Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekigm2!tcmaint From: tcmaint@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Thomas A. Dowe) Newsgroups: alt.flame Subject: Re: So TEK, is tad still not making any sense? Message-ID: <7888@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> Date: 18 Jan 90 06:44:07 GMT References: <11032@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> Reply-To: tcmaint@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Thomas A. Dowe) Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Vancouver, WA. Lines: 66 In article <11032@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >In article <7862@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> tcmaint@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Thomas A. Dowe) writes: >>What lie was that, dear? If you write something that means that the >>reader can only draw conclusions you intended, is that right? No one >>can write anything about what you say without lying, correct? >This is what I wrote: > > Christ, you're so eager to make yourself into a martyr that you'll > steal any reason you can to make yourself feel like you're being > persecuted. I'm supprised you haven't started screaming about sex- > ism; after all, your "female heritage" is a thousand times more per- > tinent than all this rubbish about your "black" one. > Message-ID: <10940@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> >And this is how you interpreted what I wrote: > In article <5333@tekgen.BV.TEK.COM> tomd@pulsar.telcom.tek.com (Thomas A. Dowe) writes: > >as Trish has pointed out, females are the true inheritors and preservers of >There is nothing my article about females being the true inheritors >and perservers of anything. There was nothing there about genetics >or biological inheritance. You said that [my] female heritage is a thousand times more pertinent... Notwithstanding what you "meant," it is true that female genetic contributions are a "thousand times more pertinent" in determining inheritance (the "point" I made with the take-off on your sarcasm). Your own efforts to ignore what I have said, or to misconstrue them, can be as equally applied to you, dear. But, rather than ignore them, you react in the same way that I expect you desired that I would. This must reinforce your opinion of the techique's effectiveness, right? >My article dealt with your amazing propensity to grab and steal any >excuse to make yourself look like a martyr. I expressed surprise >that having already attempted to make yourself into a victim of rac- >ial discrimination, that you hadn't tried to turn yourself into a >victim of sexism, too. You do have a mother, don't you, dear? Why >not accuse netters of discriminating against you because of her sex >as long as you're accusing them of discriminating against you be- >cause of your great-great-great-grandmother's race? No one has discriminated against me as far as I know. Better watch out, perhaps you have forgotten this part of the web? Tangled reasoning will give, perhaps important people, the idea that you are the one who deceives. Just as you would thrust some sort of sexist inference into the discussion, you might have made the original claims yourself during your quite inaccur- ate and selfserving summaries. Some might even wonder why you are so set on having it all your way and with nothing more than saying I lied about the torturous sexist slam you tried to lay on me. >>Seems pretty despotic to me, but hey! We knew that all along anyway. >Everything seems despotic to you, tad, but hey! We knew that all >(sic) along anyway. You haven't answered the question, Trish. Is it mandatory that we address the point(s) you make in your writing? Can only the infer- ences you project be used and none taken from what you write? If not, then this whole flame is just more of your stupid attempts at the big-lie. Of course, you know, that delights me. Tad tomd@pulsar.telcom.tek.com