From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Holtsinger on Harassment & Health
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 21:33:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.213628.7133@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> 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.
>
>In turn, a blatent assertion from someone who refuses to take responsibility
>for his actions.

And more blatant assertions in response. Is this progress, Lyman?

>>> "He made several ..."
>
>>        Incorrect. The whole flamewar stemmed from a single post.
>
>Incorrect yourself.  You made 20-25 posts before you issued your sorry
>excuse for an apology.  And many, many after that.

The whole phrase, let us recall, is 

"He made several tasteless, tactless and mean-spirited about a t.a 
 participant's SO's experience..."

I only made >>ONE<< post about the t.a participant's SO's experience, Lyman.
Only the first one. All the rest was meta-discussion about that post.

>>> "...tasteless, tactless and mean-spirited..."
>
>>         Speculation presented as fact. My post attacked the spectacle of a 
>>         child molester bragging about his exploits. I doubt that anyone would 
>>         consider my behavior, placed in the context of that interpretation, 
>>         as "tasteless, tactless and mean-spirited". 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.
>
>Need I remind you, Darcy, that when Ms. Garvin's SO invited you to experience
>what he had experienced as a child, you replied, "No thank you, you are not
>to my taste," or words to that effect.  That covers 'tasteless,' 'tactless,'
>and 'mean-spirited' pretty well, although there are many other examples.  

Given that person's extreme overreaction to my mistake, I thought it was
rather restrained. I could have said much worse. And I will note, AGAIN, that
the particular exchange to which you refer, was conducted in alt.flame. The
standards are different there.

>And
>what was really pathetic, Kebbin, is the way you dragged out the controversy
>for weeks trying to convince readers that it really wasn't your fault.  

I didn't "drag out the controversy", Lyman. Those who insisted on dredging
articles out of alt.flame, demanding apologies, spouting bucketloads of
odorsome righteous indignation -- those are the people who "dragged out the
controversy". I suggest you address the "problem" with them. I only responded
to stray lies and undeserved smears I saw in talk.abortion.

>>> "...about a t.a participant's SO's experience..."
>
>>         Misleading. My article was posted exclusively to alt.flame, where it
>>         was completely appropriate. 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.
>
>Misleading yourself, Kebbin.  Are you saying that Susan Garvin is not a
>t.a participant?  

Straw man. I never said such a thing.

>Here's a bone for you, Kebbin.  The wise old saying goes:
>"Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity."
>Either you allowed a tiny, malicious animus loose on someone you openly
>dislike, or you are the most monumentally stupid creature ever to move
>about on two legs.  Which is it, Kebbin?

I made a mistake. I apologized. What else do you want? What is your agenda
here, except to recycle old flame wars, and hurt even more lurking victims of 
child sexual abuse?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion