From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Holtsinger on Harassment & Health
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:33:20 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Nov20.180206.10818@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
Darcy) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Nov17.154519.14631@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
> >
> >I find it quite repugnant, Peter, that you would attempt to deflect well-
> >deserved flames away from Darcy.  He made several tasteless, tactless and
> >mean-spirited posts about a t.a participant's SO's experience as a victim
> >of child sex abuse.   
> 
> "...well-deserved flames..."
> 
> 	Blatant assertion.

Very nice.  I picture you perched up on a stand, flapping your wings and
squawking "Blatant assertion!  Blatant assertion!"  _Good_ parrot!

As I've said previously, you got off easily with _only_ well-deserved
flames.  I suspect that many people, presented with your "behavior", would
find it difficult to restrain themselves from pounding a stake through your
heart and stuffing your mouth with garlic.

> "He made several ..."
> 
> 	Incorrect. The whole flamewar stemmed from a single post.

The whole flame war _originated_ with a single post.  This was followed up
by a large number of explanations, denials, exegeses and exculpations on
your part.  Finally, you hawked up something that very vaguely resembled an
apology, but smelled like something that had died in agony a month
previously.

> "...tasteless, tactless and mean-spirited..."
> 
> 	Speculation presented as fact. My post attacked the spectacle of a 
> 	child molester bragging about his exploits.

You claim that you _thought_ your post did this.  What you in fact did was
accuse a _victim_ of molestation of being himself a child molester.  Your
protestations to the contrary have been somewhat less than convincing.

>  I doubt that anyone would	consider my behavior, placed in the context of 
>  that interpretation, as "tasteless, tactless and mean-spirited".

I doubt that anyone with more than two functioning neurons would consider
it in any other way.  This would seem to be supported by the large number
decrying your posting as being _precisely_ "tasteless, tactless and
mean-spirited", and the notable lack of people springing to your defense. 
Well, Steve Franklin did defend you, but he doesn't count.

Not higher than five, anyway.

>  As it happened, my interpretation was incorrect. I have apologized for that 
>  error. But error is not the same as malice, and the presence of malice in 
>  this instance is purely a matter of speculation on Mr. Lyman's part.

Your "apology" was only slight less disgusting than your original
accusation.  It is certainly clear from where _I_ happen to be standing
that your accusation was based purely on malice.  Would you care to deny,
here and now, that you bear an animus towards Susan Garvin?

> "...about a t.a participant's SO's experience..."
> 
> 	Misleading. My article was posted exclusively to alt.flame, where it
> 	was completely appropriate.

You appear to be using the word "appropriate" in some sense with which I am
unfamiliar.  Would you consider accusing a rape victim of being a rapist
"appropriate" in alt.flame?  How about accusing a Jew of being a Nazi?  How
about calling a homosexual a homophobe?

Oh, I guess we already know the answer to _that_ one, don't we?

>  The term "t.a participant" seems to insinuate that I inflicted the flames 
>  on talk.abortion, when in fact the parties guilty of _that_ particular 
>  offense have never owned up or apologized for their actions.

It insinuates nothing of the sort.  It means precisely what it says.  Do
you deny that Susan is a "t.a participant"?  I think you ought to look up
the definition of the word "participant".  It doesn't mean what you seem to
think it does.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion