From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:20:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.061056.17242@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <nyikos.719010316@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

db> Janis Cortese wrote the following on soc.women (moderated):
jc>   If I had a kid and someone threatened it, I'd slit their
jc>   throat wide open and drink their blood with a smile in my face.


lm>They're also the only words I had; I hadn't saved the original post, and
lm>only saved Dan King's (partial) quote of it later, when in article
lm><1992Sep4.003132.16198@nas.nasa.gov> Dan said:

dk> It would be tough to come up with a more convincing argument for spousal
dk> notification than this one here.  I'll be archiving this post just so I
dk> can remember this argument um... was that FOR spousal notification.

lm>That sounded like a good idea, so I saved Dan's post.

[pn quotes ws:]
ws>However, I agree with Don Beaver that such notification *should* be after the
ws>fact, although I believe this VERY grudgingly, because it is bad enough that
ws>the man feels totally powerless in a situation where he is expected to be
ws>responsible, but to tell him *afterwards* seems only like throwing salt in
ws>the wounds.  Even so, I grant the possibility of abuse in cases where the
ws>notification is before the fact.

lm>Aha - so *that's* where "salt in the wounds" came from.  Sorry, Don - I *had*
lm>checked my archives, but that part wasn't in Dan's post.  (Could someone
lm>send me a copy of Steeves' original post?)

db> considering why she might have waited a year to "throw salt in the wounds,"

lm>Since you seem to have an outspoken agenda, it's no great surprise that
lm>you assume she waited a year in order to throw salt in the wounds,
pn>^^^ ^^^^^^
pn> Will said "salt in the wounds" himself, as anyone can see from
pn> the restored passage which
pn> Larry conveniently omitted,

lm>As I explained above, I didn't "conveniently omit" it.  I didn't have it.

pn> To make matters worse, Larry Margolis slanders Beaver with the
pn> words "you assume".

lm>Nope.  Even seeing that Will said that it *seems* like throwing salt in
lm>the wounds, it's still a leap on Mr. Beaver's part to assume that the
lm>reason she waited a year was *in order* to throw salt in the wounds,
lm>and that she did it for reasons of "manipulation or mental cruelty".

I have already pointed out that saying "you assume" is unjustified.
I did not assume it.  If you want to quibble, Will said it "seems ONLY 
like throwing salt in the wounds" [emphasis added].  Note also that
there is no comma preceding `to "throw salt in the wounds"'.

This leads me to include the possibility that Will considered 
mental cruelty (evidenced by "throwing salt in the wounds") as a 
motive for her to wait a year.


I realize that you may not have seen the original post, and
I thank you for clarifying that, but when I read your repeated
declaration of what I have assumed (IMO, now slanderous), I could 
only recall your recent posting to Peter Nyikos:

lm> Previously, after making those idiotic allegations, you admitted to
lm> ignorance, and were educated.  Now you make the same charge again.
lm> What's your excuse this time, dishonesty or stupidity?  (Or did you
lm> "save them for careful study", and then forget that you did so and
lm> now claim you "missed them all"?  :-)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:4322 talk.abortion:41620 soc.men:17529 soc.women:17531