From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 11:34:05 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

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?  Especially given the presence of people like you
waiting to cash in on such admissions?

> >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.  But I
don't think that flaming abdicates one of all social responsibility.

Flamers can, roughly speaking, be divided into three groups.

Firstly, there are the inconsequential idiots.  The ones who post
content-free drivel made up almost entirely of catch-phrases.  People like
Ken Robinson.

Then there are those whose flaming is motivated by fear, ignorance and
hatred.  Homophobes, neo-Nazis, xenophobes, and so on.  People like KKKaldis
and the Banished CPU crowd.

Then there is the third group; those who by and large sit around and flame
the second group.  The content can be as merciless, cruel and amusing as any
other type of flame, but the fundamental message is that bigotry and
ignorance will not be tolerated.

Picking on someone like Kaldis who sets himself up as "qualified to speak on
behalf of Jesus" in telling us that homosexuals are filthy and depraved, is
fair enough.  Picking on someone whose only 'crime' is to have been a victim
of child abuse is not.

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.

> >>                                                    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.

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

Many of those who inhabit talk.abortion at least claim to be motivated by
concern for the lives of human beings.  (I think most of them are lying, but
that's a different matter).  So it's not such a stupid place to reveal such
things as, say, alt.tasteless would be.

> >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.

Yes, and it has also been suggested in studies that most child abusers are
victims of child abuse.  It seems to be a self-perpetuating problem.

> >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?

> 	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?

Do you really think those two misdeeds are of similar importance?

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

What's 'out of proportion' about it?

> >This may be alt.flame, but there are limits to what I consider reasonable
> >behaviour when flaming.  
> 
> Fine. Go ahead and observe your limits.

I will.  I'm just letting you know that you've gone beyond them.  Your
behaviour is leading me to put you on a moral par with the Nazi sympathizers
of b-cpu.

> >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, mathe
> Then I would have known to skip the rest of the drivel...

You could have guessed.  I've said before that it seems pointless to discuss
anything with you at length.

> >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 ou
> of talk.bizarre in about my first two minutes on the Net...

Well, perhaps you should dig up the thread then.  Read some of it.


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard

Xref: sparky alt.flame:11460 alt.angst:2717