From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: A Warning From Darcy (was The world according to)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 03:53:31 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

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...

> Chaney's .sig refers to consensual "rape",

*Now* it does; originally, "with the child's consent" wasn't there.

> >> ...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 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?

> >> >> 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.  I supposse someone engaged in a vendetta with
either Susan or Don might have been too quick on the trigger, but I can't
conceive of a dispassionate observer assuming that Don was admitting to
(or, in your words, bragging about) being a child molester.

> >> >> 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.  As I pointed out in the part you cut out, the tone
that *you* think would be appropriate is irrelevant.  (I was brilliant,
but I'm too tired to go back and dig it out.  :-)  So my comments
addressed "HIGHLY unusual".  As for "braggy, confrontational tone",
I don't think it was braggy.  Confrontational?  Yes - about what one
would expect from someone who went through a very painful ordeal and
then sees some asshole trivializing the experience.

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...

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.flame