From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: alt.flame,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Warning From Darcy (was The world according to)
Date: 23 Aug 92 02:07:06 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1992Aug15.181505.28426@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Aug15.155124.7718@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug12.172446.26871@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes
>> >In  <1992Aug12.020846.7594@cfctech.cfc.com>  kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy
>> >> In article <1992Aug10.031935.11328@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com wri
>> >> >
>> >> >Sorry, you're correct - I thought it was a different thread.
>> >> >Nevertheless, my two points remain valid.  (1) the subject of child
>> >> >sexual abuse was *not* broached by Ms.  Garvin.  (It was broached, as
>> >> >you corrected me, by Chaney.)
>> >>
>> >> As already pointed out, his .sig referred to concensual adult/child sex,
>> >> not rape.
>> >
>> >"adult/child sex" is statutory rape.
>>
>> Now tell me something I don't know.
>
>Perhaps you should be more specific?  :-)

Touche', Larry, touche'.

>> Why do suppose they add the word "statutory" if not to emphasize the
>> fact that many cases of adult/child sex cannot be intuitively
>> characterized as "rape" (because of the advanced age and/or maturity
>> of the "victim", absence of violence or coercion, etc.)?
>
>To distinguish it from forcible rape.  When you said "not rape", it implied
>neither classification of rape.

Is there a point to this anal-retentiveness, Larry? Chaney's .sig refers to
consensual "rape", whereas Susie (and, later, her S.O.) referred to forcible
rape. This is indistinguishable from my original claim that Susie and/or her
S.O. "broached" the issue.

>> ...Don broached the subject of
>> adults actually raping children abusively, in intimate detail.
>
>Perhaps you'd care to show me the post where he did so?  

His response to my post was fairly explicit.

>> >> And I also maintain that the wording of his post was ambiguous
>> >
>> >I agree; I had to reread it to realize that it couldn't possibly be
>> >what you assumed it to be.
>> 
>> You mean, in the light of the later revelations, right? 
>  
>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? Self-righteousness is very easy,
and therefore very cheap, in hindsight, when one has ALL the facts at one's
disposal. Doing the correct thing given incomplete or misleading information.
I did what I thought was right at the time. If Don really WAS an abuser 
publically bragging about his exploits, I would have been remiss to DELAY 
flaming him. As it happened, I acted too quickly. But never in bad faith.

>> >> 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.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: alt.flame