[Jul 23, 97 - 21:04] Steven Godbe of 1:106/1393 wrote to Bob Moylan:
SG> Bob, I'll say it one last time.  I don't care to discuss her with you
SG> or anyone anymore.  I won't.  No one wanted to hear what I had to say
SG> upon the subject anyway.  I'm sufficiently satisfied that her choice
SG> to leave the echo with one post was the correct choice for her.  It's
SG> the echo's loss, not hers.  That's it.  Exhaust yourself, demean 
ourself,
SG> I don't care, I won't respond again on this subject.
Dropping into an echo to leave a single message is a technique often used to 
provoke precisely the kind of unproductive controversy which you and Bob are 
embroiled in.  The single message ranges from juvenile profanity to 
provocative personal attacks to urgent but unsubstantiated "warnings."  It is 
unfortunate that Bob rose to the bait, if bait it was intended to be, but Dr. 
Dot's cameo appearance followed by your "I can't speak to the issues she 
raised but I'm here to defend her personally" stance certainly fit the 
pattern of various troublemakers who have blown through the echos over the 
years.
We have had our share of interlopers quoting religious tracts, 
pseudo-scientific propaganda, and the like.  Nonetheless, you'll see that 
most people receive a polite hearing IF they respond to questions in a polite 
and germane manner.  It's the "If you can't see my blinding truth, I'm not 
going to waste time defending it but I sure as heck will repeat it over and 
over again" attitude that turns most of us off.  I, for one, have had lengthy 
discussions with people whose ideas I ultimately concluded are grounded in 
faith rather than reason, but I will pursue those discussions courteously 
until I reach that conclusion and will then disengage myself as tactfully as 
I can.
BM>> You don't have an relatives named Kelley by any chance?
SG> Should I?   I've read a few of Jane Kelly's posts, and I honestly
SG> don't know what has everyone so ready to take pot shots at her.  I've
SG> no significant experience with her, but I must say, statements like
SG> this last one of yours don't impress me much.
That was a cheap shot on Bob's part.  However, the reason that "everyone" is 
so ready to take pot shots at Jane Kelly is that she came in here with a very 
specific and obvious agenda, posted very prolificly, and responded to 
attempts to engage her in reasoned discourse with strange, off the mark 
answers.
    "Jane, do you think it will rain?"
        "Don't you people realize how dangerous it is to give an alcoholic an 
umbrella?"
She repeatedly asserts that she is not here to talk about people with AD(H)D, 
but rather about people with a family history of alcholism.  However, she 
seems to believe that everyone has a family history of alcoholism, if you 
look hard enough, so she posts dire warnings to everyone who drops in.
She is sincere, I'm sure, but apparently single-minded.  I, personally, gave 
up trying to bring her into the conversation in a productive manner and now 
ignore her.  However, she still tends to pounce on newcomers with her urgent 
advice and many of us feel obliged to put her statements in perspective for 
the benefit of those newcomers.
By the way, although I think you said that you've been around for a while, I 
don't recall seeing your name on any posts prior to Dr. Dot's message.
Jerry Schwartz
--- Msged/386 4.00
---------------