Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxe.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!wjh12!genrad!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxz!houxm!ihnp4!ihuxe!rainbow From: rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: group vs individual Message-ID: <748@ihuxe.UUCP> Date: Tue, 24-Jul-84 12:37:53 EDT Article-I.D.: ihuxe.748 Posted: Tue Jul 24 12:37:53 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jul-84 01:03:29 EDT Sender: rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 38 >Robert, in the original article the statement about you was in brackets. >Dick was not actually making a statement about you. Rather, he was >paraphrasing Trish's statement with your name inserted, and suggesting that, >if you would see hostility in such a statement (you obviously do) then >you should see hostility in Trish's statement also, whereas you claimed >that she meant no hostility. Even though the statements are nearly identical, >your reactions to them are wildly different. This was supposed to illustrate >your hypocrisy to you, but I suspect that your emotional makeup does not >allow you to comprehend logic that indicates that you are in error. --Jim Balter Sigh. I dont understand why I'm so different from most everyone else, but I do happen to take more offense from a statement that says "this is " than a statement that says "most are ". So when the individual in question was Trish or me, yes I became incensed. When the group in question was men, it did not bother me yet I do sympathize with those who are offended. I dont see why my reaction must be the same for both cases. I have already cited a million or so reasons why I feel the way I do about the latter case so I wont repeat them. My feelings on the former case by now must also be obvious. If that is your definition of hypocrisy, then yes, I am guilty. I see no reason to change. The two examples are quite different. But thats my opinion. And it may answer the question I first presented. Perhaps your effort should be placed into convincing me the two statements are identical. Then maybe I'll come around to your way of thinking. As for Dick and my supposed misinterpretation, I apologize if that was the case. However my vision was already clouded over with negative bias towards him from personal mail and just assumed he was now posting more of the same garbage he was sending me. First impressions are hard to break(example: Alan and I). Robert. PS. I just love the way articles are scrutinized with a magnifying glass to find one line or two to pick on irregardless of anything else that was being said :-)