From: gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.flame
Subject: Phil Ronzone sez:  YOU LIE!!!
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:12:20 GMT
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany

In article <1992Oct11.185947.27153@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>Considering that a police officer working with abused children is the
>first line of encounter, I'd say that such a police officer has a much
>better, more accurate, and clearer picture of such a relationship
>that any one else.

Actually, social workers such as my much-derided mother are likely to
be the first line of encounter.  Neither a police officer nor a
CPS worker is studying the problem scientifically--that isn't their
job.

Your citation of the detective who opined that the membership of Nambla
consisted almost entirely of sadistic child-rapists is a good example
of the limitation of this perspective.  A police officer tends to look
at the world in terms of perps, other officers, and civilians (since
you seem to hate this kind of thing, I will spare you the details of
why and how I had the opportunity to get to know some police
detectives.)  If you have an organization like Nambla, a police
officer's first instinct will be that these guys sound like perps. 
When some of them turn out to be, it is easy to assume that they all
are, more or less.  But this isn't a reasoned judgment based on
evidence.  If you had given any evidence that the detective involved
actually knew anything to base his judgment on, your preposterous
credulity might have made some sense.  But you didn't and it doesn't.  

>No, I just think you are a rationalizer. You have a set of beliefs >and
>you choose to ignore or belittle any factual knowledge that >disagrees
>with your beliefs and preconceptions.

It say a lot about you (and none of it good) that you charge *me* with
this, given the Clayton Cramer postings which started all this. I
respond to information rationally.  If you don't know how that works,
try bringing in *real* data and arguments.  You'll get a lot more
respect.  I've gotten in trouble enough for objecting to stuff with
whose conclusions I am in sympathy.  I don't think you know much about
the scientific mind and how it works, Bub.  I've been trained to
go after weak arguments, and so that is what I do.  If the weak arguments
are personally offensive to me, so much the worse for them, but
that doesn't mean I let it cloud my judgment.

If you want to see a rationalizer, buy a mirror.  

>Rather than enlightened us and show use where we are wrong,  tate that
>you have no particular interest in giving a course on gay studies to a
>couple of moronic homophobes. 

You are capable of doing your own homework, are you not?  I told you
one place you could find out what "bear" means in gayspeak if you felt
you absolutely must know. In fact, if you really, truly are interested
in the question of what "bear" and "twink" actually mean, I suppose I
could explain.   But my impression is that you are using this as
something on which to base a bogus rhetorical point.

>>You lie. 

You didn't do this right.  The correct, Maroney-style syntax is:

YOU LIE!!!!

If you want anyone to take you seriously, you then need to
post actual lies.

>1. You do have an interest, else why the several long posts?

My several long posts are not evidence that I am interested in 
furthering *your* education, Stupid.

>2. The people you denigrate are neither moronic nor homophobic.

If you and Clayton don't want to be considered moronic and homophobic,
then don't post moronic and homophobic stuff all the time.  To show this
is a lie, you would have to show that I knew neither of you was
moronic and homophobic, but said so anyway.

Speaking of fundamental dishonesty, what about your contention that you
and Cramer are *not* homophobic?  In Cramer's case it is painfully
obvious, and only a person who was capable of and in the habit of lying
to himself could ignore this. 

If you want to see a liar, buy a mirror.

>And to state that someone else is wrong, but that you are just too
>"about it all" to give the "correct" facts is an arrogant elitist
>pig-headed Politically Correct(tm) fascist approach given off by
>intellectually dishonest people cornered by their own contradictions.

If you want to corner someone with their contradictions, you must first
find at least one actual contradiction.  And I am considered
Politically Incorrect(tm) by some, so I aint worried about that rather
limp epithet.

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52285 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6977 alt.politics.elections:17233 talk.abortion:42931 alt.sex:33143 alt.politics.clinton:10863 alt.politics.bush:9442 soc.singles:27921 alt.politics.homosexuality:6468 talk.bizarre:34360