ALAN RACKMILL was thinking about poor social skills and keyed into 
cyberspace:
AR>Steven Godbe wrote in a message to MARK PROBERT:
AR> SG> Hello MARK!
AR> SG> 13 Jul 97 19:02, MARK PROBERT wrote to BOB MOYLAN:
AR> MP> This IS the real issue. Why is Mr. Godbe posting in her defense?
AR> MP> Is she incapable of engaging in a dialogue?
AR> SG> You know, there's a certain air of the monothematic I'm
AR> SG> detecting. Some people call it a 'strawman' tactic, and
AR> SG> would equate it with a less than genuine attempt to discuss
AR> SG> an issue.
AR> MP> Bob, do you smell a conspiracy here?
AR> SG> I've already mentioned a certain second propensity of yours
AR> SG> toward paranoid speculation and commentary. Are you truly
AR> SG> unaware of it, simply making ingenuine, specious statements,
AR> SG> or are you attempting to CONFIRM that observed propensity
AR> SG> with statements like this?  How sad, that one single post
AR> SG> from a passer-through the echo, and a few responses from me
AR> SG> to YOUR responses brings to you such persistent feelings of
AR> SG> persecution and a fear of conspiracy to you.  It's a big
AR> SG> world, Mark, and as difficult as it may be for you to
AR> SG> persuade yourself to believe, I've other uses for my time
AR> SG> than to build a cabal for your personal disparagement and of
AR> SG> all that you hold dear. 
AR>So, is she merely a "passer through the echo"? or is she a passer
AR>through the echo who drops a load of crap and then runs and lets her
AR>followers handle the fallout?
Steve has statd that she is a passer through. Have been a public user of 
USENET for around eight years, or so, I noted that this behavior is 
usually that which is referred to as trolling. Steve got upset with 
that. However, it certainly fits the definition.
AR> MP> I would love to know what form of "harm's way" Mr. Godbe is
AR> MP> referring to.
AR> SG> You're persistently asking for me to speculate upon another
AR> SG> person's speculation, and I don't care to indulge you in
AR> SG> that.  
AR>I believe YOU are the one who used the term "harm's way", so it would
AR>logical to ask you what you mean by that.
That is what I remember. Steve used it.
I note that it is a common phrase in the basic books on scientology. 
They use it as a bogus scare tactic to rook the desperate in.
AR> SG> You'd only read into it messages other than those
AR> SG> which were intended anyway, if your recent traffic is any
AR> SG> indication.  I see no point in such speculation, but if you
AR> SG> want MY opinions, you have to be willing to read them, not
AR> SG> read INTO them to have any idea where I'm coming from. 
AR> MP> Does he mean relevant treatment including psychopharmacology?
AR> MP> Does he think that that is a harm? Inquiring minds want to know.
AR> SG> Let me also say, that you'd have to be willing to speak TO
AR> SG> me also, ask it of me directly, observe a modicum of polite
AR> SG> behavior, speaking to the person in the room, not 'behind
AR> SG> their back' or 'over their head' as if they were not there.
AR> MP> I smell scientology, or a Phyllis Schlafley clone.
AR> SG> That's a real problem for you then, Mark, you 'smell'
AR> SG> things which truly aren't there, in this case.
AR> SG> And to make matters worse, you're happier chasing after or
AR> SG> swatting at fears and strawmen of your own creation than you
AR> SG> are in having a rational dialogue without the baggage.  It's
AR> SG> like I first suspected, there are 'allowed' topics, and
AR> SG> those which disturb you.   
AR>That's ok.
AR>If you can't stand the heat, you don't have to stay.
Now, he can stay, and say whatever he wants. If he cannot handle cogent 
questions, and has to dance and do the two-footed sidestep, that is his 
problem.
I will not keep quiet just because he gets upset at being questioned. If 
he cannot handle that, then that is HIS problem.
                ===>The Voice of Reason<===
                     mark.probert@juno.com
---
 * CMPQwk #1.4 * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
---------------