"National Enquirer story - Nana's Pregnant"
Gary Himes
the April 2, 1996 issue of the NATIONAL ENQUIRER. I can't vouch for its
veracity, but here it is:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
"STAR TREK" STAR PREGNANT WITH C0-STAR'S BABY
"Star Trek" actress Nana Visitor is having a baby with her castmate
Siddig El Fadil (sic). And she's finally found happiness 16 months after
enduring a horrifying night when two thugs raped and tortured her.
The baby is due in September and producers plan to explain Nana's
expanding belly with a new storyline on "Deep Space Nine." Her character
Major Kira will become a surrogate mom for the space station's
schoolteacher (sic) Keiko.
"When it's born, Kira has to let the baby go. Her heart is breaking and
Siddig's (sic) character Dr. Bashir helps her pick up the pieces."
Like his character, Siddig helped Nana in real life after her terrifying
ordeal in November 1994. Both men were recently convicted.
And this past October, friendship turned to love.
It happened when the couple were shooting an episode called "Our Man
Bashir" that had their characters falling in love, said the insider.
"After that, Nana couldn't stop talking about her love for Siddig.
"And when she found out she was pregnant with his child, Nana was
overjoyed!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
And now some personal comments.
A couple of things that stick out:
1). The article refers several times to "Siddig El Fadil" although he
changed his name to Alexander Siddig this season (as any REAL DS9 fan
knows).
2). Keiko is still refered to as a schoolteacher, although she hasn't
done that since the second season.
3). The description of the plot for "Our Man Bashir" isn't quite what
happened in the episode.
4). The whole "surrogate mom" storyline sounds rather strange, as Kira
has never seemed particularly close to Keiko, nor does she seem to be the
most likely choice to serve in this capacity - why would KIRA want to do
this? Isn't there a more logical candidate available? It seems awfully
out of character for the Major. And why should Keiko even need a
surrogate? She's already pregnant and had no problem delivering before
(well, no *medical* problem). Doesn't surrogacy need to start BEFORE
conception?
5). The article hints at a romance between Bashir and Kira. Jesus, how
many characters on DS9 are gonna fall in love with Kira? Again, this
seems unlikely.
Still, there may be truth to all this. Opinions anyone?
Gary Himes
Still cheering for Odo...
Tele 1
>> "STAR TREK" STAR PREGNANT WITH C0-STAR'S BABY
>>"Star Trek" actress Nana Visitor is having a baby with her
castmate
Siddig El Fadil (sic). And she's finally found happiness 16 months after
enduring a horrifying night when two thugs raped and tortured her.<<
WHAT????!!????
Debbie Foster
right about the pregnancy, but who knows about the rest. It will be
another reason to keep us watching DS9!
Debbie
GeneK
Pregnant">, 'te...@aol.com (Tele 1)' wrote:
>WHAT????!!????
National Enquirer stories are just slightly less credible than ST8 movie
plot rumors.
Gene
Gary Himes
a fairly accurate version of the script for "Generations" months before
the movie actually came out.
Also, I remember hearing about the attack on Nana Visitor over a year ago.
That is the reason she stopped doing conventions for about a year.
It's not something I care to dwell on, and I'm starting to wish I had
deleted that portion of the article when I posted it.
Gary Himes
Shaun Kerry Navis
:
: National Enquirer stories are just slightly less credible than ST8 movie
: plot rumors.
:
Actually, Gene, for all the trash and lies the Enquirer spews out,
they tend to be right about Trek stuff. They had the spoilers for ST VI and
"Generations" almost dead on (The "Generations" stuff they got wrong, like
Data having sex with one of the Klingon sisters, was in early drafts of the
scripts). They strangely tend to get TV show season-ending cliffhangers
right too, so we'll see about their ST 8 stuff (I personally haven't seen them,
so I don't know).
What I want to know is , what's with this story abot Nana having been
assualted and raped? I remember reading (on the net) around the time
"Generations" was released that she had been attacked, but I hadn't heard of
anything about a rape. I never saw confirmation of Nana even being attacked
in the press or on TV, so I tended to discount the talk on the net. God, I
hope *none* of this is true. My heart really goes out to her if any of this
stuff is for real. Does anyone *really* know what happened?
Shaun
Ben Avison
> This story is copied verbatim from an article written by Michael Glynn in
> the April 2, 1996 issue of the NATIONAL ENQUIRER. I can't vouch for its
> veracity, but here it is:
> >
> And she's finally found happiness 16 months after
> enduring a horrifying night when two thugs raped and tortured her.
Isn't that overstating it somewhat? As far as I can remember, she was
(fortunately) only mugged. Not that it wasn't an unpleasant experience,
but she wasn't assaulted.
As for the storyline, the Keiko but seems very unlikely, but remember
the (very subtle) hints dropped in Sons of Mogh that Kira was pregnant
then - maybe a month after that night she spent with Shakaar in
Crossfire. Doesn't that rather suggest the child is Shakaar's? Poor Odo.
I can't wait for the autobiographies of cast members that we ought to
get in 30 years or so...!
--
Ben
Mary Draganis
: Also, I remember hearing about the attack on Nana Visitor over a year ago.
: That is the reason she stopped doing conventions for about a year.
: It's not something I care to dwell on, and I'm starting to wish I had
: deleted that portion of the article when I posted it.
I wished you hadn't posted it! Its her private life and people are
entitled to their private lives even if they are on Star Trek.
Mary
Kinet Chi
>I wished you hadn't posted it! Its her private life and people are
>entitled to their private lives even if they are on Star Trek.
I agree with you, but don't try telling that to fan club types (unless
you're in the mood for a fight). They tend to think that since they watch
the shows or see the movies, it's their right (obligation!) to know every
aspect of the actor's life. <sigh>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"The question is no longer 'am I paraniod', it's 'am I paranoid enough'!"
Mark K. Ehlert
>
> In article <4jc9ev$e...@the-fly.zip.com.au>, ki...@zip.com.au$ says...
>
> >I wished you hadn't posted it! Its her private life and people are
> >entitled to their private lives even if they are on Star Trek.
>
> I agree with you, but don't try telling that to fan club types (unless
> you're in the mood for a fight). They tend to think that since they watch
> the shows or see the movies, it's their right (obligation!) to know every
> aspect of the actor's life. <sigh>
Actually, many of us don't - which is just fine.
--
***************************************************
-- Mark K. Ehlert --
-- <<MEh...@tiny.computing.csbsju.edu>> --
-- College of St. Benedict/St. John's University --
-- Inspirational Quote: It's not the years in --
-- your life, but the life in your years... --
***************************************************
Clifton W. Prescod, Jr.
or talked about. However, there is some good news about Nana Visitor
that includes Alexander Siddig and that is they are expecting a child.
This is definitely a Trek first (although Gene did dip into the Trek
babe pool twice), so let's wish them much happiness when their little
replicated bundle arrives.
DS
> : That is the reason she stopped doing conventions for about a year.
> : It's not something I care to dwell on, and I'm starting to wish I had
> : deleted that portion of the article when I posted it.
>
> entitled to their private lives even if they are on Star Trek.
>
I've been reading these posts about the "National Inquirer" article on
Nana Visitor's pregnancy and its mention of a rape she was a victim of
in '94. While I'm sympathetic to some of the discomfort expressed in
the follow ups like the two above, I also feel the need to raise a
question about this. I wonder in what sense "rape" is a "private"
issue. Aside from the fact that some criminal cases are matters of
public record, it seems to me there are other sound reasons for why
we might want to know (reasons more defensible than 'fan curiosity').
First and foremost: the suggestion that rape is a private issue
implies that being raped is something which should be 'kept quiet', an
'embarrassing', 'dirty little secret' perhaps that shouldn't be revealed
or talked about in something so frivolous as a Star Trek newsgroup.
I can understand why it might be embarrassing to be made a victim, and
so publicly, but let's be careful about reproducing the notion that
rape should be kept quiet. Doesn't that message potentially encourage
rape victims to remain silent about their rape? And doesn't that, then,
make them a double victim: first, a victim of rape, and, then, a victim
of silence? Part of the problem, here, I think, is that rape is one
of those crimes where we tend to want to 'blame the victim': to find
them culpable because maybe they 'dressed provocatively' or some other
ridiculous nonsense like that! For my part, the message we should be
sending is that rape is something which should make us angry, not
embarrassed.
Second, there's the more specific issue of whether a celebrity or public
figure who is raped should 'go public'. Arguably, they should. Having
celebrity status means that certain benefits accrue to people like Nana
Visitor: people want to know about her and about things that happen to
here. In this case, since silence about rape has been one of the
barriers to getting decent laws passed (especially on 'date rape' and
'spousal rape'), a celebrity has the opportunity to bring public attention
to problems like this. She could also tell her story to help warn
other people about possible dangers and about what to do, in case....
Third, there's the genuine issue of concern that develops between fans
and the stars they admire. What I mean here is that we shouldn't reduce
fans' wanting to know whether this really happened to just 'morbid
curiosity'. For my part, I like Nana Visitor's work and have grown
fond of her, given what I've learned about her. I therefore find it
both sad and shocking that she may have gone through this kind of
ordeal.
So, for what it's worth, I for one would like to know, first,
if it's true, and, second, what some of the outcomes were. Were the
rapists caught and convicted? Did Nana get counseling? What resources
were available to her? What can she tell other people (both women and
men) about this? Can she encourage other victims to come forward?
What should they expect?
In short, I think there are good reasons for why we might want rape to
become a more 'public' issue. At a minimum, I'd like to caution
people against sending out the wrong message when they claim it's a
'private matter'.
--DS
Peter Bryce
>It's not something I care to dwell on, and I'm starting to wish I had
>deleted that portion of the article when I posted it.
Hi.
(coming out of lurk mode for a moment) ;-)
I can see why you'd have second thoughts about that portion of the
article.
If such a thing happened to her, wouldn't it show that she had the
strength to carry on with her work and her life?
I would see that as as being very professional and something to be
admired, both of her talent and the person herself.
I can see this thread possibly going on & on about something we both
don't want to discuss, but I just wanted to say something about the
person herself, and not the persona she plays on TV.
No doubt there's going to be some idiot replies by others to this
message, but I can see that you Gary, are probably thinking more of
what something like this would mean to _any_ person that it may have
happened to.
Okay, back to lurk mode. (where it's nice and quiet.) ;-)
Bye!
_----/ /--------------/|\--------------\ \----_
=_ Peter Bryce - worm...@desktop.com.au _=
----\ \--------------\O/--------------/ /----
Shaun Kerry Navis
: The rape story regardless of the truth has no business being published
: or talked about. However, there is some good news about Nana Visitor
: that includes Alexander Siddig and that is they are expecting a child.
: This is definitely a Trek first (although Gene did dip into the Trek
: babe pool twice), so let's wish them much happiness when their little
: replicated bundle arrives.
Now hold on here! I'm getting a bit tired of everyone saying we
shouldn't even talk about this story. In no way do I wish to intrude on
Nana's privacy, nor do I feel she "owes" me anything since I'm a fan and
she's a celebrity. It's not even a morbid curiosity. The tabloid already ran
this and it's out there. One could strongly argue THEY violated her privacy,
although they probably haven't broken any laws (Unless they lied about all
this). If it's true, then my heart goes out to Nana, and she has the right to
deal with it a she sees fit. If she wants to talk about it, she might be able
to help someone from being victimized in the same way and it might prove
cathartic for her. If she wishes to keep it private and not talk about it,
that's her right too. It's now, unfortunately, part of the public record
thanks to a sleazy tabloid. That makes it fair game to discuss, and I would
hope people could do it in an intelligent, thoughtful manner. Considering it
never got any attention in the mainstream media (There was some talk a year
and a half ago that Nana was attacked, but rape was never mentioned and even
reports of the attack were never substantiated so far as I could tell), it
seems odd that it would suddenly crop up now. I don't wish to dwell on this
any longer than I already have, but considering the severity of the report
and the questions and concern it raises people like myself who admire Nana
and her work, I think discussing it isn't such a bad thing. Not that we need
to kick it around forver, but to say it's completely verboten is ridiculous.
Shaun
Daniel Keiling
Draganis) wrote:
> Gary Himes (FNY...@prodigy.com) wrote:
> : Also, I remember hearing about the attack on Nana Visitor over a year ago.
> : That is the reason she stopped doing conventions for about a year.
> : It's not something I care to dwell on, and I'm starting to wish I had
> : deleted that portion of the article when I posted it.
>
> I wished you hadn't posted it! Its her private life and people are
> entitled to their private lives even if they are on Star Trek.
>
> Mary
Are you sure about Nana not doing conventions, im going to one in August
in Detroit michigan that is featureing Kate mulgrew and Nana Visitor???
I didnt hear about an attack on her, can you tell me more about it. I am
so shocked to hear this!!!! it makes me mad! Nana plays my favorite DS9
character, i was reallly hoping to see her in August.
Tell me more if you can
Daniel
Rex MacKenzie
those tickets for August if she's the only reason you're going.
I doubt that she'll be taking too many flights around then.
Brad W.
>ki...@zip.com.au (Mary Draganis) wrote:
>>
>> Gary Himes (FNY...@prodigy.com) wrote:
>> : Also, I remember hearing about the attack on Nana Visitor over a year
ago.
>> : That is the reason she stopped doing conventions for about a year.
>> : It's not something I care to dwell on, and I'm starting to wish I had
>> : deleted that portion of the article when I posted it.
>>
>> I wished you hadn't posted it! Its her private life and people are
>> entitled to their private lives even if they are on Star Trek.
>>
>> Mary
>
>
>Second, there's the more specific issue of whether a celebrity or public
>figure who is raped should 'go public'. Arguably, they should. Having
>celebrity status means that certain benefits accrue to people like Nana
>Visitor: people want to know about her and about things that happen to
>here. In this case, since silence about rape has been one of the
>barriers to getting decent laws passed (especially on 'date rape' and
>'spousal rape'), a celebrity has the opportunity to bring public attention
>to problems like this. She could also tell her story to help warn
>other people about possible dangers and about what to do, in case....
>
>
>In short, I think there are good reasons for why we might want rape to
>become a more 'public' issue. At a minimum, I'd like to caution
>people against sending out the wrong message when they claim it's a
>'private matter'.
>
>--DS
Producers use this same argument to have their characters raped on-screen.
Didi McCall from the cop show "Hunter" was raped twice on the show, and was
scheduled to be raped a third time when the actress that played her quit the
show. She said she didn't like having her character raped every time the
ratings dropped. The producers, of course, say that they do it to send a
message to women who have been raped that they are not alone. In my opinion,
that's crap. There have been rumors that Tom Cruise was abused as a child,
and I think he gave the best answer when he was pressed to tell about it. He
refused to discuss it, and the reporter pulled out the "don't you owe it to
others who have been abused" line. He said that there have already been
enough actors and famous people who have come forward to let people know that
they were not alone, so the telling of his experiences was not necessary.
Most of the stuff you hear from actors/actresses now is a cry for attention
(example: Roseanne Barr). TV movies and talk shows use it for the shock
effect, not to send a message.
Maybe the lady just doesn't feel like her story would bring the issue
any further to the surface than it already is, and she doesn't feel the need
to expose her troubles just to satisfy the curiosity of people she doesn't
even know. Maybe she's dealt with it and wants to move on (though I hope the
perpetrators were punished first). That, to me, sends a positive message.
BW
Tele 1
mugging or any other violent crime, it is intensely personal by its very
nature. It conjures up images about the celebrity that they may not want
conjured up. We do not publically speculate about Nana and Sid's love
life or sexual practices (least not on this group.) It's none of our
business. Likewise Ms. Visitor's attack is none of our business, only
more so, as it is traumatic and presumably her realtionship with El Fadil
is not.
Acid test is this: imagine you were the survivor of a rape (play along,
men, it can happen to you too) and signed on one morning only to find
strangers discussing it in a newsgroup. Unpleasant, correct? Celebrity
affords little privacy, but there is a line that should not be crossed.
My .02.
--T-1
Carolyn Fulton
(Daniel Keiling) writes:
>
>In article <4jc9ev$e...@the-fly.zip.com.au>, ki...@zip.com.au (Mary
>Draganis) wrote:
>
>> Gary Himes (FNY...@prodigy.com) wrote:
>> : Also, I remember hearing about the attack on Nana Visitor over a
year ago.
>> : That is the reason she stopped doing conventions for about a
year.
>> : It's not something I care to dwell on, and I'm starting to wish I
had
>> : deleted that portion of the article when I posted it.
>>
>> I wished you hadn't posted it! Its her private life and people are
>> entitled to their private lives even if they are on Star Trek.
>>
>> Mary
>
August
>in Detroit michigan that is featureing Kate mulgrew and Nana
Visitor???
>I didnt hear about an attack on her, can you tell me more about it. I
am
>so shocked to hear this!!!! it makes me mad! Nana plays my favorite
DS9
>character, i was reallly hoping to see her in August.
>
>Tell me more if you can
>Daniel
Nana is, I believe, doing conventions again -- however, it's very
unlikely that she'll be flying to Detroit (or being allowed to do so)
for a convention in August when her due date is in September. I think
it's pretty much guaranteed that Nana will NOT be doing much travelling
in August!
Tom Morgan
worm...@desktop.com.au (Peter Bryce) wrote:
>FNY...@prodigy.com (Gary Himes) wrote:
>
>
>>It's not something I care to dwell on, and I'm starting to wish I had
>>deleted that portion of the article when I posted it.
>If such a thing happened to her, wouldn't it show that she had the
>strength to carry on with her work and her life?
>I would see that as as being very professional and something to be
>admired, both of her talent and the person herself.
Regardless of whether it's to be 'admired' or not, it's still a private thing
and not open to public perusal - no matter how much of a fan you are. Give
the lady some respect and clam it.
Tom
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary
safety deserve neither saftey or liberty." Benjamin Franklin
Tom Morgan
>DS <ds...@gate.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I've been reading these posts about the "National Inquirer" article on
>>Nana Visitor's pregnancy and its mention of a rape she was a victim of
>>in '94. While I'm sympathetic to some of the discomfort expressed in
>>the follow ups like the two above, I also feel the need to raise a
>>question about this. I wonder in what sense "rape" is a "private"
>>issue. Aside from the fact that some criminal cases are matters of
>>public record, it seems to me there are other sound reasons for why
>>we might want to know (reasons more defensible than 'fan curiosity').
No, you're dead wrong. Rape as a problem is wide open to discussion; rape as
it pertains to any one person is only up for grabs if *that person* says it
is. Otherwise, you violate her privacy and show a complete lack of respect
for her feelings.
>
>>Second, there's the more specific issue of whether a celebrity or public
>>figure who is raped should 'go public'. Arguably, they should.
No again. Arguably, being American citizens with all the rights of any
American citizen, they should damn well be able to make up their minds on
their own. It isn't up to you or anyone else to decide the rights and wrongs
of going public for them. Your opinion on this matter is irrelevant.
>>Third, there's the genuine issue of concern that develops between fans
>>and the stars they admire. What I mean here is that we shouldn't reduce
>>fans' wanting to know whether this really happened to just 'morbid
>>curiosity'.
Quite a bit of it *is* morbid curiosity. Once again, it's up to the
celebrity, not the fan. What the fan does or doesn't think about Nana's
personal life is of no consequence. Apparently you have some problems drawing
the line.
>>--DS
>
[and then someone else blathered on in agreement...]
>
>On the first issue, I have to agree with you that if someone were
>raped, that fact should be treated no differently than any other
>violent crime. It's not the victim's fault any more than any other
>crime is the victim's fault. If you or I were robbed and kidnapped
>(bad enough) no one would be afraid of the fact, but when you add in
>the word rape, people get all sensitive. Hey, if she got stabbed or
>shot, no one would be saying "oh, it's none of our business." But
>rape? "That's her private life, stay out!"
If *you* were raped you'd be singing a different tune. It's clear you don't
speak from anything remotely like personal experience. In fact, it's clear
you don't know what the hell *you're* talking about, either.
>
>But looking a little further at the whole idea of celebrity, yeah, I
>have a right to know about the private lives of celebrities.
No, you don't. You don't have any rights in this regard. The Constitution
doesn't guarantee you any of these rights, nor do the laws of any lesser
government within the United States. In fact, *all* of the laws that have
anything remotely to do with this are designed to *protect* people from the
unwanted intrusions of strangers.
So, you don't have any rights. If you think you do, you're wrong. And this
doesn't even begin to address the simple idea of respect, something which you
seem to be unfamiliar with.
>Unfortunately, you can't be famous only when it's
>comfortable and convenient for yourself.
And people like you don't make it any easier.
lf...@gate.net
>My .02.
>--T-1
Let's say I'm NOT a celebrity and I get attacked and raped on the way
home from work tomorrow. If my neighbors find out, do they need to
know such a thing? Should they discuss it with me? Should they
pretend it never happened? My answer is that honesty is best. I'd be
better off being up front about the subject and be sure that my side
of the story were heard. A clearing of the air about the facts with
my friends and neighbors would be better than uninformed gossip, like,
for example, the uninformed gossip we're seeing here in this
newsgroup. If we knew what the real facts were from Nana (or Nana's
publicity people anyway) we'd be able to say "oh, that's what
happened" and shut up about the subject. If they said nothing
happened, I'd believe them.
Don't misunderstand me, I wouldn't enjoy being raped, nor would I be
really thrilled with people discussing it in this newsgroup, but then
I didn't make the deal that television actors make. When they go on
television, they voluntarily give up a lot of the privacy that the
average person takes for granted. There are a lot of positives to
this, but they have to take the negatives, too. Every actor in
Hollywood could walk away tomorrow if they wanted too, but they don't
because they like the good things about that lifestyle more than they
hate the bad things.
If we're going to get involved with hypotheticals here, how about if I
were a big celebrity who were pregnant. This is something that is
part of a star's private life and not part of their acting career, but
that doesn't stop celeb pregnancies from being publicized? I can
think of several celebrity pregnancies that were made into big media
events just recently. Remember pregnant Demi Moore on the cover of a
magazine? How about Jane Seymour on the cover of TV guide? Bruce
Boxleitner and Melissa Gilbert on the cover of People? Well, that's
okay, because pregnancy is a "good" thing. Why not milk the birth of
child for some free positive publicity. But, what if something bad
happens? Maybe I have a miscarriage, or the baby is born with a
really awful birth defect. Is that something we should know about?
Shouldn't we just igonre the tragedy? Does this mean it's okay for
celebrities to exploit their private lives when it's to their
advantage, but we're supposed to just ignore anything negative,
unpleasant or tragic? They can't have it both ways. Either they want
to be famous and want people to know who they are and what they do, or
they can be anonymous like me and stay out of the limelight.
........................
lf...@gate.net
"the idiot who wrote that thing about submarines"
Tom Morgan
>Let's say I'm NOT a celebrity and I get attacked and raped on the way
>home from work tomorrow. If my neighbors find out, do they need to
>know such a thing? Should they discuss it with me? Should they
>pretend it never happened? My answer is that honesty is best.
Well, it's pretty damned apparent that Ifan is a man. Yes indeed.
I'd be
>better off being up front about the subject and be sure that my side
>of the story were heard. A clearing of the air about the facts with
>my friends and neighbors would be better than uninformed gossip, like,
>for example, the uninformed gossip we're seeing here in this
>newsgroup.
What might be even better is seeing that my neighbors are decent enough to
respect my privacy and not gossip in the first place. Is this a foreign
concept to you?
If we knew what the real facts were from Nana (or Nana's
>publicity people anyway) we'd be able to say "oh, that's what
>happened" and shut up about the subject. If they said nothing
>happened, I'd believe them.
And your belief or disbelief doesn't matter worth a damn. The only thing that
matters is that it isn't your business and it's not your place to ask. Once
again, *you* *don't* *have* *any* *rights* *here*.
>
>Don't misunderstand me, I wouldn't enjoy being raped, nor would I be
>really thrilled with people discussing it in this newsgroup, but then
>I didn't make the deal that television actors make. When they go on
>television, they voluntarily give up a lot of the privacy that the
>average person takes for granted.
No, they don't 'voluntarily' give it up. They have it stripped away by yahoo
fans who don't know the first thing about treating other people with common
courtesy. There *is* a difference.
There are a lot of positives to
>this, but they have to take the negatives, too. Every actor in
>Hollywood could walk away tomorrow if they wanted too, but they don't
>because they like the good things about that lifestyle more than they
>hate the bad things.
So what? That doesn't justify hounding them, or gossiping about their private
lives. Repetition for those who just aren't getting it: IT ISN'T YOUR
BUSINESS.
>Shouldn't we just igonre the tragedy? Does this mean it's okay for
>celebrities to exploit their private lives when it's to their
>advantage, but we're supposed to just ignore anything negative,
>unpleasant or tragic?
Yeah, that's exactly what it means. If they choose to include you, fine; if
not, then live with it.
> They can't have it both ways.
Unfortunately, not with folks like you around. A damned shame.
lf...@gate.net
>What might be even better is seeing that my neighbors are decent enough to
>respect my privacy and not gossip in the first place. Is this a foreign
>concept to you?
> If we knew what the real facts were from Nana (or Nana's
>>publicity people anyway) we'd be able to say "oh, that's what
>>happened" and shut up about the subject. If they said nothing
>>happened, I'd believe them.
>And your belief or disbelief doesn't matter worth a damn. The only thing that
>matters is that it isn't your business and it's not your place to ask. Once
>again, *you* *don't* *have* *any* *rights* *here*.
Look, I don't know what your problem is, but celebrities make their
living by getting the general public (that's me) to care about them.
I care about Nana Visitor. I wan't to know what happened. I have the
right to ask the question "what happened." They don't have to tell
me, but I'd much rather hear the facts from Nana Visitor or her people
than the possibly fake information from the Enquirer. I don't think
that the general concern about Nana Visitor and the curiosity about
her well being shown in this news group is harassment or in any way
strips her of her privacy.
I think that you've got a problem with the word "rape." If we were
talking about Siddig El Fadil's parking tickets or Leonard Nimoy's
shoe size, I don't think you'd be nearly as outraged as you are now.
Also, if you can't handle idle gossip about celebrities, the why the
heck are you reading an internet newsgroup for Pete's sake?
Dawn S Friedman
>
>Look, I don't know what your problem is, but celebrities make their
>living by getting the general public (that's me) to care about them.
the general public care about the characters they play, not about
their own personal lives. That's the theory, anyway.
A professional celebrity -- someone who spends most of his time
on late-night TV, blithering amusingly about the latest happenings
in his life -- might be a different matter. But Nana Visitor is
an actor.
>I care about Nana Visitor. I wan't to know what happened.
I'm touched. And I do understand the feeling. I spent several
hours last November wanting to argue with a man I'd just met about
the evils of smoking. I cared, because he was an actor whose work
had given me a lot of pleasure and an unjustified sense of familiarity.
I was brought up to believe that caring about people means nagging them.
But it wasn't any of my damn business.
>I have the
>right to ask the question "what happened."
You have the right to say just about anything. But it's rude to
ask personal questions of a stranger.
Why not show your concern by treating the woman as she wishes to
be treated?
--
Dawn Friedman * 'They die like flies!' screamed Fu Manchu, with a sudden
d...@world.std.com * febrile excitement; and I felt assured of something I
* had long suspected: that the magnificent, perverted brain was the brain
* of a homicidal maniac -- though Smith would never accept the theory.
Tom Morgan
>n...@all.welcome (Tom Morgan) wrote:
>
>
>
>>What might be even better is seeing that my neighbors are decent enough to
>>respect my privacy and not gossip in the first place. Is this a foreign
>>concept to you?
>
>> If we knew what the real facts were from Nana (or Nana's
>>>publicity people anyway) we'd be able to say "oh, that's what
>>>happened" and shut up about the subject. If they said nothing
>>>happened, I'd believe them.
>
>>And your belief or disbelief doesn't matter worth a damn. The only thing
that
>>matters is that it isn't your business and it's not your place to ask. Once
>>again, *you* *don't* *have* *any* *rights* *here*.
>
>
>living by getting the general public (that's me) to care about them.
Wrong. They make their living by doing their jobs well, just like the rest of
us. In Ms. Visitor's case, that's acting a part on DS9. This has *nothing*
to do with her personal life, unless she cares to intertwine the two.
>I care about Nana Visitor. I wan't to know what happened. I have the
>right to ask the question "what happened." They don't have to tell
>me, but I'd much rather hear the facts from Nana Visitor or her people
>than the possibly fake information from the Enquirer.
Please tell me you don't take anything the Enquirer prints seriously. You
don't actually read that rag, do you?
I don't think
>that the general concern about Nana Visitor and the curiosity about
>her well being shown in this news group is harassment or in any way
>strips her of her privacy.
I said nothing about harrassment. I did talk about common sense, decency,
manners, and good taste. There's a difference. The first is illegal, the
second is not. I also commented on people who brazenly claim to have the
'right' to know about someone else's personal life merely by virtue of being a
fan.
>
>
>I think that you've got a problem with the word "rape." If we were
>talking about Siddig El Fadil's parking tickets or Leonard Nimoy's
>shoe size, I don't think you'd be nearly as outraged as you are now.
Probably because rape is traumatic and leaves life-long scars that can never
be truly healed, while getting a parking ticket - or having someone inquire as
to your shoe size - doesn't have quite the same effect. Do you have a problem
discerning between these examples?
Aside from which, Fadil's parking tickets aren't any of my business, nor is
Nimoy's shoe size (unless I plan on buying him a pair of shoes).
And I'm not outraged, I'm annoyed. There's a difference there, too, as well.
>
>
>Also, if you can't handle idle gossip about celebrities, the why the
>heck are you reading an internet newsgroup for Pete's sake?
Well, this is alt.tv.star-trek.DS9, NOT alt.fan.nana-visitor. You are
conversant with how the newsgroups are set up, aren't you? This group
generally discusses the show, not the personal life of the actors on the show.
That discussion is more appropriately kept to the proper .fan. groups.
Mary Draganis
n...@all.welcome (Tom Morgan) wrote:
>Look, I don't know what your problem is, but celebrities make their
>living by getting the general public (that's me) to care about them.
What a load of rubbish. I'm sorry but do you honestly believe that
every actor goes out to tug at your heart strings? Some of them like
doing it because they are good at it and others for the money and they
do have a private life.
TM> Wrong. They make their living by doing their jobs well, just
Exactly.
TM> like the rest of us. In Ms. Visitor's case, that's acting a part
TM> on DS9. This has *nothing* to do with her personal life, unless
TM> she cares to intertwine the two.
Nana Visitor has the right like everyone else to keep her private life, private
and be able to have one whether she was on Star Trek or Sesame Street.
>I care about Nana Visitor. I wan't to know what happened. I have the
>right to ask the question "what happened." They don't have to tell
>me, but I'd much rather hear the facts from Nana Visitor or her people
>than the possibly fake information from the Enquirer.
Why should anyone who knows Nana or knows of this incident tell you?
TM> Please tell me you don't take anything the Enquirer prints
TM> seriously. You don't actually read that rag, do you?
Some people obviously do and I guess the readership of that stupid rag
also believe that Elvis is alive and well and living on Mac burgers.
TM> I said nothing about harrassment. I did talk about common sense,
TM> decency, manners, and good taste. There's a difference. The
TM> first is illegal, the second is not. I also commented on people
TM> who brazenly claim to have the 'right' to know about someone
TM> else's personal life merely by virtue of being a fan.
Problem with some people is that they don't know when to draw the line. I have
heard of "fans" asking Nana at a convention about this and she handled it with
style but what right does this "fan" have in asking her that personal question.
What's next? When was the last time you had sex? That's a personal question.
>
>I think that you've got a problem with the word "rape." If we were
>talking about Siddig El Fadil's parking tickets or Leonard Nimoy's
>shoe size, I don't think you'd be nearly as outraged as you are now.
You know rape is just a word but rape also brings the worst kind of
violation to a woman (or a man) and frankly it's not something one
discusses. I'm sure if your mother/sister/girlfriend/whatever was raped
you certainly wouldn't want that splattered in the newspaper or on the
internet!
TM> quite the same effect. Do you have a problem discerning between
TM> these examples?
He obviously does. You can say that Nana has a size 8 shoe or she was
speeding and got a ticket (I'm not saying that is true) but putting rape
up there with those is quite stupid.
TM> And I'm not outraged, I'm annoyed. There's a difference there,
TM> too, as well.
I'm stumped as to why everyone would find this fascinating and wasting
bandwidth on this.
>Also, if you can't handle idle gossip about celebrities, the why the
>heck are you reading an internet newsgroup for Pete's sake?
Oi! Have you checked out the newsgroup lately. I'm pretty sure it doesn't
have Nana or Visitor or Kira in the title...it was like that the last
time I looked.
TM> Well, this is alt.tv.star-trek.DS9, NOT alt.fan.nana-visitor.
Or alt.showbiz.gossip!
Give this whole thread a rest.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MaryD
E-mail: ki...@zip.com.au | WWW: http://www.zip.com.au/~kira/maryd.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DS
>
> In article <4jlcl6$m...@news.gate.net>, lf...@gate.net (lf...@gate.net) wrote:
> >DS <ds...@gate.net> wrote:
SNIP....
> >>issue. Aside from the fact that some criminal cases are matters of
> >>public record, it seems to me there are other sound reasons for why
> >>we might want to know (reasons more defensible than 'fan curiosity').
Tom's reply:
> No, you're dead wrong. Rape as a problem is wide open to discussion; rape as
> it pertains to any one person is only up for grabs if *that person* says it
> is. Otherwise, you violate her privacy and show a complete lack of respect
> for her feelings.
>
> >
> >>Second, there's the more specific issue of whether a celebrity or public
> >>figure who is raped should 'go public'. Arguably, they should.
>
> No again. Arguably, being American citizens with all the rights of any
> American citizen, they should damn well be able to make up their minds on
> their own. It isn't up to you or anyone else to decide the rights and wrongs
> of going public for them. Your opinion on this matter is irrelevant.
>
> >>Third, there's the genuine issue of concern that develops between fans
> >>and the stars they admire. What I mean here is that we shouldn't reduce
> >>fans' wanting to know whether this really happened to just 'morbid
> >>curiosity'.
>
> Quite a bit of it *is* morbid curiosity. Once again, it's up to the
> celebrity, not the fan. What the fan does or doesn't think about Nana's
> personal life is of no consequence. Apparently you have some problems drawing
> the line.
DEAR "n...@all.welcome":
I can't tell you how refreshing it is to find someone on these news-
groups with your degree of conviction. Maybe it's my PhD training, or
maybe it's just being a woman (forgive me my stereotypes, will you?),
but I so often feel that I need to qualify practically everything I
say. Of course, your response to me has helped teach me something
about how it is possible for someone to speak with so much conviction.
You simply ignore all the nuances and subtleties of another person's
arguments, take her statements out of context, and then interpret them
willy-nilly, failing, of course, to address the issues she set out to
address....but then, all of that really does get in the way of
speaking with conviction. Thank you for the lesson...
If it's OK with you, however, I would like to clarify some issues,
especially since 'conviction' is always more impressive and
unassailable when it is well informed.
First of all, I never claimed that fans have a "right" to know every-
thing about celebrities. I very carefully worded my subject line in
terms of "why we might WANT to know." There's a big difference between
"want" and "need" and even "right." You've too readily and fallaciously
(perhaps also willfully?) misinterpreted all the people 'blathering' in
agreement with my initial post as saying that fans have a right to know.
Admittedly, some people here have argued that. But some haven't. And
I didn't. In fact, I do know where to draw the line. It stops pre-
cisely at the point at which Nana Visitor (but, interestingly, not you)
says that it's none of my business. My specific claim that celebrities
'should go public' does not mean that they should be 'outed', despite
their wishes; rather, my point was that they should be encouraged to
'go public'. Nor did I say that they have an obligation to go public;
rather, what I said was that, given their celebrity status, they have
an opportunity (unlike most other rape victims) to bring the issue of
rape (and related issues like rape laws, counseling, encouraging other
victims to report their rapes, etc.) to the public's attention. These
are the social benefits of celebrities going public about their being
raped. I agree, however, that ultimately the decision should be their
own.
More to the point: I wasn't speculating about whether Nana Visitor
WAS raped, nor did I ask someone to verify the National Enquirer story.
Rather, my post, in case you didn't notice, was motivated by a concern
I had that victims of rape reading these posts might get the wrong
message if all they heard was that "rape is a private issue." I was
(and still am) concerned that this message (baldly asserted) would
encourage them to remain silent about their being raped. Doesn't
this concern you at all? This is a relevant concern and a defensible
motive. Your ignoring it, however, and reiterating the same bald
assertion that 'rape is private' suggests, in fact, that this doesn't
concern you. Well, if protecting the privacy of celebrities is more
important to you than encouraging women (and men and children) to report
their rape, to get angry rather than get embarrassed, even to 'go
public' sometimes (not always), then that's certainly your 'right'.
Where I, too, have a 'right' is in adopting a different set of
priorities for myself and in raising key issues, on the basis of
these priorities, for discussion with people willing to have a
conversation with me. If you're interested in having a discussion
with me, we're going to get a lot farther (as equal participants in
a cordial debate) if you avoid the personal attacks and make some
effort, instead, to address the issue I've raised. The issue, as I
framed it, was not "celebrity-privacy vs. fans'-right-to-know," but
rather "rape-as-private vs. rape-as-a-crime-that-should-be-reported."
Needless to say, you're free to reframe the discussion issue (though
not my arguments) as you see fit, but you really should attempt, first,
to address the issue as I have framed it. Otherwise, we're just going
to talk past each other, and that's not much of a 'discussion'.
Admittedly, in framing this issue, I should have made clearer that I
do not advocate a right-to-know regardless of the wishes of rape victims.
In fact, my post was motivated by a sensitivity and concern with rape
victims themselves, who might interpret "rape is private" as meaning
that it's an 'embarrassing, dirty little secret that should be kept
quiet'. The reason, therefore, that I worded my subject line as I
did (that is, as "Why we might want to know...") was to give rape
victims the impression and understanding that a 'we' (a society) exists
out here that is ready and willing to listen to them tell us about
their rape IF THEY SO CHOOSE. The (perhaps too implicit) reasons 'we'
might want to know, I argued, are not 'morbid curiosity' nor some
self-regarding, exaggerated sense of having a 'right-to-know';
but rather a set of other-regarding reasons, including a general
concern for someone else's well-being and a desire to seek justice with
victims of rape against their attackers and to offer them whatever
support and encouragement they need in the process of coming forward.
All I've been suggesting, really, is that we make clearer what we
mean by 'public' and 'private'. By 'public', I don't necessarily
mean the National Enquirer, Oprah, or even the alt.tv.startrek.ds9
newsgroup; I mean, rather, family, friends, the police, and maybe, on
occasion, fans (to the extent that rape victims among the latter might
benefit from knowing that a celebrity went through the same ordeal and
how she handled it). Similarly, those of you who have been arguing
that "rape is private" should be clearer about what you mean, because
it makes a huge difference to rape victims whether what you mean by
"private" is 'out of the media', etc., or whether what you mean by
"private" is, quite literally, 'a secret one keeps to oneself'. The
latter, I have been arguing, is definitely the WRONG message, and
that's something I CAN say with conviction.
Frankly, except for an appropriate, human concern for Nana Visitor's
well-being (if, in fact, she was raped), I don't really feel the need
to know. Still, all the speculation about her on this and other
computer forums does, at least, support one of the claims I made in
my initial post: when it happens (or is even reported to have
happened) to a celebrity, rape can become the topic of discussion.
I still insist that this is a good thing....with the appropriate
caveat that we don't have a right-to-know that overrides someone's
decision to keep the matter out of certain public forums. (Well,
you might have guessed that I'd qualify my assertion.)
Cordially,
DS
Shaun Kerry Navis
: Look, I don't know what your problem is, but celebrities make their
: living by getting the general public (that's me) to care about them.
: right to ask the question "what happened." They don't have to tell
: me, but I'd much rather hear the facts from Nana Visitor or her people
: that the general concern about Nana Visitor and the curiosity about
: her well being shown in this news group is harassment or in any way
: strips her of her privacy.
This whole discussion is getting out of hand, but I have to agree with
you. The people on this group didn't violate Nana's privacy, The *tabloid*
did by printing this particular story. Considering there was areport a year
and a half about her being attacked that no on here seemed to really no about
(No mention of a rape at that time) I didn't think much of it and let it go.
NOW, seemingly out of nowhere, is this story that she was violated in the most
horrible of ways. If Nana doesn't want to talk about it that's her right.
The report, accurate or not, is out there though and people who admire her and
her work are going to be concerned (Count me among those people).
The Net is a public forum for discussions. Who's rights are being
violated by us talking about it (I've never seen this issue brought up when up
when people would make stupid postings like "Is Patrick Stewart gay?" I think
it's a pointless discussion but people have a right to discuss such dumb stuff
if they want to)? I'd much rather discuss DS9 storylines and characters than
something this unpleasant, but now that I've learned about this Enquirer stuff
I'm going to think about it when I see Nana. If it's true and she chose to
"go public" about it then it would (hopefully) put an end to all the
speculation going on here. If she doesn't want to discuss it, that's her
choice and I'll respect that. If it's not true (It wouldn't shock me if the
Enquirer took the report of the attack and made up the more gruesome stuff)
she probably ought make a statement about it so this can end.
Shaun
lf...@gate.net
>
>I said nothing about harrassment. I did talk about common sense, decency,
>manners, and good taste. There's a difference. The first is illegal, the
>second is not. I also commented on people who brazenly claim to have the
>'right' to know about someone else's personal life merely by virtue of being a
>fan.
Ooooh, watch the man back pedal!
Actually, I think your general comments about about "people" were
directed specifically at me. Also, there is a definition in the
dictionary for the verb "harass" that doesn't have anything to do with
a specific criminal charge (in my state, there is no criminal charge
called "harassment"). In this case, I think that what you described
would fall under the heading of harassment: "annoy by repeated
attacks; disturb or torment persistently."
>>
>>
>>I think that you've got a problem with the word "rape." If we were
>>talking about Siddig El Fadil's parking tickets or Leonard Nimoy's
>>shoe size, I don't think you'd be nearly as outraged as you are now.
>Probably because rape is traumatic and leaves life-long scars that can never
>be truly healed, while getting a parking ticket - or having someone inquire as
>to your shoe size - doesn't have quite the same effect. Do you have a problem
>discerning between these examples?
No, I have no trouble telling the difference. I was only curious
about why you take such an offense to a sober discussion of a serious
subject and liken it to cheap gossip and invasion of privacy. The
subject, and your reaction to it, makes me wonder why you're so darned
keen on trying to protect the private life of someone who, to my
knowledge, doesn't need your protection. Once again, I ask, If we
were "invading their privacy" on some other mundane subject (like shoe
size or parking tickets) would you be roaring in with all guns
blazing?
Also, when did anyone on this newsgroup treat this very serious
subject (or non subject) with anything but respect and compassion?
Oh, yeah....it was about the time you came in with your insulting
harangue....
>And I'm not outraged, I'm annoyed. There's a difference there, too, as well.
Thanks for pointing that out. I'd hate to see you outraged.
>>
>>
>>Also, if you can't handle idle gossip about celebrities, the why the
>>heck are you reading an internet newsgroup for Pete's sake?
>Well, this is alt.tv.star-trek.DS9, NOT alt.fan.nana-visitor. You are
>conversant with how the newsgroups are set up, aren't you? This group
>generally discusses the show, not the personal life of the actors on the show.
>That discussion is more appropriately kept to the proper .fan. groups.
Oh come on! With all the crap clogging up these newsgroups that has
absolutely nothing to do with Star Trek in even the most remote
fashion, you bring out this argument! If this is so, why didn't you
just post a nice little note saying "take it to another newsgroup"
instead of jumping in with an insulting tirade? Oh, of course, you
were so outraged...err...I mean, annoyed, that you couldn't hold
back.... Or do you just drag this reason out when the discussion
isn't going your way?
And, now, since I really really am off topic, I bid this thread
goodbye!
an...@ix.netcom.com
>n...@all.welcome (Tom Morgan) wrote:
[lots of snipping to save bandwidth]
>DEAR "n...@all.welcome":
>
>I can't tell you how refreshing it is to find someone on these news-
>groups with your degree of conviction. Maybe it's my PhD training,
or
>maybe it's just being a woman (forgive me my stereotypes, will you?),
>but I so often feel that I need to qualify practically everything I
>say. Of course, your response to me has helped teach me something
>about how it is possible for someone to speak with so much
conviction.
>You simply ignore all the nuances and subtleties of another person's
>arguments, take her statements out of context, and then interpret
them
>willy-nilly, failing, of course, to address the issues she set out to
>address....but then, all of that really does get in the way of
>speaking with conviction. Thank you for the lesson...
Actually, DS, I read your post. It was confused, somewhat poorly
written, and implied all of the things that TM was addressing. I
would contend that while TM *might* be a bit overzealous in his
defense of Ms. Visitor's privacy, his misinterpretation of your
comments was based upon your post *as written*.
>
>If it's OK with you, however, I would like to clarify some issues,
>especially since 'conviction' is always more impressive and
>unassailable when it is well informed.
A clearly-worded argument that doesn't carry implications supposedly
contrary to saidPath: ix-eug-or1-01
Newsgroups: alt.tv.star-trek.ds9
From: an...@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: "Nana raped?" Why we might want to know...
References: <4j3rlp$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4j4np2$9...@news1.h1.usa.pipeline.com> <4j7q2n$1a...@useneta1.news.prodigy.com> <4jc9ev$e...@the-fly.zip.com.au> <4jk0d7$1a...@news.gate.net> <4jlcl6$m...@news.gate.net> <4jr8hr$imk...@ris.lane.or.us> <4k59ig$2i...@news.gate.net>
X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4
Message-ID: <4k90sj$evc...@ix.netcom.com>
In article <4k59ig$2i...@news.gate.net>, DS <ds...@gate.net> wrote:
>n...@all.welcome (Tom Morgan) wrote:
[lots of snipping to save bandwidth]
>DEAR "n...@all.welcome":
>
>I can't tell you how refreshing it is to find someone on these news-
>groups with your degree of conviction. Maybe it's my PhD training,
or
>maybe it's just being a woman (forgive me my stereotypes, will you?),
>but I so often feel that I need to qualify practically everything I
>say. Of course, your response to me has helped teach me something
>about how it is possible for someone to speak with so much
conviction.
>You simply ignore all the nuances and subtleties of another person's
>arguments, take her statements out of context, and then interpret
them
>willy-nilly, failing, of course, to address the issues she set out to
>address....but then, all of that really does get in the way of
>speaking with conviction. Thank you for the lesson...
Actually, DS, I read your post. It was confused, somewhat poorly
written, and implied all of the things that TM was addressing. I
would contend that while TM *might* be a bit overzealous in his
defense of Ms. Visitor's privacy, his misinterpretation of your
comments was based upon your post *as written*.
>
>If it's OK with you, however, I would like to clarify some issues,
>especially since 'conviction' is always more impressive and
>unassailable when it is well informed.
A clearly-worded argument that doesn't carry implications supposedly
contrary to said
And not at all appropriate to alt.tv.star-trek.ds9. There's a group
for this; it's called talk.rape. You want to discuss the issue, take
it there.
Your ignoring it, however, and reiterating the same bald
>assertion that 'rape is private' suggests, in fact, that this doesn't
>concern you.
That's not how I read TM's reply. In fact, at no point in his post
does he state or infer that 'rape is private', as you put it. All he
says is that Nana's private life isn't any of your business unless
Nana *makes* it your business. I charge that you're putting words
into TM's mouth in order to invalidate what he wrote.
Well, if protecting the privacy of celebrities is more
>important to you than encouraging women (and men and children) to
report
>their rape, to get angry rather than get embarrassed, even to 'go
>public' sometimes (not always), then that's certainly your 'right'.
He never said this; you did. Let's be clear, here. This assertion is
entirely of your own making.
>
>Where I, too, have a 'right' is in adopting a different set of
>priorities for myself and in raising key issues, on the basis of
>these priorities, for discussion with people willing to have a
>conversation with me. If you're interested in having a discussion
>with me, we're going to get a lot farther (as equal participants in
>a cordial debate) if you avoid the personal attacks and make some
>effort, instead, to address the issue I've raised. The issue, as I
>framed it, was not "celebrity-privacy vs. fans'-right-to-know," but
>rather "rape-as-private vs. rape-as-a-crime-that-should-be-reported."
If this is the case, then take it to talk.rape. There're plenty of
people there who'd be happy to discuss it with you. As is, this
thread has nothing to do with Star Trek or DS9.
[snippage]
Similarly, those of you who have been arguing
>that "rape is private" should be clearer about what you mean, because
>it makes a huge difference to rape victims whether what you mean by
>"private" is 'out of the media', etc., or whether what you mean by
>"private" is, quite literally, 'a secret one keeps to oneself'. The
>latter, I have been arguing, is definitely the WRONG message, and
>that's something I CAN say with conviction.
The only person who's said this, or even hinted at it, is you. You're
putting up a straw-man.
Once again, DS, if you're interested in this conversation take it to
talk.rape. Please don't start yet another non-topical thread in this
this newsgroup, like the damned creationism one that's been going on
for months.
Andry
"A man about to speak the truth should keep
one foot in the stirrup." - old Mongolian proverb
GrandPrix
'off to a totally different tangent here ...
Didn't she give birth within the last couple of years to a boy?
When did she and the father separate?
Tom Morgan
[ifan, totally off-topic yet again, unable to see how his intrusion into the
personal lives of others could be viewed as rude, obnoxious, and immature,
does his best to twist the words of his detractor. Yawn.]
>And, now, since I really really am off topic, I bid this thread
>goodbye!
That's the best thing I've heard today.