From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Followup-To: misc.test
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:31:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.002843.17095@pony.Ingres.COM> dan@Ingres.COM (Daniel J. Dick) writes:
#sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
## In article <1992Sep2.183409.25366@pony.Ingres.COM> dan@Ingres.COM (Daniel J. Dick) writes:
## 
## #I missed out on what Mr. Nyikos said, but from this message alone, I cannot
##  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
## #come to the same conclusion that Mr. Nyikos is either a liar or a misogynist.
## 
## [text deleted]
## 
## #Mr. Nyiko's point was not that women such as the Florida physician's wife
## #should be forced into abortion.  His arguement, whether a good one or not,
## 
## [more text deleted]
## 
## How is it that you know what Nyikos's point was, given that you
## didn't read his article?
## 
## You'll have to drop in more often, Dick.  You're amusing.
## 
## Susan
#
#Well, Susan, perhaps I did misunderstand Mr. Nyiko's point of view and
#perhaps your folks did not lie or misrepresent or misunderstand his point
#of view conveniently.  Why don't we settle this and ask Mr. Nyiko himself.

I don't need to - I read Nyikos' article when it appeared.  You should,
too.  You'd look like much less of an idiot if you refrained from
commenting until you had done so.

(And I'll ask as well - who are my "folks"?)

#If you cannot do this, then who really cares what amuses you?  Let's get
#on with representing the other side correctly and get away from the stupid,
#childish mockery that so thoroughly permeates the flame wars we so often see
#on the net.  People have points of view that should be represented right, or
#else we are not dealing with the issues at hand.

Do you get extra points each time you use a permutation of "mock"?

People generally can express themselves quite well.  I can't imagine
why you think that you need to do it for them.

#The reason I was able to comment without having seen the original text from
#Mr. Nyiko was for the obvious--very clearly obvious--reason that the followup
#held all the characteristics of a convenient and intentional misrepresentation--
#namely the attribution of ideas that nobody could hold to an opposing side.
#No reasonable person could possibly hold that women are to be abused by forced
#abortion and be on the pro-life side, now, could they?  Be real.  It's not a
#difficult conclusion to come to is it?  Then why was it presented in this way?

The nice thing about the net is that, if someone (like Doug Holtsinger,
for example) misrepresents what someone else said, it's quite
easy to look at the original article.  

By the way, you seem to have completely missed Nyikos' point,
despite your illusions about knowing everything.

#Frankly, you're not amusing at all, 

Thank you.  I'd recently posted that I was going to you
use "amusing" as a euphemism for "liar."  

#and I find your disrespect sickening.  I'm
#not in the least convinced to follow your views or give them careful
#consideration based on the mockery you give.  I much prefer reading an opposing
#view that correctly addresses the opponent with respect, without mockery.


I'll continue to show disrespect for amusing people like you,
Nyikos and Holtsinger.  I can't imagine why you think that
I value your opinion.

Susan



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality