From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Sam wishes it were so.
Date: 16 Aug 92 15:22:36 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug16.074532.17459@news.acns.nwu.edu>, query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:

(repetition deleted)

>>
>>That is pride in your book. It is trying to maintain some self-respect in
>>other people's books.
>>
>>Do not confuse the avoidance of a negative with the trying to achieve a
>>positive.
>>
> 
> 	DC, if you believe that attempting to avoid being called names by
> little boys who do not have any idea of reality attempting to gain self
> respect, then I pity you.  See, DC, my self respect does not rely on
> avoiding being called a wus by the mean ole bully down the street.  I
> figure that I am above being influenced by such petty bullshit, as I would
> hope that anyone past the 3rd grade would be...

Sam, I do not care what anyone on this polluted planet thinks of my views. 
Not you, not the Correct Politic, not women or my girlfriend or my friends. You
take me as I am, or move along.

Did you ever thin I was, just perhaps, addrssing issues which not just myself
face??? You claim men are egotistical because they do not want to be ridiculed,
I say not wanting to be ridiculed does not equal ego.

What leads you to believe that I care what you or anyone else thinks about my
views???

But, I will say something about your views--you do SEEM to be hell bent to
prove that they are right. You have wasted a lot of badwith to try and show me
wrong.

Why is that Sam? Do you believe that I will decide "Oh, I guess Sam is right
and I am wrong?" Bullshit. You know that isn't going to happen.

So why spend alll the time?

Is it because you don't like it whensome else says perhaps you do not have the
real deal for all of humanity??? Do you feel threatened when I say "Do what you
want, but don't expect to push your views on other people and expect them to
change 'cause you say so."???

Give it up. You feel that it is a responsability for people to walk everyone
out to their car, feel free to do so. Just don't expect to try and make it a
duty, because that is nothing more than YOU trying to force your views on
everyone else. 

> 
>>As for your following them out--do whatever suits YOURSELF, even if it DESTROYS
>>someone else's autonomy.
> 
> 	They are still able to do what they wish,  are they not?  They do
> not have to worry that I am going to come up to them and tell them that
> they cannot do anything... All I do is make sure that IF something happens
> that they will have someone there to help out.  

Hogwash! They have expressed two desires--the first is to go out to their car,
and second one is to do it ALONE. You graciously permit the first right to be
fulfilled, but you refuse to let them have their second right--to not have you
play erestatz guardian angel! You trample on their autonomy!

You yourself said even if they refuse to let you walk them out, you do it
anyway. 

Tell us all, is there ANYTHING you can say that does not nullify the fact you
are deliberatle refusing to let them decide their own course of actions?

They are NOT able to do what they wish--they wish to choose their own course of
actions and not have YOU interfere.


>>
>>No, I have never seen anyone come out and state "What a wus!" However, in
>>low-crime areas where I hang out, women who request an escort are grudgingly
>>given one. A man who would ask for an escort...
>>
> 
> 	You state that you have never actually seen a man get ridiculed,
> but you feel that he would be?  Are you some sort of seer, able to see into
> the true hearts of people?  Stick to some semblance of reality here, DC,
> after all, you say that you have never seen it happen...

Reality is not calling the man a 'wus', true. Reality is puzzled looks and
shaken heads in disbelief when a male wants an escort in an area that is so
safe we get disgruntled when women want an escort.


>>
>>Gee Hero, I guess you are right. Since you have received some trainng early on,
>>and you have proven you can beat up any woman out there, I guess all those
>>women might as well look to us men-folk for protection.
>>
> 	Um, a question... wherein did I say that I could beat up any woman?
> Wherein did I *EVER* say that men and *MEN ALONE* could protect women?  I
> don't see it in the above quotes, nor do I believe I ever stated it as
> such.  I have said that, based on genetic and environmental factors that
> men ON AVERAGE are more suited to defense and offense aspects of life.

Well, you DID say that men are better 'instinctively' than women in fighting,
and have more training in it in the process of growing up, and that even
trainging doe not offset this enough, why would a woman who accepts your
theories as correct ever look to another woman for defense whean a *MAN* is
around? That would be like chosing a .22 for protection over a .38 or .357.

I say just because I was born with one chromosome that she lacks doe NOT mean
it is MY duty to protect her.

She can buy extra-heavy duty mace, or a taser, or get the permits to carry a
gun, or take a self-defense class, or do ALL of the above, and I will not have
to risk MY life to walk her to HER car.

Plus, she will be very well protected at all times when she can't find a *MAN*
to escort her.


> 
> 
>>I say BULLSHIT! I say women gep$_ t training in self-defense NOW, no matter what
> 
> 	I agree.  Training is definately a good idea, because, you might
> get a few more options out of it.  You might be able to gain a bit of
> confidence.  BUT, do not assume that with training that you will become an
> unstoppable killing machine.  Do not make training into anything more than
> it is.  It takes more than just a few nights a month at the Y to become
> skilled at defence.  Your best bet is a large group of people or running
> like hell.

Oh, a "large group of people". So you are talking when she has to walk out, an
entire group of people should escort her.

> 
>>their age, and don't let egotistical pigs like you tell them that they have to
>>always count on us men for defense because there is no way that they can ever
>>lick us in a brawl.
>>
>>As for "women with training can not defeat  man with similar training", I guess
>>the answer is the same that any man would be told in the same situation--looks
>>like they'll just have to train harder and longer.
> 
> 	I don't think I ever said what you attributed in the above "quote".
> If I ever said something like that, it would be comparing the AVERAGE man
> and woman.  You seem to have a habit of misquoting and / or misrepresenting
> the statements.  Pleas try to avoid this, as, in reading the thread with
> you and ATAYLOR, you REATEDLY stated that you objected to him or her doing
> that...  Hypocracy and self righteousness don't mix, DC.

On the contrary--you HAVE said that men are instinctively better fighters than
women, and that we learn skills early on that are difficult for women to learn
later in life, therefore, it becomes very difficult for them to compensate. You
gave your example of kicking the crap out of two brown belts as a way of
demonstrating that training does not make up for skil, therefore, women will be
at a disadvatage even if they train harder.

Now, if you deny saying anything like that, I will be happy to waste bandwith
to repost it.

My point is, yes the average woman can not beat the average man in a fight, but
that does not mean the average woman gets a mandatory handicap of being
escorted--it means she has to pick up the slack herself and take her
SELF-protection seriously.


(repost upon repost deleted)

>>>>
>>> 	I hope that the rest of the world does not feel like that...
>>> 	Ever hear of a woman named Cathy Genovese?  She was murdered in New
>>> York (I believe) some time ago.  Seems that a man just walked up to her,
>>> stabbed her, and ran off.  She began to scream, a few people looked out
>>> their windows, but nothing more.  She screamed that she had been stabbed,
>>> and that she was being killed...  No one helped out.  She tried to crawl
>>> off, and the man came back several more times, each time stabbing her and
>>> then running off...  she continued to crawl and scream for help but no one
>>> came.  Finally, the man killed her.  It was SEVERAL HOURS AFTER THE MURDER[(2%)Ye
>>> before the police were called.  When asked why they didn't jpoin in, many
>>> of the neighbors listed their good reasons as "We thought it was a lovers
>>> quarrel," or "We were just too dang tired" or "I thought someone else was
>>> going to help" .  A woman died, and it could have been EASI6b[LY prevented if
>>> the neighbors had just called the police or even gone down there...
>>
>>Yes, famous story. NO ONE COMPLAINS THAT NO O
> ENT OUT THERE ALONE TO FIGHT
>>OFF HER ATTACKER WHILE HE WAS THERE YOU IDIOT! You are taking a story and
>>warping it to fit your own whims. What is sick about this story is no one went
>>out to help her while she was alone, and that no one called the police, but
>>that they stood there and watched like it was some horror show.
> 
> 	Really?  Hmm.... the twenty or so articles I read on it said that
> the attacker kept on running off because he thought someone was going to go
> out there or interfere in some other way, and came back when he realized
> that no one gave a damn.  

And the residents knew this? They said to themselves "Hey, look, he is running
off because he thinks we are going to help her. It would be totally safe for us
to go out there becase he is afraid of us and will run away. Boy, let's see how
many times he comes back by not going out there."

You have mistakenly equated the attaker's belief as being known by the
observers!

Most of the articles also mentioned the fact that
> she was alone in the first place was bad, and also, quite a lot of people
> HAVE expressed their disgust (I believe the police were *QUITE* upset and
> appalled by the lack of help given to the victim.  Also, I not once said
> that the people should have gone out and fought the guy off.  I said that
> they should have done at least something.

Right, but you have been advocating that we have a duty toplace ourselves at
risk to lessen another person's risk! You are now modifying you position to fit
your example. This story does nothing for our debate over escorting a person to
their car!  

					As it is, NO ONE DID ANYTHING AT
> ALL TILL SEVERAL HOURS LATER.  Guess they were afraid of being called names
> if they needed help...

You "guess". Tell us, what does you "guess" have to do with reality?

> 
> 	Also, as for your calling me an idiot, I really must say that,
> coming from the person who was *QUITE* upset at ATAYLOR for name calling, I
> was quite surprised to see that.  Again, you want a bromoseltzer to wash
> that hypocracy down with?

No, because using the Genovese story to 'prove' your points was really stupid.
If anything, it illustrates what I have been saying, which is don't expect
other people to come to your aid, because it leaves you defensless when no one
is there...

And as much as I loathe correcting people on typos, if you are going to use the
word 'hypocrite' or its variations in future attacks, it would be much more
effective if you learned to spell it. (Just a pointer, not an attack--I use
words where I am unsure of the spelling also.)

> 
> 
>>
>>DO not try to equate THAT situation with what is being discussed here. What is
>>being discussed here is should I place myself in mortal peril for someone I
>>barely know? The answer is no. If you ask if someone should help when they do
>>not increase the risk to themselves, the answer is yes. Two radically different
>>hypos.
> 
> 	I agree, YOU should not place yourself in danger to help someone
> else.  You do not seem to have a very good grasp of reality, let alone a
> dangerous situation.  You would probably be so engaged in attempting to
> avoid potential name calling from the attacker than helping anything, much
> as you do on this newsgroup.  

Oh, I dunno. You, as well as others here, should be well aware of the fact that
I enjoy, with all of my heart, inflicting pain on bullies and small-minded
people.

				(Oh, by the way:  Since you seem to decide to
> interpret my statements in ways that are obviously not how they were
> intended, a little bit of clarification is called for.  YES, I *AM* CALLING
> YOU USELESS, BOTH TO THIS NEWSGROUP, AND TO ANYONE WHO WOULD ASK YOUR HELP.)

Ouch! That stings!

> 
>>
>>Maybe YOU would have gone out there and fought her attacker. That happens quite
>>a bit, and usually, the police then have two victims instead of one. (Of
>>course, you could have grabbed your butcher knife and run out there and tried
>>to knife-fight him, I suppose. But as he is probably better trained in fighting
>>with a knife... Now, if you had had a gun, then you could have shot him with
>>relative safety. Tell me, do you carry a gun when you escort someone through a
>>rough area???)
>>
> 
> 	Depends.  I do own a handgun, and usually I leave it at home.  The
> only times I will carry it with me is when I go to a range.  

Well, if anyone should need an escort while at the range, they can surely count
on you and your gun.

								The only time
> that I will have it out of the house is on the way to the range or on the
> way back.  Occasionally I have escorted people from or to the range.
> However, I do not advocate the use of firearms for defense, unless you are
> willing to kill.  A gun is not a disarming weapon, it is used to kill
> someone.    

Killing is the only sure way of disarming.

> 	What would I have done in that situation?  I would have grabbed my
> baseball bat and gone down there and either whacked the sonof a bitch, or,
> if he ran, helped out the victim.  Or, if possible, I would have attacked
> her attacker with abre hands, if it meant that she would have been able to
> get away, or at least accomplish SOMETHING (like getting out of his grasp,
> or trying to move away).  I also will point out that one of the things that
> the tenants of her building said was that they didn't see anyone else
> helping out, so why should they?  I am willing to be the first.

If you had used your HEAD, you would have dialed 9-1-1 (it didn't exist then,
but this is for future use) and when the operator came on line said "Rape
outside" and THEN taken your Louisville Slugger out there. That way, if Mr.
Rapist would have sliced your thraot at least help coul dbe coming.

> 	Also, I gathered from some of your earlier posts, that you are
> former military?  Is that not putting your ass on the line to defend
> millions of people that you have never met?  I know, the chances that you
> will go to war and actually have to do something are rather small, but it
> is a factor.  

Last time I checked, defedning my coutry INCLUDES defending Mom, her husband,
Irv, John, Olivia, DOn, Sep, that cute blonde sorority girl at the Rec Center,
and all of the other people I would gladly risk my life defending.

As for everyone else, they merely got the benifits being made for the people I
care about.

		So, if you were military, and you *totally* object to the
> idea of defending people you do not know, I must assumme that you joined to
> take advantage of the benefeits?  Or did you just have trouble fitting into
> the real world?                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Mommy! Man said nasty thing to me!!!



> 
>>
>>> 
>>>>> 	I personally would be upset if I heard about ANYONE getting raped
>>>>> or otherwise attacked, not just people I knew well.  If it can happen to
>>>>> them, it can happen to you.                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>
>>>>Bingo!
>>>>
>>>>I prefer not to increase my odds of being a stat for the purpose of someone
>>>>else not being a stat--unless it is friend or family.
>>>>
>>> 	What if you were attacked while walking alone?  What if, say,
>>> someone just came up from behind, whomped you with a lead pipe, and then
>>> proceeded to sodomize your unconcious body?  Would you want help?  Would
>>> you understand if a passerby decided that it was better to leave you to
>>> your fate because it would be raising their risk if they helped you out?
>>
>>A single passerby? Yes, I would. Because the most prudent course of action for
>>them to take would be to sprint to the nearest pay phone and dial 9-1-1. If
>>they were smart, they could also yell back while they were running, "I am
>>calling th epolice! Someone call the police!" I would prefer THAt over them
>>trying to fight off the attacker, getting killed themselves, and then I
>>CONTINUE to be sodomized with NIL hope of rescue.
>>
> 	Ah...  You would rather someone go off to get the police, which
> wold take several minutes, more than enough time to be raped, than try to
> help out?  Ok...  Whatever you say.  Oh, yeah!  Thats right, I forgot.
> Your "friends" would call you names because you needed help, or some
> such...

Man, for someone who started out so well, to be slipping into cheap shots, you
must realize that your hypos and proofs are NOT going the way you planned.

Get it stright idiot (you earned that one as well for trying to extrapolate an
honest answer into the absurd) I would prefer that they try to halt the attack
by yelling that they were going to call the police as they ran to call the
police.

Unless you think that the rapist would say to themself "Nah, no chance of the
police arriving for five minutes, I'll continue to sodomize for another four
before I leave."  face it, the attack would be over at that point in all
liklihood.

But, even is it were not, I would rather that the person go for help, as that
is the action MOST LIKELY to reult in my safety and continued living.


> 	Although, yeah, I would feel very bad about someone getting hurt
> defending me, I would feel also that it is a risk that I would take  I
> think that the real reason that you don't want peoples help is because it
> would show you how incredibly pathetic just standing by is, and thus, show
> you how a real person goes about things.  

I believe I have never advocated "just standing by". As for you taking the risk
by jumping in, go for it. It is your life, spend it how you see fit.

> 
>>In battlefield survival in ROTC, the first thing we learned to do when coming
>>upon another injured person is CALL FOR HELP!
>>
> 
> 	Oh, ROTC.  Yes, I remember when I was in the military, and
> conducted a few training excercises, that I was quite impressed with the
> tactic of *ONLY* calling for help, and not doing ANYTHING else for the
> victim...

You KNOW that I stated call for help BEFORE giving aid. What's the matter, you
read "first thing" as also being "last thing"???


> 	Most of the midshipmen (at the Annapolis academy) were 'killed'
> within the first minute, because all they did was:  See someone get hit,
> yell "<BLANK>'s ben hit!" and run away!  This was *quite* effective...

Had I advocated this view, I could see why you are wasting badwith on it. Of
course, neither I nor anyone else has.

> 	Of course, we are talking about two radically different subjects...
> After all, if you don't know 1st aid and you try to help someone, you could
> easily do MUCH more harm than good.  When just trying to get someone off of
> a victim, it is pretty hard (unless you accidentially hit the victim) to
> harm them.  Enraging the attacker will probably not make it too much worse
> for the victim, in reality.  Also, an enraged person is most likely to be a
> little less thoughtful in a fight.  Someone commiting a crime such as rape
> will probably run like hell, rather than face a couple of people.

Some will run. Others will kill the defender and continue their attack.

The only people with an excellent chance of stopping the attack are the police.

Tell me something, let's turn the hypo around and YOU are unconscious and being
sodomized. Would you rather I called for help, or tried to fight them off
without calling for help?

You entire argument has been that the PROPER course of action is to try and
drive off the attacker because police take too long. That means you do not even
get to wiegh the possibilites here--you must hold to that same viewpoint. Even
if your attacker is 6'9" and built like Hulk Hogan, you would want me to try
and fight him off of you.

Or, do you admit that maybe your position is not always correct?

> 
> 	Calling for help is useful, but you should also do something else,
> if possible.  Grab a rock and slam it into their head, do ANYTHING you can,
> because, you have to.

WHat if it a choice, running for help OR fighting the attacker. (Please note,
running for help also entails screaming.) 

Things are not as black and white anymore, are they?

> 
>>> Would you later tell them, assuming that you could, and assumming that you
>>> survived, tell them that they were quite smart for not raising their own
>>> risk and not helping out someone who was not a friend or family member?
>>
>>Yes, I would tell them I understood. You are forgetting that they were not the
>>ones who would have sodomized me. I might have been pissed off about them not
>>trying to summon other help, but as for not risking their own necks, that would
>>be understandable.
>>
> 
> 	For some reason I doubt that.  Not that you may think *AT THIS
> MOMENT* that you would be so understanding, but, believe me, victims of
> violence are usually anything BUT understanding of people who didn't help
> them out.  Also, from what you said earlier, wouldn't running off and just
> screaming for help give you cause to call them a wus?  Or, does that only
> count if someone is trying to minimize the RISK, not the EFFECT?  I am
> trying to understand your points, here, not attacking you on this.  

So what you are saying is because I would be in an emotionally tramatized
state, which would wreck an rational way of looking at things, I should decide
my future course not upon what I SHOULD DO, or would PREFER to do, but MIGHT
wind up doing?

No, using your head to aviod, or lessen, a situation is not the mark of a 'wus'.
A 'wus' is someone who is over-paranoid.


> 
>>> 	Or, would you wish that they had helped you, that they had cared
>>> enough bout people to help, even though it increased their risk?  Would you
>>> be thankful if they tried to save you from this?
>>
>>If they tried to help, I would be VERY, VERY thankful, as it is an action that
>>they were under no obligation to take, and placed themselves at risk to try and
>>help me.
>>  
> 
> 	Methinks you would feel guilty, also.  Just a thought...

Sure. I would look at my course of actions, and if it placed me at high risk,
but I did it anyway, I would be guilty of having acted stupidly. (Please note,
as I use the word "stupid" to apply to my own hypothetical events and course of
actions, I am fully entitled to use the word "stupid" when dealing with a rape
victim--as the hypothetical victim is me.)(Also, lest people whose views I have
thrashed jump on this word, I only apply it to myslef IF I take foolish risks 
in the future and wind up a victim.)

> 
>>> 	It is NOT a different situation, by the way.  It is simply another
>>> person raising their risk of injury to help out another person lower
>>> theirs.  Most reports show that attackers of the mugger rapist sort will
>>> run off if confronted by other people.  It could save your life.
>>
>>And what about the ones who will not run off?
> 
> 	Then you fight them, and hope that you can win.  See, I am not
> afraid of being hurt, and (ala military) I have demonstrated w3that I am
> willing to die, if necessary to help someone.  Do not confuse this and
> assume that I would be the type of person who goes to bad neighborhoods,
> just looking for people to help.  

I am willing to risk death for another also--provided they are friend or family.


> 	Sometimes you have to help someone, and sometimes you have to take
> a chance in doing so.. You take risks everyday.  Why not one that will help
> someone?

Yes, I take risks everyday, but they are risks I helped create.

> 
>>
>>Besides, you have cleverly made your hypothetical situation into a single
>>attacker situation. When you walk someone out to their car, you are not given a
>>guarantee that it will only be one person lurking. 25% of all rapes, and
>>probably a higher percentage of muggings, are done by two or more people.
>>
>>Now, let's take your hypo and plug YOU into it.
>>
>>I am laying on the ground helplessly knocked out. Three males, all holding
>>weapons of some kind, are taking turns sodomoizing me. You are unuarmed.
>>Would YOU try to scare them off?
> 
> 	Yes, because, help would take at least a few minutes to arrive, and
> you could be dead allready.  As it is, though, I am never unarmed.  I carry
> at least one knife at all times (on my keychane) and there are *plenty* of
> things that can be used as a weapon.  Also, one person who is NOT surprised
> (as the victim was) will stand a better chance of fending off an attack.  I
> DO NOT RECCOMMEND THIS, THOUGH.  It is what *I* would do.  I have had some
> training, fairly intensive (Shore Patrol, riot controll and various other
> group attacker situations) that will help out.  Most people do not, but,
> remember *I* said *I* would help out, and I cannot, in good concience,
> critize someone who would not.  Call for help, in a multiple attacker
> scenario.  Sometimes the odds are so overwhelming that there is no recourse
> other than to summon assistance.

As I said, when you walk someone out to their car, there are bad odds (for you)
that tthe potential attacker will be multiple in numbers. Why should I
volunteer for something even you say I should run away from?

  
> 	By the way, instead of calling police, break windows or something.
> That is gauranteed to get a larger number of people to respond in less time
> than it would take the police to get there.

O.K, break the windows and scream "Rape!"

> 
> 
>>
>>If you answered "yes" to that question, you are a fool. The only chance you
>>would have of saving me would be to CALL FOR HELP. When they knock you out, or
>>kill you, after you try to fight them off for me, BOTH of us now have to wiat
>>for a third passerby to come along, use his or her brain, and call for help.
>>
>>Of course, I might be sodomized somewhat less, as the attackers now have
>>someone else to party with--you.
> 
> 	A fool?  Hmm...  Depends.  I would say that, if I had no reason to
> feel confident in a multi-attacker scenario, yes, it would be foolish to
> attack.  But, since, as above, I stated that *I* have had training and
> experience in dealing with these types of scenarios, *I* would attack.
> Again, I do not advocate taking on several attackers, unless you have
> reason to feel that you have done something to bring the odds a little
> closer to even.
> 
>>
>>Which of course, brings us back to what I have been saying--why should I risk
>>my neck for you?
> 
> 	DC, *YOU* should not risk your neck for *ME*..  Several reasons for
> that...  Some of them explained above, and some of them not so nice.
> 
> 	Anyway, to finish this off, I would just like to state that there
> seems to be little oint in continuing this thread with DC unless he will do
> several things.
> 
> 	1)  He misquoted me several times, and I pointed them out above.
> He has complained in the past about others doing this to him, so I find it
> reprehensible that he would do so himself.  He must cease this.

You have pointed out one spot where you claim to have been misquoted. I have
stated that you have said very similar things in the past. If you can
distiguish what I have paraphrased as different from what you have said, then I
apologize.

> 	2)  The name calling.  Dosen't bother me, but, it does subtract any
> strength that his arguments may have had.  I am prone to simply ignore a
> post in which the poster calls someone an idiot simply because they do not
> share the same viewpoint.  DC, you recently had a thread that was *quite*
> annoying to read (and thus I nuked most of it) with ATAYLOR, in which you
> objected to her calling you names.  I again find it reprehensible that you
> immediately embrace the tactics that you have previously wailed and
> moanedabout (must to the regret of anyone who actually read the posts, I am
> sure) and wasted tons of bandwith with your kvetching about it.  Bad DC,
> BAD *!BAD!*  Is that more to your liking?  

This would be an excellent tactic to try on someone else. However, where I have
called you names, I think they fit because your arguments and your examples
were at odds with one another. Hoever, if you would prefer, I will rescind what
I have said, and instead of calling YOU the word idiot, I will modify it into
the following:

"Based upon the poistion you say you advocate, the hypos you are using to prove
your point are actually underming your argument. I do not feel this is a smart
thing to do, and I am upset that you can not see it BEFORE posting, because I
hate to explain the obvious flaws in someone else's arguments."

There, happy?


> 	3)  Do not assumme that I am like you.  Do not assumme that I am
> stupid because I disagree with your viewpoints.  Do not assumme that
> because I am not agreeing with you that I a attacking you.  Assumme only
> one thing:  I am asking people to help as much as they can, NOT to go and
> get themselves killed.  I ask them to use a bit of sense.

As far as that goes, it is fine. However, you have ALSO expressed the
following:

A) A perosn does not have a right to dcide is they get an escort from you.

B) People who are unwilling to kick in and help in the way YOU deem they should
are shirking their responsability to others. 

> 
> 	Anyway, DC, go back to your little low crime area waterholes and
> talk with your manly friends about what "wus";s people are when they go out
> in groups for safety.  Oh, yes, and please, don't forget to run like hell
> if something goes down.  (God, I bet DC was *real* popular with his ROTC
> cronies)

Absolutely. Except for the people who thought I was too radical.

> 
>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>DC
>>>>
>>>>PS. But if I am ever walking through a high crime area, I'll give you a call to
>>>>help defend me, even though you are aware that I would not recipricate.
>>>>
>>>>(And if you fail to see the reasoning behind that statement--women are happy to
>>>>ask for an escort, but pigs will fly before they will escort a male.)
>>> 
>>> 	Hey, if you are ever in Chicago, look me up.  I'll be happy to
>>> escort you.  As far as it not being reciprocated, no big deal.  I would
>>> just ask a friend of mine to go with me for the return trip.  I do not
>>> worry about what I will get out of something like this.  I just like to
>>> know that someone else was able to avoid a bad experience.  (That goes back
>>> to the fact that I have been trained to deal with these kinds of attacks,
>>> and thus I believe my chances of recoveringfrom or avoiding an attack are
>>> as good or better than someone elses.)
>>> 	Sam (Who is quite amazed at the flying pigs outside his window...)
>>
>>Sam, are you a woman? If not, go re-read the last line.
> 
> 	Dc, WHO GIVES A DAMN ABOUT RECRIPROCATING?!?  I never said it
> mattered.  By though, I have asked a couple of my women friends about
> whether or not they would escort a male.  You know what?  Out of 13 of
> them, 12 said that they definately would.  The 13th's number was busy.

Now ask them how many HAVE escorted a male when asked.

Remember, talk is cheap.

> 
> 
>>
>>DC
>>
> 
> 
> 	Sam, who is quite worried about the droppings from the flying
> pigs... (DC, get the point?  most women will escort a male!  They are not
> all as superfiicial and greedy as the people you seem to deal with)

Sam, get the point? Many women will state that they will escort a
male--provided that they have some safe transportation back to where they want
to be!

Next time ask them how willing they would be to escort a man trough a
high-crime area and then walk back ALONE! This is what women EXPECT us to do.
This is what we are talking about!

Those or not "pig" droppings, they are "pigeon" droppings.

DC


Newsgroups: talk.rape