From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: A Warning From Darcy (was The world according to)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 01:36:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.035331.29864@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Aug23.020706.5531@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug15.181505.28426@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
>> >In  <1992Aug15.155124.7718@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writ
>> >> Why do suppose they add the word "statutory" ...
>> >
>> >To distinguish it from forcible rape.  When you said "not rape", it implied
>> >neither classification of rape.
>
>> Is there a point to this anal-retentiveness, Larry?
>
>*You* are calling *me* a pedant?  How droll...

If the shoe fits, Larry. Say, what was that dictionary definition of "aspect"
you obsessed over a little while back?

>> Chaney's .sig refers to consensual "rape",
>
>*Now* it does; originally, "with the child's consent" wasn't there.

I seem to recall him explaining the connection between his .sig and the
Florida case (Lockett?) long before Don's flamebait. Maybe I'm mistaken.
Certainly, when I read the fateful article, I had UNDERSTOOD Chaney's .sig
to refer to concensual adult/child sex. I don't believe Chaney would make
a blanket accusation that pro-choice equtes to support of child molestation.

>> >> ...Don broached the subject of
>> >> adults actually raping children abusively, in intimate detail.
>> >
>> >Perhaps you'd care to show me the post where he did so?
>>
>> His response to my post was fairly explicit.
>
>I'll repeat:
>> >Perhaps you'd care to show me the post where he did so?

I'm not going to reproduce the wording here, Larry, so please curb your
prurient interest. If you have access to some sort of archive, I could give 
you a Message-ID: to search by. Just say the word.

>I have a number of friends who were sexually abused, Kevin, and I have
>heard "fairly explicit" "intimate detail".  I assure you that I saw
>*nothing* from Don that would anywhere approach this.  Did I miss anything,
>or are our definitions of those phrases very different?

You _did_ miss something, Larry. Don had the decency to post his inflammatory
response to alt.flame exclusively. Sigh. If only his SO had the same sense
of decorum, maybe she wouldn't have pained so many people...

>> >> >> And I also maintain that the wording of his post was ambiguous
>> >> >
>> >> >I agree; I had to reread it to realize that it couldn't possibly be
>> >> >what you assumed it to be.
>> >>
>> >> You mean, in the light of the later revelations, right?
>> >
>> >Wrong.  I read it one way, said "Wait a minute, that *can't* be what's
>> >being said," reread it, and said "Oh - *that's* what was meant."
>>
>> Whereas I only read it once, and promptly posted a flame. And I have
>> apologized to Don for my hastiness. Is it inconceivable that you might have
>> fallen into the same trap, if you had happened to be in a slightly less
>> fastidious mood when you read his words?
>
>Yes, it's inconceivable.  

Then I must conclude that your powers of extrapolation and/or objectivity
are pathetically limited, Larry. You have my pity.

>> >> >> and the braggy, confrontational tone was HIGHLY
>> >> >> unusual for a revelation so intimate and personal.
>> >> >
>> >> >Why should he be apologetic for something he wasn't responsible for?
>> >>
>> >> In what way was he not responsible for his own words?
>> >
>> >He was not responsible for being abused.
>>
>> But he WAS responsible for the braggy, confrontational tone of his article.
>> Please admit the point before changing the subject, Larry.
>
>I'm doing neither.  

Deny away.

>As I pointed out in the part you cut out, the tone
>that *you* think would be appropriate is irrelevant.  

It's relevant to what *I* thought he was saying, Larry, and that's the
central question here. I've apologized for making a mistake. People aren't
satisfied because they don't think it _was_ a mistake, but the burden of
proof is entirely on them to prove that it WASN'T, and so far they haven't
proven diddly-squat. Just random conjecture and speculation and blatant 
assertion, and of course the obligatory gallons and gallons of insulting 
rhetoric. Nothing of substance.

Now, are you going to PROVE that I knew that Don was a victim, rather than
an abuser, or are you going to admit to the obvious fact that you can't
prove a damn thing about my thoughts? If the former, start presenting your
proof. If the latter, admit that your allegations are unproven and in fact
that they are unprovable. Put up or shut up, Larry. Your impotent whining 
is becoming counter-productive.

>As for "braggy, confrontational tone", I don't think it was braggy.  

Get real. Susie's SO implied that he had a vastly superior knowledge about
the subject than Suzanne. Not braggy? You've moved out of sensor range,
Larry...

>Confrontational?  Yes - about what one
>would expect from someone who went through a very painful ordeal and
>then sees some asshole trivializing the experience.

Maybe in person I might expect an emotional outlash, Larry, but this
medium facilitates a time delay in which people can cool off and read what
they're writing before they send it off to the world. No, Larry, everything
here has been pre-processed to some degree, at least to the extent of putting
thoughts and emotions into words and fed into an input device of some sort.
I would NOT expect someone to open themselves up to painful memories and
dialogs in front of thousands of people unless they were

	a) stupid

	b) naive about the nature of the medium

		or

	c) grossly misinformed or misled about the nature of the medium

I had no antecedent reason to believe that Don was any of these things.

A braggy child-molester, on the other hand, is such a vile creature that I 
doubt they would care WHO they offend. They probably thrive on offending
people.

Given the above, which explanation (victim or perpetrator) do you think more 
likely?

>By the way - if you think it's so wrong to discuss, is there any reason
>you keep dragging this out?  A little consistency would be nice...

Takes two to tango, Larry. I've stopped discussing this with practically
everyone else except you. Drop it any time you want.

								- Kevin