because that's murder."  I've
been a major participant in this newsgroup for a few
years now, and I must admit my stamina for dealing with that
same old line is wearing thin.

> On the other hand, maybe Overpeck is DOD's therapist.  That
> would explain a lot.  

Hmmm.  There is a line of speculation I hadn't considered.
Does Bill really do that sort of couch routine?  I was under
the impression he is a social worker, something along those
lines.  But if he's one of those $80 an hour guys who
wear sweaters to work and have leather couches and Swedish
modern furniture, and a bunch of Leggo sets and wooden blocks
and a Sigmund Freud pillow, well, I hope DOD is making good
use of the sessions.

> When I think of herds, I think of cattle, anyway.  I don't
> know where all these sheep came from.

When I think of the Herd, I think of beer.

When I think of you, I definitely do not think of a twittering
fool.


Dean Kaflowitz

I'm a typical American boy
From a typical American town
I believe in god
And Senator Dodd
And keepin' old Castro down
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism