From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:02:20 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

In article <1992Sep14.163850.5575@acd4.acd.com>
	wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
-> In <1992Sep11.120035.8556@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
->    (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
-> >> did you not speculate, wrongly, i might add,
-> >> about my motivations and then criticize them in
-> >> this and related threads?
-> 
-> I don't think my speculations are/were wrong.

i understand.

-> > did you not argue my motivations with others?
-> 
-> Susan Garvin and Dean Kaflowitz decided to jump in,
-> so I responded to them.  Was I not supposed to?

i don't think so. you look(ed) pretty silly arguing
about my motivations with others.

-> > perhaps this just slipped your mind.
-> 
-> Nope.  The only thing I've concluded is that you
-> don't have enough information to assess Doug's (or
-> anyone elses) mental status via Usenet
-> correspondence.  And unless you've been holding out
-> on us, you also lack the background.

i'm not expressing a professional diagnonis. i'm
expressing an opinion, one which is shared by many.
haven't i said that to you before?

-> > and mine is that therapy might help the lad(s).
-> 
-> Help him with what, Jim?

what do you think therapy might help with, bill?

are you not a therapist?

-> >> Many people use therapy as a vehicle for
-> >> facilitating personal growth, even in the absence
-> >> of any identifiable pathology.  Your comments (re
-> >> denial) suggest that Doug suffers from some type
-> >> of disorder, though.  I hope you see the
-> >> difference.
-> >
-> > yes, i do. demonstrating one (denial) might cause
-> > one to suggests that the other (therapy) might be
-> > of help.  if DODie's posts suggest that he might
-> > suffer from some type of disorder, why have you
-> > been debating this point for so long
-> 
-> So, are you about to unveil the basis of your
-> inference that Doug is in denial?  I'm looking
-> forward to this.

i might, if you'll agree that inferences must
supported. but that might put you in a difficult
position of having to support your own.

-> >>> several people posted to explain DODie to you.
-> >>> and i provided a list of chaney articles and
-> >>> even offered to email them. they contain all the
-> >>> information i need to form my opinion.
-> > 
-> >> I see.  What symptoms seemed most prominent to
-> >> you?
-> >
-> > you're the professional, bill. why don't you tell
-> > me.
-> 
-> I already have: his posts don't contain enough
-> information to infer any pathology.  You, however,
-> are contending that there is some pathological
-> process at work here.  It seems reasonable to assume
-> you have some criteria for your assess- ment.  I'm
-> asking you to provide it.

you're misrepresenting me again, bill, something you've
been doing quite a lot of lately.

you will be supporting your claim that i am "contending
that there is some patholigical process at work here,"
will you not?

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame