From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Unnecessary hostility in talk.rape
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:00:49 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <9208251917.AA03130@ros6.gsfc.nasa.gov>, alan@ROS6.GSFC.NASA.GOV (Alan Smale) writes:
> What do all the following people have in common?
> 
> Kathi. Ataylor. Sam. Kim Posey. Rolfe. More than one Susan. Synth.
> Tim, I think. Probably a few other people I've forgotten about.
> 
> They have posted to talk.rape. And they have been attacked by DC,
> called deliberate liars, idiots, ignoramuses or worse, on the basis of
> their opinions (generally freely and openly admitted to be opinions,
> note, rather than facts). Many have been attacked savagely and
> demeaningly, in 500-line polemics about their morality, their
> relationships, their access to legal documents and their spelling.
> After a series of increasingly heated exchanges with DC, many don't
> come back. I doubt (this is my OPINION) that this is because they've
> come round to DC's rather narrow way of thinking and as a result,
> don't need to post any more.  It wouldn't surprise me if the
> readership of talk.rape is getting rather small these days.

As much as I can appreciate what you are trying to achieve here, let's
clear something up. Out of your list of people I have 'attacked', there
are a few errors.

Kathi--Slammed me in the cult-movies section and then accused me of fantasizing
about raping her and being "twisted." That is when it got ugly between she and
I.  When it was all over, I publicly stated that I hoped she would stay on the
group as I felt she had an opinion on things that was as valid as everyone
else's--provided she was not accusing me of baing a twisted rapist. That worked
for one week until she couldn't hold back anymore and started to repeat her
claims.

Ataylor--said I was clling rape victims stupid. After repeatedly getting tired
of that charge, I challenged that person to point out where it happened. After
lots of false made up quottes by that person, things turned sour.

Synth--accused me of being 'afraid' to state what about my fantasies aroused
me. I REPEATEDLY tried to explain to him that would be like explaining why I
like strawberries and not liver--it can't be done with the human language other
than to say "That is what I like."

Kimmy--Jumped in here to say that anyone who would compile a listing of rape
films is sick and is a closet rapist. I attacked HIM? Nope. And, you will
remember that I repeatedly told him that what he thought and fantasized about
was perfectly O.K., no matter what it was, and that he should not try to impose
his views on others.

Sam--things turned sour when he said I should be a man and not care if people
call me a 'wus'. After several rounds, I agree to a truce. Sam does also, but
he has got to sum up the debate--including posting where my views are wrong. (I
guess he was using truce as in Iran-Iraq War truce, and not the more
traditional meaning.)

In each of these situations, I did NOT initiate combat. I was posting my
opinions when someone else came along and started to dig into me. And, I am not
yet a lawyer, but I am in training to be one, true. However, should I be gentle
when someone comes along and tries to show how hot they are?

To make an analogy--you shouldn't go into a bar and pick a fight with someone.
They might be golden gloves and can hurt you real bad real quick.

In the most recent skirmish, I posted the following:

________________________
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu, University of Toledo, Computer Services
Date: 21 Aug 92 08:53:29 EST
 
Regarding the debate over mace v. home brews, why not just get a
49 cent trial sie of WD-40 or similar product and carry that?
 
It's the same size as a mace canister, and is more effective.
 
Plus, it would be difficult to be prosecuted for.
 
DC
__________________________

Andy follows that up with:


___________________________
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman), Computer Science Department, 
Stanf
Date: 22 Aug 92 01:55:29 EST
 
In article <1992Aug21.085329.9621@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
 writes:
>Regarding the debate over mace v. home brews, why not just get a
>49 cent trial sie of WD-40 or similar product and carry that?
>
>Plus, it would be difficult to be prosecuted for.
 
Not really.  The DA merely establishes WHY it was being carried and
then various weapons laws come into play.  The DA makes a deal with
the attacker (assuming best case, you're found out AFTER a justifiable
use) for no time or maybe even conviction, who then happily helps send
the WD-bandit up the river.
 
A justifiable use does not imply justifiable carry.
 
-andy
_________________________________

At no point did Andy pose ANY of this as a question or possible alternative. He
stated flat out that my post was wrong and that the DA would cut a deal with a
rapists to nail the victim.

I know that Andy was talking off of the top of his head with NO references, as
this is so far from reality it would be laughable--IF it were in some comedy
film and not the real world.

Now, I might have blown this off if Andy and I had not had a skirmish before.

My advice to everyone out there, who does not like the 'savagry' of my posts
directed at them, is to not come at me. Tough shit if I can work the words
better than you---that is no reason for me to hold back to your level.

Andy COULD have ASKED if mace laws cover WD-40. I would have looked it up.
Whenever someone has been polite about me gathering information, no sweat. I'll
do it. Andy COULD have told us WHY he thought mace laws covered WD-40. Perhaps
a news report he heard about.

Nada.

Just, "DC is wrong."

People who want me to be civil should not engage in cheap shots themselves. 


> 
> DC; I would ask you to take a couple of days off. Take a look at
> yourself. All the people I listed at the top are entitled to their
> opinions and actions. Don't reply to people's posts immediately. Is
> everybody else REALLY dead wrong, while you're always dead right? Are
> you ALWAYS the only one marching in step?
> 
> THINK about what you're doing when you reply to messages.  Think about
> who will read your venom-laden missives and the effect it will have on
> them.  It just doesn't help to hurt people. It doesn't persuade people
> to your point of view by battering them, it just makes them defensive.
> Maybe you can win cases by being forceful and intimidating, but you
> don't win arguments that way. It just doesn't work.

No, I win by pointing out the holes in their arguments. As for doing it
'nicely' and offering advice, all that has earned me lately is cheap shots.


> 
> You'll note that female posters are becoming increasingly marginalized
> in this newsgroup; why is that, do you suppose? Could it be because
> talk.rape, a group that exists primarily to help THEM, has become such
> an unpleasant place that they don't want to be here any more? Who does
> that help? Women? Men? You? None of the above?
> 
> OK, you "do research", and pride yourself on getting your facts straight.
> This is commendable. You derive great glee from "correcting" people.
> This is unpleasant. You then indulge in sneering put-downs, sarcasm,
> and general nastiness. This is reprehensible.

And, unfortunately, me copying the tactics of those who argue with me. I have
never been one to take the high road while my opponent is fighting dirty. Yes,
I know I should be a gentleman about it all, but it is is difficult.

> 
> Based on the evidence before me, I'm not really expecting you to
> change. I would be surprised if you indulge in any self-examination at
> all, or attempt to put yourself in somebody elses shoes, more than
> once a year.  But I'd sure be happy if I was wrong, and if you drew in
> your claws a bit.  Just try to be constructive instead of destructive.
> We'd all gain. Including, and especially, you.
> 
>         - Alan.

Alan, I honestly do appreciate your post. I would love to see more productive
debate. And, all it takes is for people to treat me civily. You are voicing
your opinions as opinions in a positive constructive criticism, and as I 
agree with what you want (peace on this board) I have pointed out facts which I
think have been forgotten from the prior skirmishes.

Not just by you, but by a few of the people who have had the pleasure of going
up against me.

My claws, you will note, have stayed retracted.

However, I know already that Sam has some post I am going to have to respond
to. Without even reading it I know he has probably, once more brought my mother
into it.

When HE backs down and ABIDES by the truce he agrees to, THEN I will retract
the claws.

Until then, he had better get used to being bloody. And everyone else should
avoid the thread, because (and this may come as a surprise) up until know, I
have been gentle.

DC