From: tyger@netcom.com (Kristen Kohlbecker)
Subject: Re: We Have Been Trying to WARN YOUN!!!!
Organization:  I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, you can't prove anything!
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:21:35 GMT

dnelson@icaen.uiowa.edu (David Nelson) writes:
>drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>>haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes) writes:
>>]In article <C0Iors.Mp8@cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>] >Primetime Live also said that
>>] >an FBI study (dated January 1992?) concluded that there was no
>>] >evidence of even one ritual-abuse related murder.
>>] 
>>] So!  Even the FBI is covering up for Satan!
>
>>How Many times HAve I personally Written about
>>the Evil SatanicKultRitualists in Washington DC
>>and folks have NOT Taken Me Serious About IT!!!!!
>
>>drieux
>[remainder of satire deleted to save space]
>
>I feel that the aforementioned satirical post minimizes, invalidates,
>and indeed mocks the pain of those for whom the ritual abuse is an
>undeniable reality.  I had hoped that all of those who read this group
>would have exhibited more compassion, if not simple tact, than to
>cross-post such a cheap shot to asar.  I feel that it was a truly
>tasteless if not downright cruel act.  (My site does not receive
>a.s.a.r.d, hence, I am posting here.)

I do and don't agree with this. While there is "evidence" to support the
claim that ritual abuse does happen, there is surely an equal amount to 
prove that it doesn't. The real issue is the quality of that evidence.
Unfortunately for those who may actually have experienced it, there are
many analysts/social workers who have been shown to tamper with the minds
of their subjects, implanting the notion of ritual abuse, and thereby casting
into a dubious light potentially real claims.

>Many survivors have great difficulty speaking up because their abusers
>trained them to remain silent.  Many survivors struggle against their
>own denial.  Speaking out is an essential part of such people's
>healing.  To ridicule or invalidate their stories is to re-victimize
>them.  Satire is generally for the purpose of ridicule.

Sometimes.

>From his actions, one might infer that drieux@wetware.com has a vested
>interest in silencing such testimony - perhaps by virtue of being a
>perp himself or by being in denial of his own abuse.  Or, one might
>infer that he is a person incapable of experiencing compassion for the
>sufferings of fellow humans and, furthermore, perhaps delights in
>displaying his wit at the expense of others' pain.

One might infer that if one were to make an assumption about a person they
neither know nor have met based on one post. Have you ever tried to look
through a keyhole to see what was going on in another room? If so, then you
might have noticed what a limited perspective it gives you. If someone asked
you what was going on in that other room, could you tell them accurately? I
sincerely doubt it. You would have to open the door and step inside the room,
wouldn't you? 

If anything, drieux is guilty of not more carefully considering his audience,
but it is a dangerous thing to assume you know his reasons, and truthfully, I
find your pigeonholing of him very nearly as offensive as you seemed to find
his satire of Satanic cults. I know drieux, and have met him, and your 
assessment of his character no more resembles him, than one fingerprint
resembles another.

Posters here are asked to consider carefully what they say, and show some 
consideration for the safe space healing processes going on here. Is this
a courtesy extended only to those with whom you agree? That seems rather
inequitable to me.

Tyger

-- 
      Kristen Kohlbecker    And I would choose to be with you
      tyger@netcom.com      That's if the choice were mine to make   
                            But you can make decisions too
      A Tyger and a Lady    And you can have this heart to break