From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: A Warning From Darcy (was The world according to)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 05:47:37 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

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.

> I don't believe Chaney would make a blanket accusation
> that pro-choice equtes to support of child molestation.

I don't know if there are any bounds to the kid's irrationality.

> >> >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.

> If only his SO had the same sense
> of decorum, maybe she wouldn't have pained so many people...

Why?  Didn't we just clear up that nothing explicit was posted to t.a?

> >> >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*; it's certainly conceivable that someone engaged in a vendetta
would do exactly what you did.

> >> >> >> 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.

> >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.

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

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)