Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!mcnc!rti-sel!wfi
From: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: L. S. de Camp/WorldCon
Message-ID: <1008@rti-sel.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Sep-86 14:02:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: rti-sel.1008
Posted: Wed Sep 24 14:02:23 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Sep-86 05:59:57 EDT
References: <422@inuxm.UUCP> <1085@hoptoad.uucp> <1000@rti-sel.UUCP> <1108@hoptoad.uucp>
Reply-To: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, NC
Lines: 55
Xref: linus talk.politics.misc:324 net.sf-lovers:15485

In article <1108@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:

>Since Mr. Ingogly has not responded to my friendly and well-documented
>message concerning the roots of the ongoing sexual revolution, which began
>in force roughly one hundred years ago, I can only conclude that he does not
>want a rational discussion, and accordingly I will stop attempting to have
>such a discussion with him.

Mr. Maroney:

   1. Our net has been up and down lately, so our rate of 
      reception has been low.

   2. I've been working my ass off for several weeks now
      putting together and delivering a four day intensive
      course on computer systems design. Consequently, I've
      gotten far behind in my reading of news articles.

You owe me an apology, and (frankly) I think you have a lot of growing
up to do. 

>Whatever it was that happened to you in the 1960's that made you start
>breathing fire whenever sexual freedom is mentioned, Mr. Ingogly, I
>sympathize with you but I wish you would let your opinions transcend this
>personal hurt, since opposition to sexual freedom hurts others.

I challenge you to show where ANYTHING I've ever said opposes sexual
freedom. The rest of us don't have to buy into your definitions; I, at
least REFUSE to. And there's no personal hurt involved; how DARE you
hypothesize like this about someone you don't even know (I suppose it's 
not surprising, since you've done the same to Mr. deCamp). Your
assumption that something personally 'happened' to me is an insult,
since it implies my opinions are of less value due to my 'faulty' and
'emotional' thinking. It's equivalent to me to dismissing a woman's
intensity of feeling on a topic by accusing her of feminine
emotionalism and irrationality due to her menstruating.

>As a parting note, however, I must point out that calling the standard
>psychoanalytic models concerning the unconscious mind and libidinal energy
>"Tim's personal theory" shows a certain ignorance about the science of the
>psyche and current models of its behavior.  Just imagine, I studied these
>models for four years only to find I had made the whole thing up myself!
>Obviously Freud, Jung, and Adler were merely hallucinations.  I simply must
>dry out one of these days....

I'm a behaviorist, and the professional friends I know and respect who
are in the field of psychology are behaviorists (they've studied the
field much longer than four years, by the way). I think Freud, Jung, and 
Adler were full of sh*t. Period. I've been through traditional therapy
and behavioral therapy both: the latter works, the former simply eats
up a client's money and leaves him/her with the illusion that the
underlying problems are really being addressed. Show me your damned
unconscious mind and libidinal energy.

                                    -- Bill Ingogly