Re: CHALLENGE FOR T.R. REGULARS

"Ellen Mercer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "John James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > "Ellen Mercer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > "John James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >  news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > > "Ellen Mercer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sky King) wrote in message
> >  news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > > > > Alan Mackenzie<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >  news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > > > > > Ellen Mercer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 1 Nov 2003
> > > >  20:41:03 -0800:
> > >
> > > John, if you want to have respectful dialog, I'm up for that. But
> > > experience has shown that you're as likely to crap all over dialog
> > > with cheapshot personal slurs,
> >
> > I give as I receive generally. What experience? My only direct
experience
> > with *you* is that you responded to both of my first two posts (which
> > contained no slurs at all) with cheapshots and ad hominem abuse, and
> > addressed none of my points. That's an empirical pattern you will have
to
> > work hard to alter. I note you have refused to even acknowledge that
> > particular fact. If you're claiming this from any previous posts of mine
to
> > others, I would have say it flies at odds with your professed commitment
to
> > be a Doubting Thomas.
> >
> John, I was out of the country when you posted this, and it struck me
> as a radical revision of our first interactions. When I got back, I
> decided that when I had a spare moment I'd look up the post in which
> you keep claiming that I slurred you, unprovoked. No surprise- the
> story IS radically different than you reported. You never actually
> cite this first interaction, of course. Here is what I found is
> apparently our very first interaction:
>
>
> I wrote this. It related to the well-known, striking decrease in the
> median age at which girls in western countries, especially the US and
> especially black girls, develop visible secondary sexual
> characteristics in recent decades:
> **********************Ellen's part**********************************
> > The topic was visibly apparent secondary sexual characteristics.
> > Whether a girl is or is not menstruating is not relevant to that
> > appearance, since mensturation usually follows by a couple years.
> > However, even the age of menarche HAS (decreased) of late, though not as
> > strikingly quickly as has breast development.
> >
> > Hope this helps. Sorry that I didn't clarify it better in the original
> > post, I guess I thought that the context would make it obvious.
> >
> **********John James' response*******************
> Menstruation is both relevant and irrelevant. The truth is that
> genetically
> females needed to reproduce as quickly as possible. But our physiology
> mitigated against premature fertility for reasons of reproductive
> success -
> therefore the menarche became tied to factors such as fat content and
> nutrition. The age hasn't advanced recently actually, quite the
> reverse in
> fact (I invite the interested reader to investigate...).
>
> I am amazed at this lack of knowledge by an apparently female poster -
> secondary female sexual characteristics are caused by oestrogen
> release, and
> the release is tied very strongly to the menarche.
> **************End quoted text********************
>
> So out of nowhere, you made statements that (1) failed to address the
> topic at hand but took us into a nonsequitor, (2) professed to be
> "amazed" at my "lack of knowledge" and couldn't even bring yourself to
> fully accept that I'm female. Even when I was, ultimately, completely
> correct as supported by scientific papers that I cited in support of
> my statements.
>
> In other words, you took a shot across the bow to insult my
> intelligence and even cast some doubt as to whether I'm really a
> woman- as our very first interaction. All the while being quite wrong.

Hmm, well memory is an imperfect thing. My recollection of my post (without
having revisited it at the time) was that I hadn't been derogatory. In fact,
the sentence in question would not give that impression, so I apologise for
that. In mitigation, from what I recall of my state of mind, I certainly
didn't *intend* to be insulting - I was just being tactlessly over-forceful
in making a point. I wrote 'apparently female' simply because I routinely
keep an open mind as to the sex of posters I don't know, rather than to
question the validity of it - I have known several female posters in the
past who used male names on Usenet, and vice versa.

The other point you make was a misunderstanding over the meaning of
'advance', which I note you took out of your 'quoted text' - does 'quoted
text' not mean verbatim to you? I should have paid more attention to the
previous context of the thread, I admit - it was not one of my better
efforts by some distance. I actually turned out to be agreeing with you, but
that is of little importance at this stage. In any case, although I hadn't
intended any malice (and was consequently rather taken aback by your
subsequent aggressiveness), in retrospect I was clumsy in my phrasing, and
culpably idle for not having read the thread context properly, so I hope
you'll accept my apology, and we can leave the incident behind. I am not
normally so careless - must have been a bad day.

[...]

John James (JJ)