From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Bill, admit the point before changing the subject.
Date: 28 Jul 92 14:59:13 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

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
-> In <1992Jul24.113957.19769@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
->   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: > 
-> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
-> I've trimmed this significantly but tried to retain the most
-> relevant parts.
-> 
-> >>>>> are you suggesting there is something wrong with
-> >>>>> pointing out hypocrisy?
-> > 
-> >>>> Not if one is above engaging in it.
-> >
-> >>>so you agree, finally, that there was nothing wrong with my
-> >>>pointing out siren's hypocrisy?
-> >
-> >> You're above engaging in hypocrisy?  Does that mean you've
-> >> never committed a hypocritical act or just that you don't
-> >> do it anymore?  Either answer is impressive.
-> >
-> >as it should be. don't you think that if it were a simply
-> >matter to point out my hypocrisy here, someone would have
-> >been happy to do so? but no one has. that should answer your
-> >question.
-> 
-> I hate to see people set themselves up like this.

do you hate it as much as you hate this discussion?

-> >give it up bill. you lost your point of painting adrienne as
-> >a vilifier of you long ago.
-> 
-> I think I proved it nicely.  Funny how perceptions differ.

isn't differing perceptions what i suggested to you in my first
reply? that was, of course several iterations back.

-> >>> [...] adrienne did what several others did. she posted
-> >>> good wishes for phil's son.
-> > 
-> >> Come on, Jim.  What a crock.  She did no such thing.
-> >
-> >rather than carry thus further than one more iteration, why
-> >don't you post one example that disproves my statement.
-> 
-> Done.  Ad nauseum.
-> 
-> >>>> as in the case of all the other posts on phil's son, the
-> >>>> posts were intended to be read by phil. 
->      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ <--------------------+
-> >                                                                |
-> >>>what's wrong with                                             | 
-> >>>expressing good wishes about an offspring to a parent?        |
-> >                                                                | 
-> >> Nothing at all when the intent is clearly one of good will    |
-> >> and not laced with regrets about the kind of upbring the      |
-> >> child will be sub- ject to.                                   |
-> >                                                                |
-> >who are you to determine someone else's intent?  ---------------+
-> 
-> Let's see now.  You criticize my assumption immediately after
-> having made one yourself.  I thought you were above this
-> hypocrisy stuff, Jim.  I'm disappointed.

come now bill. this "example" is even weaker than the evidence
you tried to come up with on adrienne.

-> >>> you are beginning to sound like you have a thing about
-> >>>adrienne.
-> > 
-> >> The post in question ranks right up there with some of the
-> >> most malicious I've seen on Usenet.
-> >
-> >did you forget "marrying blacks is flaky" already, when that
-> >remark was written to a white woman who was married to a
-> >black man?
-> >
-> >did you forget some of suzanne's baby-killer accusations to
-> >woman who have had abortions?
-> 
-> Her comments (to Phil) are in good company with those you
-> mention.

according to who, bill? you? didn't you just say perceptions
differ?

-> >>>then just what are you trying to say bill?
-> > 
-> >> That I don't like being vilified.  :-)
-> >
-> >you haven't shown that you were.
-> 
-> Disagree.

that's your choice bill. i'd never take that away from you.

-> >>>>> [...]  if someone were to ask me to describe the way
-> >>>>> your posts have been described to me over the years, it
-> >>>>> would be "condescending."
-> > 
-> >>>> Opinions vary.
-> >
-> >>> yes they do. and the expression of those differing
-> >>> opinions should not always be interpreted as a personal
-> >>> attack or a flame.
-> > 
-> >> Apparently, though, you think it's fine to interpret them
-> >> as condescending...
-> >
-> >i think it's interesting. whatever makes you think i think
-> >it's "fine."
-> 
-> The particular adjective is (obviously) irrelevant.  The point
-> is that you interpret me as condescending yet imply that I
-> should not interpret Adrienne similarly.  Or will you now deny
-> that as well?

you missed the point again bill. i never said i interpret you as
condescending. i said others, several of them in fact, had
described you to me as condescending. you should really be more
careful with these mistaken allegations.



-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.