Steven Godbe wrote in a message to MARK PROBERT:
 SG> Hello MARK!
 SG> 13 Jul 97 19:02, MARK PROBERT wrote to BOB MOYLAN:
 MP> This IS the real issue. Why is Mr. Godbe posting in her defense?
 MP> Is she incapable of engaging in a dialogue?
 SG> You know, there's a certain air of the monothematic I'm
 SG> detecting. Some people call it a 'strawman' tactic, and
 SG> would equate it with a less than genuine attempt to discuss
 SG> an issue.
 MP> Bob, do you smell a conspiracy here?
 SG> I've already mentioned a certain second propensity of yours
 SG> toward paranoid speculation and commentary. Are you truly
 SG> unaware of it, simply making ingenuine, specious statements,
 SG> or are you attempting to CONFIRM that observed propensity
 SG> with statements like this?  How sad, that one single post
 SG> from a passer-through the echo, and a few responses from me
 SG> to YOUR responses brings to you such persistent feelings of
 SG> persecution and a fear of conspiracy to you.  It's a big
 SG> world, Mark, and as difficult as it may be for you to
 SG> persuade yourself to believe, I've other uses for my time
 SG> than to build a cabal for your personal disparagement and of
 SG> all that you hold dear. 
So, is she merely a "passer through the echo"? or is she a passer through the 
echo who drops a load of crap and then runs and lets her followers handle the 
fallout?
 MP> I would love to know what form of "harm's way" Mr. Godbe is
 MP> referring to.
 SG> You're persistently asking for me to speculate upon another
 SG> person's speculation, and I don't care to indulge you in
 SG> that.  
I believe YOU are the one who used the term "harm's way", so it would logical 
to ask you what you mean by that.
 SG> You'd only read into it messages other than those
 SG> which were intended anyway, if your recent traffic is any
 SG> indication.  I see no point in such speculation, but if you
 SG> want MY opinions, you have to be willing to read them, not
 SG> read INTO them to have any idea where I'm coming from. 
 MP> Does he mean relevant treatment including psychopharmacology?
 MP> Does he think that that is a harm? Inquiring minds want to know.
 SG> Let me also say, that you'd have to be willing to speak TO
 SG> me also, ask it of me directly, observe a modicum of polite
 SG> behavior, speaking to the person in the room, not 'behind
 SG> their back' or 'over their head' as if they were not there.
 MP> I smell scientology, or a Phyllis Schlafley clone.
 SG> That's a real problem for you then, Mark, you 'smell'
 SG> things which truly aren't there, in this case.
 SG> And to make matters worse, you're happier chasing after or
 SG> swatting at fears and strawmen of your own creation than you
 SG> are in having a rational dialogue without the baggage.  It's
 SG> like I first suspected, there are 'allowed' topics, and
 SG> those which disturb you.   
That's ok.
If you can't stand the heat, you don't have to stay.
Alan
Team OS/2,
Fidonet 1:107/101, ibmNET 40:4371/101, OS2NET 80:135/15
internet: alanrackmill@mindspring.com
--- timEd/2 1.01
1:107/101)
---------------