NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/49082

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-21 | 6.0 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49082 alt.flame:15024
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!nigel.msen.com!heifetz!rotag!kevin
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Holtsinger on Harassment & Health
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Who, me???
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:04:40 GMT
Lines: 138

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lefty) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Kevin
>Darcy) wrote:
>>
>> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> >
>> >I find it quite repugnant, Peter, that you would attempt to deflect well-
>> >deserved flames away from Darcy.  He made several tasteless, tactless and
>> >mean-spirited posts about a t.a participant's SO's experience as a victim
>> >of child sex abuse.
>>
>> "...well-deserved flames..."
>>
>>     Blatant assertion.
>
>Very nice.  I picture you perched up on a stand, flapping your wings and
>squawking "Blatant assertion!  Blatant assertion!"  _Good_ parrot!

Interesting but irrelevant graphic image.

>As I've said previously, you got off easily with _only_ well-deserved
>flames.  I suspect that many people, presented with your "behavior", would
>find it difficult to restrain themselves from pounding a stake through your
>heart and stuffing your mouth with garlic.

People's violent tendencies are ultimately their own problems, Lefty.

>> "He made several ..."
>>
>>     Incorrect. The whole flamewar stemmed from a single post.
>
>The whole flame war _originated_ with a single post.  This was followed up
>by a large number of explanations, denials, exegeses and exculpations on
>your part.

In response to an equal or larger number of lies, misrepresentations, smears,
baiting, agitation, preaching-from-the-pulpit, mindless name-calling and
obscenities, etc. etc. Your point?

>Finally, you hawked up something that very vaguely resembled an
>apology, but smelled like something that had died in agony a month
>previously.

Are you having olfactory hallucinations now?

>> "...tasteless, tactless and mean-spirited..."
>>
>>     Speculation presented as fact. My post attacked the spectacle of a
>>     child molester bragging about his exploits.
>
>You claim that you _thought_ your post did this.  What you in fact did was
>accuse a _victim_ of molestation of being himself a child molester.  Your
>protestations to the contrary have been somewhat less than convincing.

I never "protested to the contrary", Lefty. I admitted my mistake as soon as
it was apparent.

>>  I doubt that anyone would    consider my behavior, placed in the context of
>>  that interpretation, as "tasteless, tactless and mean-spirited".
>
>I doubt that anyone with more than two functioning neurons would consider
>it in any other way.

So you're saying you WOULDN'T verbally attack a child molester who publically
bragged about his exploits (thus tacitly condoning the behavior)??!?!?!

And you castigate me for MY morals, eh?

>This would seem to be supported by the large number
>decrying your posting as being _precisely_ "tasteless, tactless and
>mean-spirited", and the notable lack of people springing to your defense.

The "large number" was strategically predisposed to believe this, by a long-
running campaign of smears, lies, misrepresentations conducted against me. The
truth of the situation had very little to do with their beliefs.

>Well, Steve Franklin did defend you, but he doesn't count.
>
>Not higher than five, anyway.

Ha-yuck. Ha-yuck.

>>  As it happened, my interpretation was incorrect. I have apologized for that
>>  error. But error is not the same as malice, and the presence of malice in
>>  this instance is purely a matter of speculation on Mr. Lyman's part.
>
>Your "apology" was only slight less disgusting than your original
>accusation.  It is certainly clear from where _I_ happen to be standing
>that your accusation was based purely on malice.

So you proclaim, in typical Lefty chest-thumping fashion. Ho hum.

Perhaps you ought to alter where you "happen to be standing". Somewhere
within Reality would be nice.

>Would you care to deny,
>here and now, that you bear an animus towards Susan Garvin?

I bear an animus against child molesters who brag about their exploits on
the Net. And I would not hesitate to make fun of, in alt.flame, someone who
openly admits having an intimate relationship with someone who is, to all
appearances, such a person. Those are the only relevant motivational variables
here.

>> "...about a t.a participant's SO's experience..."
>>
>>     Misleading. My article was posted exclusively to alt.flame, where it
>>     was completely appropriate.
>
>You appear to be using the word "appropriate" in some sense with which I am
>unfamiliar.

Then please familiarize yourself with a dictionary and/or the Net.

>Would you consider accusing a rape victim of being a rapist
>"appropriate" in alt.flame?  How about accusing a Jew of being a Nazi?  How
>about calling a homosexual a homophobe?

In alt.flame, sure. What do you suppose the purpose of the group is, if not
to flame? Where else would you RATHER see flames like that?

Oh wait, I'm asking this of the person who seems to think alt.flame is an
appropriate place to conduct private business transactions?? Never mind.

>>  The term "t.a participant" seems to insinuate that I inflicted the flames
>>  on talk.abortion, when in fact the parties guilty of _that_ particular
>>  offense have never owned up or apologized for their actions.
>
>It insinuates nothing of the sort.  It means precisely what it says.  Do
>you deny that Susan is a "t.a participant"?

Of course not. That's a straw man.

A better question is: "what is the purpose of pointing out Susie's
'participation in t.a' if not to mislead people into thinking that the
flames were initiated in t.a? What other purpose does the modifier serve?"

                                - Kevin