From: aatresa@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Teresa Kline)
Newsgroups: alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
Subject: Re: mpd
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:39:00 GMT
Organization: Yeah, *right* !
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

First Bones wrote:

: >
: >: I'm also multiple but not due to cult abuse.  Do any of you have

Then Ed answered:

: >
: >Uh, "cult abuse"?  I wasn't aware that this was at all the case - 
                                          ^^^^
.. *this* as in *what*?  Which case are you citing here, Ed? 

: >the stats
: >I've seen say that "cult abuse" and such are very rare, 

..perhaps, but you go on to say ...

: >except in the minds
: >of those who either have an axe to grind or have something to gain from 
: >running around screaming "The Satanists are everywhere!"
: >-- 

Excuuuuuuuuuse, ME?!?!?!  Where in the above tirade do you account for the 
people (rare though they might be, statistically) who actually *were* 
ritually abused?  You imply that people are painting abuse with a broad 
brush, and then go on to paint survivors with an even broader brush. 
Understand, Ed, *this* is where the flames came from, and rightly so.

And after some flaming, Ed said:

>I make a simple post asking a simple question.  I don't need **** from you or
>anyone else about it, thank you very much.

I have to ask, Ed, what was your question?  That may clear a lot of things 
up.  All you have a question mark after is "cult abuse".  It certainly 
*looks* like you're questioning whether it exists.

[Moved from a paragraph that occurred later in this followup]

>Re-read what I posted.  Did I say that any survivors were making anything 
>up?

Since you didn't leave any option other than that...yes.  Where in the 
sentences above this did you leave an option for someone that was actually 
abused?

Or perhaps you didn't realize that Bones was answering a previous poster 
who asked 

	1)  if there was anyone in the group who suffered from mpd
	2)  if there was anyone in the group who had been ritually abused

Bones was saying that yes, he/she was mpd, but it was not due to cult abuse.
Did you perhaps not understand that?
Either way...just what was your question in the above cited post?

Then, Ed comes back, after many people questioned his post, with:

><sigh> Here we go again... OK, DIP*****, LISTEN UP!  STOP ****ING YELLING AT
>ME AND RE-READ WHAT I POSTED!  *********, I'm getting real ****ing tired of
>watching myself and others get their **** jumped because *you* go off half-
>cocked and get a button pushed and think it's OK to flame away.  Well, it's
>time for *me* to flame!

I'm here to say that I, for one, am *not* a dip****, and would appreciate 
it if you would keep the name-calling down.  No one called *you* any names.

My second point would be that you are telling people *not* to go off half-
cocked when a button gets pushed when that's what *you're* doing.  People 
questioned your post, you take it as a personal insult, and go off half-
cocked and start calling people names.  And this isn't the first time, Ed.  
I can't be the *only* net-person that remembers the last time one of your 
buttons got pushed...you called one of our female members a prick-tease.
If you want the luxury of going off when *your* buttons are pushed, it's 
only fair to extend that privilege to others.

> 
>Get your facts straight before you want to jump on the "holy asar bandwagon"
>of "someone thinks someone implied something - let's go get 'em!".  That 
>**** is for little kids.

Yes, Ed.  This *is* rather childish.  I didn't see people getting on a 
bandwagon (I checked time stamps).  I saw a lot of people who took 
exception to the idea that you were questioning cult abuse.  Obviously, you 
were, since that's the only question you asked.  And it would seem that you 
were unclear in just *what* it was you were questioning about cult abuse.  
Perhaps you'd clear that up for us?  Perhaps you'd clear that up for us 
civilly?

-- Teresa

		Life -- just for the FUN of it!!!!
Newsgroups: alt.sexual.abuse.recovery