From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: alt.flame,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Warning From Darcy (was The world according to)
Date: 2 Sep 92 00:45:34 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <1992Aug31.054737.14512@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Aug31.013646.23946@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug24.035331.29864@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
>> >In  <1992Aug23.020706.5531@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writ
>> >> In article <1992Aug15.181505.28426@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com wri
>> >> >In  <1992Aug15.155124.7718@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) w
>>
>> >> Chaney's .sig refers to consensual "rape",
>> >
>> >*Now* it does; originally, "with the child's consent" wasn't there.
>>
>> I seem to recall him explaining the connection between his .sig and the
>> Florida case (Lockett?) long before Don's flamebait. Maybe I'm mistaken.
>
>Regardless, the phrase "with the child's consent" was not added to the .sig
>until much later.

Doesn't matter. The point was that Susie "broached" the subject of non-
consensual sex. Chaney did not. Why can't you just admit you were wrong?

>> >> >Perhaps you'd care to show me the post where he did so?
>>
>> I'm not going to reproduce the wording here, Larry, so please curb your
>> prurient interest. If you have access to some sort of archive, I could give
>> you a Message-ID: to search by. Just say the word.
>
>No, no prurient interest; I've heard much too much of things like that.
>I was just challenging your description of what he posted; cleared up by:
>
>> >I have a number of friends who were sexually abused, Kevin, and I have
>> >heard "fairly explicit" "intimate detail".  I assure you that I saw
>> >*nothing* from Don that would anywhere approach this.  Did I miss anything,
>> >or are our definitions of those phrases very different?
>>
>> You _did_ miss something, Larry. Don had the decency to post his inflammatory
>> response to alt.flame exclusively.
>
>That explains why I saw nothing explicit.

See no evil, eh, Larry? Just because it doesn't get to your CRT doesn't mean
it doesn't get to mine...

>> >> >Wrong.  I read it one way, said "Wait a minute, that *can't* be what's
>> >> >being said," reread it, and said "Oh - *that's* what was meant."
>> >>
>> >> Whereas I only read it once, and promptly posted a flame. And I have
>> >> apologized to Don for my hastiness. Is it inconceivable that you might have
>> >> fallen into the same trap, if you had happened to be in a slightly less
>> >> fastidious mood when you read his words?
>> >
>> >Yes, it's inconceivable.
>>
>> Then I must conclude that your powers of extrapolation and/or objectivity
>> are pathetically limited, Larry. You have my pity.
>
>Save it for yourself.  I said that it's inconceivable *for an unbiased
>reader* ...

The same comment applies. You demonstrate pitifully-limited powers of
extrapolation and/or objectivity.

>> >> >> >> and the braggy, confrontational tone was HIGHLY
>> >> >> >> unusual for a revelation so intimate and personal.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Why should he be apologetic for something he wasn't responsible for?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In what way was he not responsible for his own words?
>> >> >
>> >> >He was not responsible for being abused.
>> >>
>> >> But he WAS responsible for the braggy, confrontational tone of his article.
>> >> Please admit the point before changing the subject, Larry.
>> >
>> >I'm doing neither.
>>
>> Deny away.
>
>OK, I deny that I conceded the point, and I deny that I changed the
>subject.  Sorry that had to be spelled out for you.

Denials are cheap. I have no reason to accept yours.

>> >As I pointed out in the part you cut out, the tone
>> >that *you* think would be appropriate is irrelevant.
>>
>> It's relevant to what *I* thought he was saying, Larry, and that's the
>> central question here.
>
>OK.
>
>> Now, are you going to PROVE that I knew that Don was a victim, rather than
>> an abuser, or are you going to admit to the obvious fact that you can't
>> prove a damn thing about my thoughts?
>
>Clearly the latter.
>
>> >Confrontational?  Yes - about what one
>> >would expect from someone who went through a very painful ordeal and
>> >then sees some asshole trivializing the experience.
>>
>> Maybe in person I might expect an emotional outlash, Larry, but this
>> medium facilitates a time delay in which people can cool off and read what
>> they're writing before they send it off to the world. No, Larry, everything
>> here has been pre-processed to some degree, at least to the extent of putting
>> thoughts and emotions into words and fed into an input device of some sort.
>> I would NOT expect someone to open themselves up to painful memories and
>> dialogs in front of thousands of people unless they were
>>
>>      a) stupid
>>
>>      b) naive about the nature of the medium
>>
>>           or
>>
>>      c) grossly misinformed or misled about the nature of the medium
>
>or unless they wanted to educate the person trivializing the experience.

Does intense emotional confrontation facilitate education, Larry? Sometimes, 
but not usually, and not without careful application. I saw no attempt to
"educate"; just some bragging and carrying on...

>> >By the way - if you think it's so wrong to discuss, is there any reason
>> >you keep dragging this out?  A little consistency would be nice...
>>
>> Takes two to tango, Larry. I've stopped discussing this with practically
>> everyone else except you. Drop it any time you want.
>
>But I'm not the one saying it's wrong to discuss it, so it's not hypocritical
>of me to respond to your posts.  

Just like it wasn't hypocritical of you to bitch and whine about the child-
support threads whilst simultaneously being a major contributor to them?
You're hardly in a position to criticize.

>(Your responding to everything a week later
>is also contributing to this being dragged out.)

Assuming you have the qualifications to do so, you're welcome to take over my 
highly-variable volume of work duties _gratis_, so that I may post to 
talk.abortion at a tempo more to your liking, Larry. Short of that, you may 
just have to be content with whatever tempo you get...

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky alt.flame:12530 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:369