From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Overpeck's problems  (Was: Re: Have you herd about the ram?)
Date: 2 Oct 92 01:47:42 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <1992Oct1.121231.233@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>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.  

I didn't even do that; I merely implied it.

>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.  

Cheap sarcasm doesn't become you, Dean.

>> >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.  

Look above, where you say "when the man was speaking about his own experience
of having been abused", Dean. This fact was not made clear until AFTER the
whole thing got blown out of proportion. Make sure to keep the chronology 
straight, lest you post something misleading.

>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.  

As I have explained many times (and you seem hell-bent on dragging out every
detail all over again), the braggy, confrontational tone of the post gave lots
more weight to the "perpetrator" interpretation over the "victim" 
interpretation, and I felt my duty to strafe a bragging molester was more
important than the tiny chance that the poster was a victim. Besides, I 
expected the poster's information medium (i.e. Susie) to exercise discretion
in protecting the poster from any painful memories. Apparently, pursuing a
vendetta was more important to her than his feelings. She made her choice.

>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?

How many child molestation victims open up on the Net, in a flame-infested
group like talk.abortion, Dean? How many of those revelations are presented
in a braggy and confrontational way? How many of those vulnerable, sensitive
victims read responses to their revelations which are posted EXCLUSIVELY to 
alt.flame?? What do they expect to read there, sweetness and light?!?!??

Any way you look at it, the whole situation was rare and unusual, and I dealt
with it the best way I could at the time IN GOOD FAITH, and apologized for 
my error after the fact. My conscience is clear. The motives and purposes of
the other involved parties, however, have never been clarified, I will note.

>> >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 how long is it taking Patrick to apologize to Chaney? And how long is
it taking Garvin to apologize for insinuating the Catholic Church routinely
covers up instances of clergymen molesting children?

>And no, you didn't.  

Didn't _what_, Dean? Didn't apologize, you mean?

>> 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.

Dean, Dean, Dean, didn't you write this a couple of articles ago:

"...Kevin, ever
needful of attention, even if it is usually negative attention
in the form of flames, brings it up again weeks later."

Does this not refer to my recent passing references in talk.abortion?
If this is not a complaint, then why the conspicuous mention in the context
of insulting me? "Not based on reality", indeed! You are betrayed by your own 
words.

>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.  

You are assuming here that my need to flame came FIRST, and the pretext for
flaming came SECOND. You have not proven that this was the case. I have said
all along that I flamed _because_ I saw a spectacle of a child molester
bragging about his exploits. Given that same spectacle, I expect you'd've 
flamed too, as I expect many folks here would have. The only difference was
that my interpretation was mistaken, and apparently everyone else's was 
correct, or if not correct in each and every case, the others were at least
wise enough (or cowardly enough) to wait until the ambiguity had been 
dispelled before they said anything. I have apologized for my mistake, Dean, 
but to my knowledge NO-ONE has apologized for the original ambiguity, nor for 
the despicable act of inflicting the unnecessary flamewar on talk.abortion, 
and this is why I occasionally mention the whole affair in passing references 
-- unfinished business tends to resurface like that, despite best intentions.


>It is precisely this
>sort of thing that leaves you naked of all credibility.  

In your biased and slanted opinion.

>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.

Speculative nonsense.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion