Re: CHALLENGE FOR T.R. REGULARS

"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]
> > > > "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)


Translation: I fucked up....forgive me.
>