From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 03:51:34 GMT

In article <mXNkoB13w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> In article <1992Jul26.071706.27012@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garv
>> >In article <1992Jul26.001305.18495@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin D
>> >#Willing to explain, as in, speaks from experience? Gee, sounds like you 
>> >#hooked a real winner there, Susie dear. Say, how long is Mr. Right's 
>> >#
>> >#prison furlough?
>[...]
>> Say, if you cared so much about the feelings of your virtual S.O. in this
>> matter, why did you expose him to my post, along with the entire talk.abortio
>> newsgroup? Could it be that your S.O.'s nightmare is more useful as AMMO 
>> against Big Bad Kebbin than as something to let heal?
>
>That's right, Kevin.  Imply that Susan's S.O. is a child-abuser.  

That's a plausible interpretation of what he said.

>Then when
>she responds that he isn't, and that in fact he was abused as a child, you
>can pretend she's just revealing the information as a sob story.
>
>Quality flaming from Mister Compassion.

Since when has "compassion" ever been an important component of flaming???

>>                                                    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? Particularly in t.a.
Have we turned into a WarmAndFuzzyCryOnMyShoulder support group now? Why 
didn't I get a memo on this...?

>Kevin, you really are a complete bastard.  I was prepared to overlook your
>joking about child abuse as just evidence of a sick sense of humour.  After
>all, that's something I'm guilty of.
>
>Let's be honest, you probably should have been able to work out that Susan
>wasn't likely to be stating that she is in love with someone she knows to be
>a child-abuser.  

It is purportedly possible to "cure" child-abusers, mathew. No, I wouldn't
expect even Susie Garvin to fall in love with a PRACTICING child-abuser. At 
the same time, however, I'd be highly skeptical and suspicious of anyone who 
claimed to be cured of such an, er, orientation. The bulk of the evidence I've 
seen suggests that once a child-abuser, always a child-abuser.

I certainly wouldn't put it past Susie Garvin to BELIEVE that someone had
been "cured", when in actual fact they weren't. And such gullibility draws 
attention to itself.

>However, I'm even willing to allow for the possibility that
>that thought didn't occur to you.
>
>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.

	B) Omitting the critical context, in the statement in question.

	C) Blowing the whole thing out of proportion after the fact.

Experience tells me Susie is incapable of putting matters to rest in this
fashion, however. She _loves_ grinding axes, does our girl...

>This may be alt.flame, but there are limits to what I consider reasonable
>behaviour when flaming.  

Fine. Go ahead and observe your limits.

>If anyone's capitalizing on Susan's S.O.'s
>experience, it's you; you're the one laughing about it, and using the fact
>that it was posted as ammunition against those you wish to take swipes at.
>I consider your behaviour to be undignified, uncivilized, in fact downright
>barbaric.

I take it you won't be sending me a Christmas card this year then?

>I don't wish to get involved in a lengthy discussion of this matter.  

Oh, why couldn't you have put this sentence at the top of your article, mathew?
Then I would have known to skip the rest of the drivel...

>Now go ahead, dredge up the Ken vs. Gypsy thread from talk.bizarre.  Prove me
>right.  My point in that thread was that I felt Ken Johnson was being assumed
>to be malicious when the evidence didn't warrant it.  In your case, I think
>the evidence is pretty much stacked in favour of the idea that malice is the
>single overriding motivation behind everything you post.
>
>Also, bear in mind that even in the talk.bizarre thread, *I* wasn't the one
>making jokes about child abuse.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. "Ken vs. Gypsy"????? I grew out
of talk.bizarre in about my first two minutes on the Net...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: alt.flame