home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49319 alt.flame:15072
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!The-Star.honeywell.com!umn.edu!mmm.serc.3m.com!pwcs!chrisl
- From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
- Subject: Re: Holtsinger on Harassment & Health
- Message-ID: <1992Nov23.193944.24449@pwcs.stpaul.gov>
- Sender: news@pwcs.stpaul.gov (USENET news administration)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: krang
- Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
- References: <1992Nov20.180206.10818@rotag.mi.org> <1992Nov20.213628.7133@pwcs.stpaul.gov> <1992Nov21.213315.15557@rotag.mi.org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:39:44 GMT
- Lines: 73
-
- kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
- > chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
- >> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
- >>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (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.
-
- >> In turn, a blatent assertion from someone who refuses to take responsibility
- >> for his actions.
-
- > And more blatant assertions in response. Is this progress, Lyman?
-
- You still refuse to take responsibility for your actions, so no, this is
- not progress, Darcy.
-
- > The whole phrase, let us recall, is
- > "He made several tasteless, tactless and mean-spirited about a t.a
- > participant's SO's experience..."
- > I only made >>ONE<< post about the t.a participant's SO's experience, Lyman.
- > Only the first one. All the rest was meta-discussion about that post.
-
- Since you don't deny making the response, "No thank you, you are not to my
- taste," or words to that effect, that means there were more than >>ONE<<
- "tasteless, tactless, and mean-spirited" post, now weren't there?
-
- > Given that person's extreme overreaction to my mistake, I thought it was
- > rather restrained. I could have said much worse. And I will note, AGAIN, that
- > the particular exchange to which you refer, was conducted in alt.flame. The
- > standards are different there.
-
- "It's ok if I was tacky; I could have been worse." My, isn't that heart-
- warming? Hey, everybody, let's give Darcy some kind of humanitarian award!
-
- Free clue, Lord Fuckwit: alt.flame is not about being tacky.
-
- >> Here's a bone for you, Kebbin. The wise old saying goes:
- >> "Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity."
- >> Either you allowed a tiny, malicious animus loose on someone you openly
- >> dislike, or you are the most monumentally stupid creature ever to move
- >> about on two legs. Which is it, Kebbin?
-
- > I made a mistake.
-
- You certainly did.
-
- > I apologized.
-
- While simultaneously refusing to take responsibility for your actions.
- The sincerity of your apology is therefore open to doubt.
-
- > What else do you want?
-
- For you to grow up? For you to quit pretending that it's everybody's
- fault but yours?
-
- > What is your agenda here, except to recycle old flame wars, and hurt
- > even more lurking victims of child sexual abuse?
-
- How does taking Peter Nyikos to task for attempting to deflect flames
- away from you by re-posting a Michael Loomis article constitute recycling
- old flame wars, or causing as yet undocumented emotional pain?
-
- --
- Chris Lyman / email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov / standard disclaimers
- "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's
- character, give him power." -- Abraham Lincoln
-