NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/feminism/6374

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 6.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!spool.mu.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!uchinews!quads!mec6
From: [e-mail] (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Violence
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Dec 92 04:30:26 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <michael.724959579@glia> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Lines: 124


                    The Rich Post:  An Exegesis

As most of you know, Rich Payne is one of alt.feminism's most prolific
contributors.   There is little doubt that he has amassed a great throng
of followers here who hang on his every word to see what this crafty
wizard will come up with next.

Being one of his most ardent and faithful followers of Rich myself,
I thought I would offer to you, the general public, some of the insights
I have had while studying this master's work in great detail.  (While I
could never aspire to the highest form of artistry that Rich has
acheived, I do believe I have a *small* contribution to make to the
world as a unrelenting admirer.  A mere patron of the arts am I, yet
patrons are needed too, are they not?)

What I have done here is merely selected (virutally at random) a
tidbit of one of his esteemed Dialogues to provide a small expose'
of the profundity and depth that the skilled reader can find in these
incredibly crafty bits of prose.

[e-mail] (Rich Payne) writes:
>[e-mail] (Michael) writes:

>>That is not what she just said.  But I suppose its easy to make fun of
>>someone just after you stuff words in their mouth.

>Let the innocent poster cast the first stone. But in the act of casting
>said stone, one looses their innocence.

In a spellbinding, tour de force maneuver, here we see Rich deflecting
menial attacks on his integrity with the clear profundity and patient
understanding of Jesus Christ.   Why not answer the attack head on, you
ask?  Simple.  That would acknowledge that there was an attack made that
*warranted* attention.  This is the father's way of calming the spiteful
child.  Most admirable, I'm sure you'll agree.  There is little doubt
in my mind that these words will live as long as Christ's did.  (As
his apostles, we may opt to ban the gender neutral pronoun and instead
use the more proper singular second person, but we can discuss this later.)

>Another thing, you deleted a fair amount of text, and left not a single
>indicator, making it appear that I had posted only what you see above. This
>is either deliberately dishonest, or a mistake.

This sort of thing is really quite a common element in the Rich Retort,
but do not let it's commonness hide it's intelligence.  Again, instead
of addressing Michael's concerns directly, he most skillfully turns
the whole framework of the argument into accusations against Michael's
character.  Notice now that only a dichotomous choice remains: either you,
Michael, were wrong, or you, Michael, were wrong.  Simple, isn't it?!!

(There is also a hidden Plan B in here, btw.  You see, if Michael
continues to edit the text he is following up to, Rich can continue
to accuse him of "deliberate dishonesty."  OTOH, If Michael acquieses to
Rich's desire to see all of his text repeated every single time,
the posts will quickly grow to such inconceivable lengths that the
headers alone will take three space-bars to get through.  Michael
will have to drop out or else he will surely go insane.  Masterful,
don't you think?)

>You seem not to allow
>for mistakes or misunderstandings in others (or you would not post
>informative on-topic posts as you did above), so by your own
>methods it would seem that you must be guilty of dishonesty.

With his cutting and insightful intellect, here Rich has derived by
the hidden premises of Michael's two line post that Michael is either a
hypocrite or a liar.  (Do not try this at home.  This sort of mental
feat requires years of training to avoid overheating.)  Again, only
a dichotomy rises from the ruins.  Michael is surely a goner,
intellectually speaking.  Fallen to the champion debater: Rich.

>Rini would have just edited everything
>but my sentence and said something like "You lie" (this -is- a quote).
>You are in good company.

Here folks, is the real clincher.  This is another common theme in
his writing, and every time, it sends chills up the spine of all
who have discerned it's real meaning.  The real meaning?  Rini is
the anti-christ.  She is Rich's nemesis: a card-carrying member of
the feminist underworld.  In fact, her dark power is so strong,
that merely mentioning her name is sure to carry down the most
able opponent.  This is both subtle and sublime stuff.

>Next, I did not "stuff words" in anyone's mouth. She stated that "men here
>have to stop directing their anger at feminists who call attention to violence
>issues, and re-direct their anger at the men who are committing these violent
>acts", which I read as a statement that mens anger is 'misdirected', and this
>I referred to while contrasting it to the assumption about any womens anger.

This, folks, is *so* masterful, I almost missed it myself.  Note that
most of this paragraph is a quote, making it appear as though the whole
thing is indisputable support for his argument.  In doing this, Rich
has managed to completely avoid discussing Michael's point.  Why should
he deign to speak on such a crummy little issue like: "is it *denying*
someone's anger to ask them to direct it at the people who should be held
accountable"?   Finally, note that Rich is undeniably correct in pointing
out that he did not actually, physically walk up to Jean and "stuff
words into her mouth."  Surely Michael will have give up this point,
or else he will have to take take on the long and pointless task of
combatting definitions with the master linguist, Rich.

>Lastly, her post -assumes- (in the face of evidence to the contrary) the
>-men- are the ones "committing these violent acts". And she also confuses
>crime with violence (they are -not- interchangable).

Finally, in the last blow (sure to knock Michael down for the count!!),
Rich changes the subject entirely by loading new charges against Jean
which he wants Michael to justify.  Since Michael is not Jean, this
will certainly lead us down the, "How do you know what she meant?  How
can you speak for Jean?" road, where, if nothing else works, Rich can
surely wear down Michael by driving him nuts with exhausted frustration.

>In short, your post was completely without merit.

This is just the bright shiny bow on the well-crafted present.  The
summary that says it all, really.


Well, that's all I have time for today.   I have made a proposal for
alt.fan.rich.payne, and I think it will pass with flying colors.
See you around!

rini