Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/3/85; site ukma.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!cbosgd!ukma!sean
From: sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey)
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.women
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Women and the consumption of toilet paper.
Message-ID: <1850@ukma.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Jun-85 00:30:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: ukma.1850
Posted: Fri Jun  7 00:30:46 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Jun-85 03:04:00 EDT
References: <302@sdcc12.UUCP> <2484@randvax.UUCP> <921@mnetor.UUCP>
Reply-To: sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey)
Organization: The White Tower @ The Univ. of KY
Lines: 62
Xref: watmath net.flame:10339 net.women:5588

In article <921@mnetor.UUCP> sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) writes:
>Maybe I should speak for myself here.  What actually happened was that I
>originally meant to be kidding in my original posting.  I also wanted to
>be slightly insulting, and thought that this was acceptable given that
>1/ the discussion was conducted in net.flame, where logic and civility
>are outlawed anyway, 2/ the original discussion was insulting to women,
>and what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Now you have a change of face.  Now you claim that you are kidding.  Why?
Perhaps you know when you are beaten and can't logically argue your way
out of it, so you claim you were kidding.  As for the original discussion
being insulting to women, "two wrongs don't make it right".  If you felt
that you were insulted, your best defense you have been to argue your way
out of it, instead of using the same techniques.  This only displays
hypocracy, where you feel that something is bad, and yet do it in turn.


>However, given the amount of hate mail and explanations I received on the
>matter (more than I have ever received on any of my other usually brilliant
>postings! :->), I was forced to conclude that I was either 1/ right or 2/ close
>enough to be right, in which case I should probably make sure that I leave a
>way out of the insult for some of my best friends (some of my best friends are
>MEN!).  That is why I posted the followup ....  I think...  actually I don't
>even remember posting a followup, but if I did, I probably said something
>wishy-washy like "not ALL men are poisonned......".   Well, I retract that now!

I can see how hate mail would tend to reinforce your attitude that you were
right.  I do not see how explanations could have done the same.  Explanations,
presented rationally, would prove you wrong.

I'm glad you're not being wishy-washy anymore, but you are still wrong.


>Now Sean, have fun tearing this one to shreds!!!  I will never tell you
>whether or not I am kidding now....  but things are more exciting that way,
>aren't they?
>-- 
>Sophie Quigley
>{allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie

Whether you tell me you were kidding or not, I will take you
seriously.  If you choose to waver, you must bear the burden of the
doubt.  Yes, it has been fun tearing your *statement* and your
*argument* to shreds.  Yes, it is exciting.  I look forward to reading
the netnews.

I want you to realise something though.  As I stated to someone before,
I do not want you to believe that I am attacking you personally.  I do
not know you, and to judge you without so would be hypocracy on my
part.  I am attacking a statement and an attitude that you displayed - a
statement and an attitude that I believe to be in grave error.
Though I don't mind making someone mad (especially if it makes them
think), I do mind hurting people's feelings very much.  If I have done
so,  I sincerely apologise.

Sean

-- 

-  Sean Casey				UUCP:	{cbosgd,anlams,hasmed}!ukma!sean
-  Department of Mathematics		ARPA:	ukma!sean@ANL-MCS.ARPA	
-  University of Kentucky