Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!husc6!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!ism780c!dianeh From: dianeh@ism780c.UUCP (Diane Holt) Newsgroups: soc.singles Subject: Re: Lucy in the Sky with Dianeh Message-ID: <3623@ism780c.UUCP> Date: Sat, 20-Sep-86 23:24:33 EDT Article-I.D.: ism780c.3623 Posted: Sat Sep 20 23:24:33 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 23-Sep-86 04:19:43 EDT References: <3160@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> <3552@ism780c.UUCP> <3223@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> <3573@ism780c.UUCP> <3254@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> Reply-To: dianeh@ism780c.UUCP (Diane Holt) Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Santa Monica, CA Lines: 225 Summary: Sorry, soc.singles readers...feel free to 'n' this one. [Doug Alan writes:] >>From: dianeh@ism780c.UUCP (Diane Holt) >>Keywords: insipid vapid flat jejune banal inane puerile childish trite >Gee, what did I say to receive such flattery? Can't you guess?? You *insisted* on starting something, even while saying you didn't *really* want to, buuut... And here you are, at it all over again! So, I'm going to say this as simply as I can: You took a response of mine to your original "rejection begging" posting and chose to post an article making certain "claims" regarding a past exchange between you and me. I chose to respond to it in order to make *my* "claims" and request that we now take it off the net, since it was clearly *not* going to be of general interest to anybody. You chose to ignore that request, and instead posted yet another response making further "claims". So, now I'm going to offer my counter and ONCE AGAIN request that we take this damn thing off the net and into private mail where it belongs. If you choose to once again *post* a response rather than mail one, you will show yourself to be completely out of control, and I will no longer feel a need to *balance out* your posits with my counters. Think about it, please. >I don't want to have this debate, but for some reason you have decided to >insult me and present a gross distortion of my views in a public forum. I'd >just like to make it clear that what I have said and what you say I have >said are two completely different things. WHO chose to present "gross distortion[s]" of WHOSE "views" in a "public forum" in the first place, Doug? YOU made claims; I countered them. YOU chose to ressurect this thing "in a public forum", asserting certain things about what *I* had done; I chose to offer my counter-assertions. You had your turn; I had mine -- that seemed about as fair an approach as I could think of, considering that you'd chosen to bring it up in the first place...I certainly had no desire to engage in this remarkably useless discussion all over again, but neither did I feel it was right to let you make whatever statements you wanted to make about things that *I* had done without my offering an alternate point of view. Once both points of view had been "publicly" asserted, then I saw no need to continue it thus -- that's why I said "Now, let's take this thing off the net." Why bring it up at all in the first place is beyond me, but since you have, I will once again, in order to balance things out, offer *my* point of view to counter *your* publicly-made assertions, and then will ONCE AGAIN say, "Let's get this out of here, and put it where it *belongs*." >You have a severely faulty memory on this matter, Diane,[...] Couldn't be further from the truth...I constantly amuse and amaze my friends with my *exceptionally good* memory -- in fact, there are times when it's downright scary...very nearly "photographic". >I never claimed to *know* anything. I *did* say that *in* *my* *opinion* >John Lennon was lying when he said "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" wasn't >intended to be a reference to LSD. I *did* say that I *think* that those >who think otherwise are being naive on the issue. (I never said anything >about thinking they are naive in general, though.) I also said that this is >only my opinion and that you can take it with as many grains of salt as you >like. Right. It is *your* "opinion", *and* you "think" that anyone who believes otherwise is being *naive*...can't you *see* how those two "opinions" in combination completely counteract the very *notion* of what *opinion* is all about? It is my "opinion" that it's wrong to assert that somebody's a liar without *considerable evidence* to back up that contention -- *that* makes me *naive*?!? What happened to "innocent until *proven* guilty"? And what is *your* "evidence" to support your position? Nothing more than *your own opinion*. >I *never* *never* *ever* *ever* said that no amount of evidence to the >contrary could ever change my mind. Just how *much* "evidence" is required for you? The composer's *own* statements, his friends' *own* statements, his *son's* own statements, for godssake -- what the hell *more* do you want? Oh, right -- they were *all* in on it from the start...one big conspiracy, so that *noone*, except those terribly perceptive people who can see through all that sort of thing, would ever *really* know that LitSwD was *really* all about L S D! (Hey, let's put together a "second composer" theory and get a *really* good conspiracy going...) >Obviously, you don't know me even the slightest bit; I find the whole idea >of even uttering the statement "no amount of evidence could make me change >my mind" totally and completely repulsive! It's the complete antithesis of >how I approach life. Well, it *sounds* good to espouse it -- but you sure don't seem to be living up to it. >You seem to fail to understand, Diane, that I could have considered the >evidence you provided, and decided that it was not strong enough to change >my opinion. I said it then, and I'll say it now, it makes no difference to me *what you* want to believe...what *does* make a difference to me is when you try to *assert* your opinion as the only possible non-naive one that a person could have. >You claimed repeatedly that John Lennon's statement that LitSwD is not about >LSD is *proof* that it wasn't intended to be. You seem to fail to >understand that this is *not* proof. It is merely evidence. And >non-conclusive evidence. And you seem to forget that his statement wasn't the only "evidence". Personally, I have no reason to doubt the man -- why should I? But if you're really in *need* of further "evidence", look to his friends and associates at the time who make the *same claim*, and look to his own son's statements about the story of where the inspiration came from. >You say without any grounds that I would ignore *any* evidence that doesn't >agree with my preconceived notions. That I could never change my mind on >the issue. This is ridiculous! I have changed my mind on lots of issues on >which I have had strong beliefs, and I imagine that it will happen again >many times in the future. I do wish you would stop trying to apply generalizations about things I've said that have been made *only* in connection with *this particular* issue. You could be open-minded as hell about everything else, for all that I know, but in *this particular situation*, it is *my opinion* that you've been incredibly close-minded. And nothing you've done *this time around* has changed that opinion -- unfortunately. >You want to prove to me that LitSwD was not about LSD? Show me John >Lennon's private diary for when he was writing the song. Show me polygraph >tests. This I *would* consider weighty evidence. I do not condsider the >word of man who was known for fibbing to the press to necessarily be strong >evidence. No, I really don't feel *any* need to *prove* anything to you. My only point in all of this was to try to get you to understand that an "opinion", once it's been asserted as the only *viable* (read: non-naive) way of looking at something, has lost the right to claim itself as "opinion", and has now became an attempted assertion of "fact". (As to whether JL was "fibbing" to the press...well, I think I've said enough in the above paragraphs to counter that -- why should anyone need "diaries" and "polygraph tests" to disprove *your* opinion...hell, the diary would have been written by the same person you choose to believe was lying about it, and polygraph tests aren't 100% reliable, either...look, it's your opinion -- and you're welcome to it -- just try to *listen* to what those people who were *actually there* have to say on the subject, and try not to keep asserting that anybody who *does* choose to believe what those people have to say are being *naive*.) >I understood your flatearther analogy quite well Ms. Holt, but when the shoe >doesn't fit, I don't wear it. Personally, I think it more your size. Ooooh, ouch, ouch -- guess it's not *my* size, either. The purpose of the analogy: To show a person who holds an "opinion", stands by that opinion in spite of considerable amounts of evidence to the contrary, and insists that those who choose to believe the contrary-to-his-opinion evidence are just being naive. >Got to admit, you're also good for a laugh, Diane. You imagine ridiculous >statements for me that I would never utter. Perhaps you should go into the >mosty amusing profession of all: politics. No thanks -- "politics" is full of "opinionated" people claiming to be "open-minded". >If one is "opinionated", it means that he has strong opinions on issues and >is willing to defend his opinions with argument. But allowable "argument" does not include the right to claim that anyone who disagrees with his "opinion" is being naive, since, in essence what that says is, "You either agree with me, or you're blind to the truth." That is, of course, *my* opinion of what that means, and being the "open-minded" sort of person that I am, I'm certainly willing to listen to somebody offer a different interpretation. >If one is "close-minded", it means that nothing could make him change his >mind. True. But, just how much "something" does it take to convince certain "opinionated, yet open-minded" people that their opinion may, in fact, be wrong..."I'm *not* close-minded -- I just haven't seen *enough* evidence yet. Of course, that doesn't mean I'm not open to the possibility that *someday* I will." >These are totally orthogonal issues. No they're not...see above paragraph. >If you do not see that one can be both opinionated and open-minded, then >there is something wrong with your rational facilities. And if you were to >say, Diane, that you can't be both opinionated and open-minded, then you >would be condemning yourself, since you are certainly also opinionated. I most certainly do believe that one can both *have* opinions *and* be open-minded -- why, I, myself, have been known to have opinions...lots of them...and still I consider myself to be quite open to listening to other people's interpretations, new opinions -- in fact, I'm always in search of new perspectives, new ways of looking at things...I find it fascinating and enlightening. And I would *never* make the claim that *any* opinion that I hold *must* be held by anybody who doesn't want to be considered *naive* -- the very notion is, to me, ludicrous...an opinion is just *that*: a *view* about something, not a positive *knowledge* about something. >(If you want to quibble over the definition of the word "opinionated", >then the point is taken. But now you know how I'm using the word.) Yes, well, I'm not into "quibbling" over such things -- it *is* a "misuse" of the word, as far as I'm concerned, but as long as it's use, in this context, is understood, then you can call it fooblebotched for all I care. >>Now, let's take this off the net, shall we? >Yes, lets! As soon as you stop misrepresenting me. If you want to insult >me and distort what I have said some more, please send it to me in private. >Thank you. > -Doug Alan There, you see, I *did* ask that this be taken off the net...and I didn't even add a proviso to mine...oh, well...so much for polite requests. Once again, YOU made statements that I felt "misrepresented" me; I countered. YOU chose to reassert what I, again, felt were "misrepresentative" statements about me; I have again countered. Now we are balanced. Noone has had more turns than the other has. If anybody else has actually been reading this crud, they now have an equal number of posits and counters to consider, should they choose to do so. That's the way debate works. Now, if you wish to continue this, you may do so via e-mail -- you've got my path. Diane Holt Interactive Systems Corp. Sporadic Member TAJIND ("J" Division) {seismo,decvax,cbosgd}!hplabs!sdcrdcf!ism780c!dianeh "And what's this, Julian?" "That's Lucy...see, she's in the sky..." "And what are these?" "Those are DIAMONDS!"