Re: Fibber McGee's Closet

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005, John Ptak wrote:

> Dear Ms. Seigel,
>
> I found your original post objectionable because it was derogatory towards
> people like/similar to Jewelia; my response was intended towards their
> defense.

But neither you nor anyone else has even attempted, let alone managed, to
explain what was "derogatory" in that post. You simply restate your
opinion (actually your conviction), which remains as perplexing as ever.
Nor would Jewelia have wished such "defense," implying as it does that
just stating the facts, that is the facts themselves, was "derogatory."

Her position (which strikes me as credible) was that *flaunting* her
condition was desirable, even necessary, and that was EXACTLY what she did
in life and in her "play in 4 acts." Whatever its literary merits, it was
a political statement.

So I remain doubly flummoxed by your insistence that my comment was
derogatory... that just mentioning the facts was "derogatory." In your
mind perhaps -- but not hers, and not most people's, whatever their own
relation to sex changes. So if Jewelia's own words, and those of others
familiar with them, don't convince you that my report was, if anything,
rather restrained, then I doubt further discussion will improve matters.
(You are perfectly free, however, to question my reality testing, as I
certainly question yours.)

> As a casual and uncommitted observer it would benefit your argument if you
> would refrain from cursory and unfounded negative accusations of a personal
> nature.

Sorry, the antecedent of that dangling participle is unclear. Do you mean
I am the casual uncommitted observer, or you are? Whichever, I don't see
that you've made any "argument" at all, rather simply repeated the
accusation.

An *explanation*, offlist would probably be best, of what was "derogatory"
-- or an abandonment of the claim -- seems to be in order.

Judy
Received on Mon Mar 14 02:41:21 2005