From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:00:07 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.175347.12616@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.162418.4713@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul28.134132.2620@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>>In article <1992Jul27.232757.8187@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>>In case you are wondering how many other people you may
>>>have hurt or offended, one in four females is molested
>>>before her fourteenth birthday.  
>>
>>All the more reason for Susie to have not reposted this whole mess into
>>t.a. Does she ENJOY making people suffer like this? At least in alt.flame,
>
>The thread started here, Kebbie.  

But my SUB-thread took a detour, until Susie dredged it back up into t.a.

>Does it occur to you
>that people can't repost the hateful things you say if you 
>use the 'abort' command once in awhile?  

Yes. But their repost is -complicity- in the resulting effect. Which is
why I have agreed to MUTUAL apologies all round. They have not taken me up
on my offer, by the way, which indicates to me that they're more interested
in revenge than resolution...

>Or think before
>you post?  Not all of the folk who are flaming you read 
>your comments here first.  Since we don't get alt.flame 
>here, I think Susan did us a public service by letting us
>know just what we were dealing with.

"What you are dealing with"?!?! What the hell is that supposed to mean?
You are dealing with the same person you've always dealt with. Someone
who recognizes that insulting, hurtful comments belong in alt.flame, and
intelligent, rational discourse belongs in talk.abortion (as much as this is
possible). That has not changed one iota. On the other hand, Susie Garvin's 
reposting proclivities demonstrate that "what we are dealing with" in that 
case is someone who values vendettas over the potential pain of child-abuse 
victims reading t.a.

>>people know they read at their own risk. In t.a, there was a real 
>>possibility that people may have been "hurt or offended" totally without
>>warning. Is Susie and her S.O. so GODAMMNED SELFISH that their hurt is worth 
>>more than that of hundreds or thousands of other readers? 
>>They both make me sick.
>
>They both make me very proud, because they are willing to 
>speak out against sick people who would abuse others.  Susan 
>Garvin gives selflessly of her time and energy in the real world,
>to help others who have problems, and who must run a gauntlet
>of verbal abuse in order to obtain legal services.  She's a
>good person, Kebbie.  I wonder what sickens you about that?

I am not discussing those other attributes, Muriel. Stop emotionalizing. I am 
discussing specific actions taken in this newsgroup. Just because someone may 
have a "positive balance" built up in some moral ledger doesn't mean that
every action they take is above reproach.

>>I didn't bring up the subject, Muriel. I didn't post a braggy article 
>>amounting to essentially "Nyah! Nyah! My S.O. knows more about child 
>>molestation than you do, Suzanne!".
>>
>This is an interesting perspective on someone who had
>legitimate resentments for a thoughtless trivialization
>of a very serious problem.

So the solution to thoughtless trivialization is even MORE thoughtlessness
and trivialization?!?!!?? I think the response was inappropriate, even from
a former victim, and CERTAINLY from a former abuser, which, at the time, is 
what I thought Susie's S.O. was.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion