From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Overpeck's problems  (Was: Re: Have you herd about the ram?)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:12:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.063330.29617@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <1992Sep29.222255.28498@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep29.170923.25652@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> >> In article <1992Sep29.041532.26362@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
> >Poor Kevin.  Some guy posted something to the effect of
> >"If you want to talk about child abuse, I can tell you
> >about child abuse," and Kevin, a bonehead if ever there was
> >a bonehead, flamed the guy and called him a child molester
> CORRECTION #1: I didn't flame "the guy" [sic], I flamed "the gal".

I stand corrected.  You didn't flame him, you called him
a child molester.  That's not flame.  Noooo.  Why, that's
hardly even an insult, I guess.  Maybe you think that calling
someone a child molester isn't an insult.  Maybe you think
it's a great thing to be.  I don't know.  I've seen a lot
of twisted nonsense from you.  I might have assumed incorrectly
that you think child molestation is a bad thing, when actually
you like it.  Sorry for misreading you.

> >when the man was speaking about his own experience of having
> >been abused.  
> CORRECTION #2: There was no clear indication in his original statements
> that he was speaking from the point of view of a victim.

The fact is that you did call him a child molester based on his
statement that he knew about child abuse, when in fact he was
a victim of child abuse.  So there is nothing in my remarks
to correct, making your "CORRECTION #2" a crock.  Furthermore,
isn't it interesting how you had no clear indication, by your
lights, one way or the other, so you chose the most offensive
interpretation.  I think you're full of it, Kibble.  Do you
really think, in a situation where there is no "clear
indication" (by your lights) one way or the other, the reasonable
thing is to decide that someone is posting to the net to declare
he is a child molester?  That happen a lot on the net?

I think this bit of yours was the most dishonest of the
defenses you posted.

> >Most people would just say they were sorry and
> >they were wrong, 
> CORRECTION #3: You seem to be implying that I didn't.

Took you an age and a half to get around to it.  And no, you
didn't.  You finally apologized and then dragged the whole
thing on for a long time with your noisome nonsense about
how his statement was ambiguous and therefore you took it
to mean that he was posting to a public computer network
that he was a child molester.

> GENERAL CORRECTION: None of those flames were ever intended by me to reach
> talk.abortion. If you want to whine about their presence here, please
> direct your whines to the responsible parties. I only responded in the same
> forums where I saw baseless charges, accusations and untruths, as is my
> right. I never imported any of it into talk.abortion.

I never complained about their being in talk.abortion.  Whatever
are you talking about?  This is clearly an attempt to misdirect
the discussion.  As such, it is a failure.  It is not based on
reality.

But then neither was your attempt to flame a victim of child
abuse as a child molester when all you had was one, barely
arguably, ambiguous statement to go on.  It is precisely this
sort of thing that leaves you naked of all credibility.  Such
behavior demonstrates that you are so anxious to flame anyone
who ever had something unkind to say about you that you will
take any excuse, no matter how minimal, to say the most
outrageous and vile things about that person.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion