From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:36:41 GMT

In article <iJ1PoB12w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> In article <mXNkoB13w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> >That's right, Kevin.  Imply that Susan's S.O. is a child-abuser.  
>> 
>> That's a plausible interpretation of what he said.
>
>Yes, but is it likely that she would announce to the net that her S.O. is (or
>was) a child-abuser?  

No, but neither is it likely that she would announce a private, intimate
PAINFUL detail about her S.O. either. Both situations would be rare -- I 
picked the one that seem most likely, given the context and the braggy tone
of the article to which I responded.

>> >Quality flaming from Mister Compassion.
>> 
>> Since when has "compassion" ever been an important component of flaming???
>
>It's not, Kevin, it's an important component of being a human being.  

And when has humanity ever been an important component of flaming???

>I'd like to think that when I flame, I only pick deserving targets.  I don't
>single out victims of horrific inhumanity and then poke fun at them.

Shove your smug self-righteousness up your ass, mathew. I'm under no 
obligation to live up to your delusions of "humanitarian" flaming. Christ, 
what a lame rationalization! I flame people when they piss me off, mathew.
Why don't you admit you do the same thing and drop this "humanitarian" crap?
Do you really think you're fooling anyone besides yourself?

>> >>                                                    You seem to playing his
>> >> experience for maximum effect, Susie dear, so don't preach to me about how
>> >> "sickening" my remarks are -- YOU AND YOUR S.O. set yourselves up for it,
>> >> and you're both reacting oh so predictably well...
>> >
>> >That's right, Kevin.  Anyone who reveals that he suffered child abuse is
>> >doing so just because he wants someone like you to come along and make jokes
>> >about it.
>> 
>> Why ON EARTH would they reveal such a thing on Usenet?
>
>I don't know.  I think it's a pretty stupid thing to do.  Nevertheless, they
>do it.

Stupidity like that, especially in the ambiguous, indelicate way it was
presented, deserves all the attention it gets...

>> >But after it turned out that the person you were suggesting was a
>> >child-abuser was actually a *victim* of abuse, I hoped you might apologize. 
>> 
>> Oh, I'd be happy to apologize for my error if Susie and Mystery S.O. would
>> apologize for
>> 
>> 	A) Parading the abuse anecdotes around t.a. in the first place.
>
>Why does that need an apology?

For the same reason that anyone should apologize for posting material to
the wrong newsgroup.

>> 	B) Omitting the critical context, in the statement in question.
>
>You're going to refuse to apologize for making fun of someone who was abused
>as a child because someone else quoted something out of context?

Let's get something perfectly clear here: I DID NOT MAKE FUN OF A CHILD-ABUSE
VICTIM. I made fun of the S.O. of what appeared to be a child-abuser. That's
not one but two levels removed from the accusation being made of me.

>> 	C) Blowing the whole thing out of proportion after the fact.
>
>What's 'out of proportion' about it?

Reposting the whole mess to t.a, even though it was intended exclusively for 
alt.flame's consumption. Remember, Susie was the same person who has 
proclaimed "flames belong in alt.flame". Every time she reposts stuff from
alt.flame to talk.abortion, she highlights her hypocrisy.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: alt.flame