rape fantasies?
Geneva999
best of friends long before that.
I have discovered (on accident) that my boyfriend has an extreme obsession with
rape fantasies. His porn collection is entirely made up of rape vids and that
is basically all he watches or downloads. He doesn't know that I am aware of
this, but I have sort of tried to get him to tell me about it in roundabout
ways by asking him to tell me what his fetish is (to which he replied "I have
none") and also telling him what MY fetishes are in hopes he would open up with
his. I have even asked him to share his porn collection with me, he refuses,
and I know it is because he doesn't want me to know his whole collection is
rape porn.
Of course I understand that having rape fantasies doesn't necessarily mean you
really want to rape someone, but it is still a little hard for me to wrap my
brain around the concept.
At first I wasn't so upset over it because I figured that everyone has their
thing, but I am now a little worried that it seems thats the only thing he is
into, and he goes to great lengths to hide it from me. The fact that he wont be
open about it bothers me quite a lot.
So my question now is.. Should I be worried that his fantasies consist of
nothing but rape?
Also, what is a good way to confront him about it? I really wanted to avoid
having to straight out ask him, because i really want him to share it on his
own... but somehow i doubt that is going to happen.
Neil
news:20040102170307...@mb-m10.aol.com:
> I have been with my current boyfriend for about 3 months now, but we
> were the best of friends long before that.
>
> I have discovered (on accident) that my boyfriend has an extreme
> obsession with rape fantasies. His porn collection is entirely made up
> of rape vids and that is basically all he watches or downloads. He
> doesn't know that I am aware of this, but I have sort of tried to get
> him to tell me about it in roundabout ways by asking him to tell me
> what his fetish is (to which he replied "I have none") and also
> telling him what MY fetishes are in hopes he would open up with his. I
> have even asked him to share his porn collection with me, he refuses,
> and I know it is because he doesn't want me to know his whole
> collection is rape porn.
>
> Of course I understand that having rape fantasies doesn't necessarily
> mean you really want to rape someone, but it is still a little hard
> for me to wrap my brain around the concept.
> At first I wasn't so upset over it because I figured that everyone
> has their
> thing, but I am now a little worried that it seems thats the only
> thing he is into, and he goes to great lengths to hide it from me. The
> fact that he wont be open about it bothers me quite a lot.
How do you imagine most people might react if he were to tell them?
> So my question now is.. Should I be worried that his fantasies consist
> of nothing but rape?
You don't know that for a fact - if he tells you that he has none, he may
be hiding others from you too (reassuring, i'm sure). Surely your
knowledge of him as a friend as well as a partner puts you in a better
position than any of us to make that judgement. Perhaps his knowledge of
you as a friend inclines him to keep it secret.
> Also, what is a good way to confront him about it? I really wanted to
> avoid having to straight out ask him, because i really want him to
> share it on his own... but somehow i doubt that is going to happen.
i also doubt that he will discuss it (at least, for a good while) unless
you confront him directly with what you know, or unless you use a certain
amount of mendacity, which you may not want to do (and which i wouldn't
recommend). Do you consider it a matter of urgency? Are you prepared to
maybe see how things go, keep trying to raise the subject and see if he
opens up? Or is it bothering you sufficiently (as it seems to be) that you
feel that you need to address it asap? If the latter, i'd suggest telling
the truth, but also doing so in such a way that you try and get across that
you're not trying to make a big drama of it. Unless you are.
--
Neil
Darkfalz
> I have been with my current boyfriend for about 3 months now, but we were
the
> best of friends long before that.
>
> I have discovered (on accident) that my boyfriend has an extreme obsession
with
> rape fantasies. His porn collection is entirely made up of rape vids and
that
> is basically all he watches or downloads.
It's very healthy, I wouldn't worry about it. You should tell him you have a
fantasy of being raped, and have a role play.
The thing about rape is, that you can't get it from your girlfriend. Because
she consents. So to get rape, you need to go outside of the relationship in
order to satisfy that need.
--
"Of course, I always look at guys who have girlfriends. I compare myself to
them, as hard as that is, and it's never good news. Then I think, gosh,
imagine looking like that. Imagine being able to approach a girl you like
and be greeted with a SMILE, rather than a look of fear or apprehension.
Imagine what that would do for your self esteem, not to mention your whole
outlook on life. Wow! That would be nice."
Bateau
." ". 02 Jan 2004 22:03:07 GMT
| . ` ` | in
\( )/ talk.rape,
\)__. _._(/ Geneva999
// >..< \\ spoke
|__.' vv '.__/ 28
l'''"''l lines
\_ _/ to
_ )--( _ the
| '--.__)--(_.--' | great
\ |`----''----'| / undead
|| `-' '--' || skeleton
|| `--' '--' || god
|l `--'--'--' |l of
|__|`--' `--'|__| giant
| | )-( | | ascii
|| )-( \|| who
|| __ )_( __ \\ replied...
||' `- -' \ \\
||\_ `-' _/ |_\
/_\ _)J-._.-L( /`-\
|`- I_)O /\ O( `--l\\\|
||||( `-' `-') .-' |||
\\\ \ / / ///
\ \ / /
\ \ / /
/ \ / \
|_()I()._|
\ /\ /
| / \ |
| | \ \
| | \ \
| | \ \
| |-nabis\ \_
| | /-._\
|.-.\ //.-._)
\\\\ ///
\\\\-'''
``''
>I have been with my current boyfriend for about 3 months now, but we were the
>best of friends long before that.
>
>I have discovered (on accident) that my boyfriend has an extreme obsession with
>rape fantasies. His porn collection is entirely made up of rape vids and that
>is basically all he watches or downloads. He doesn't know that I am aware of
>this,
Stay out of your man's business. Nosey interfering cow.
>but I have sort of tried to get him to tell me about it in roundabout
>ways by asking him to tell me what his fetish is (to which he replied "I have
>none") and also telling him what MY fetishes are in hopes he would open up with
>his. I have even asked him to share his porn collection with me, he refuses,
>and I know it is because he doesn't want me to know his whole collection is
>rape porn.
>
>Of course I understand that having rape fantasies doesn't necessarily mean you
>really want to rape someone, but it is still a little hard for me to wrap my
>brain around the concept.
> At first I wasn't so upset over it because I figured that everyone has their
>thing, but I am now a little worried that it seems thats the only thing he is
>into, and he goes to great lengths to hide it from me. The fact that he wont be
>open about it bothers me quite a lot.
As long as he fucks you what do you care what he fantasises about in his
private thoughts?
>So my question now is.. Should I be worried that his fantasies consist of
>nothing but rape?
>
>Also, what is a good way to confront him about it? I really wanted to avoid
>having to straight out ask him, because i really want him to share it on his
>own... but somehow i doubt that is going to happen.
Confronting a guy about his harmless personal fantasies that he never
exposed you to and that you only found out about cause you went snooping
into his private shit. That's a great idea. Actually I think you should
because then he will know what kind of bitch you really are. Please tell
us when he dumps you so we can stop worrying about him.
--
.-'`-.
/ | | \
/ | | \
|___|_|__ |
||<o>| <o>`|
|| J_ )|
`|`-'__`-'|/
| `--' |
.-| |_
.-' \ / | |`-.
.-' `. /| | \
/ ````' | | \
|_____ | | L
.-' ___ `-. F F | | ||`-.___
.'.-' | `-. `. J J / | || _.>
/ /| | |`. \ | | |/ | ||_.-'
/ / | | | `. `. F F | |==============================
J / | | | \ L J J | | `:::::::. `:::::::.
FJ | | | |L J/ / | \ :::::::. :::::::\
J |() | () | () | () | J L/ | | ::::::: :::::::L
| F | .-'_ \ | | LJ | / L :::::::: :::::::J
| L | / \\ | | | L | | :::::::: ::::::::L
| L || ):|| | | | /| L :::::::: ::::::::|
J | ||:._.'::|| | | |----' | | :::::::: ::::::::| .---.
J | |J:::::::|| | | | _/\ | :::::::: ::::::::| /(@ o`.
LJ | \:::::/ | | | |---'\ | | :::::::: ::::::::| | /^^^
J L | `-:-' | | | F | \ | J :::::::: ::::::::| \ . \vvv
LJ()| () | () | () | F F | \ \--._L :::::::: ::::::::| \ `--'
J \ | | | | J J \ | | :::::::: ::::::::| \ `.
\ \| | | | / / | | | :::::::: ::::::::| L \
\ \ | | |/ /| | | .-'| :::::::: ::::::::| | \
`.`. | | .'.' | | |/ /`L :::::::: ::::::::| | L
| `.`-.____|.-'.-' | | | <`. \ :::::::: ::::::::| | |
| | `-.______.-' | \| |_`::\ `. :::::::: ::::::::| F |
| J\ | | | | /: \::. \:::::::: ::::::::F / |
| L\|--| | _.--|:: `::\ `.:::::: .:::::::J / F
J J |\\|-.____ |__.-' |: \::. \:::: ::::::::F .' J
L \| >|| `--' J |' .`::\ `.:' .::::::::/ .' F
J |//JJ | L |---. .--\::. \---. .---. <---< J
L |< |J |\=/| ( _ \=/ _ `::\ `. \=/ _ \=/ _ \ /
J |\\|J | | / )_) | (_) \::. \ | (_) | (_) | /
\ |--|J |//\\ / //\ //`::\ `./\ //\ / .'
\| |L ` )/ )` `' '|`---// `---// `\::. \ `---// `---' .'
VK________| L_\ ' /___/ ' | |___//______//_____`::\ |___//_________.'_________
F F J`` -'| | | | | \:_|
`-' | "" | J ` |
| | L | |\ |\ /| /| |\ /|
| | \ | | \ | \ // // | \ || |\
J | `. | ||\\ ||\\ // // ||\\ || ||
L F )`---\ || >> || \\ / | << || \\ || ||
| J / `. ||// || || //|| \\ || || || ||
J J ( `-. |// | \ || |/ || \\ | \ || || ||
`-.__/ `---. `. |<< ||\\|| || >> ||\\|| || ||
| J `. ) ||\\ || \ | || // || \ | || ||
/ | `-----' || >> || || || // || || \\ ||
/ F ||// || || || << || || \\||
J J | / |/ || |/ \\ |/ || \ |
J | |/ \| \| \| \|
`-.-' K I N G O F T H E M O N S T E R S
Bateau
." ". Sat, 3 Jan 2004 15:33:00 +1100
| . ` ` | in
\( )/ talk.rape,
>"Of course, I always look at guys who have girlfriends. I compare myself to
>them, as hard as that is, and it's never good news. Then I think, gosh,
>imagine looking like that. Imagine being able to approach a girl you like
>and be greeted with a SMILE, rather than a look of fear or apprehension.
>Imagine what that would do for your self esteem, not to mention your whole
>outlook on life. Wow! That would be nice."
That's really pathetic. Who said that?
Rarin Horse
> best of friends long before that.
>
> I have discovered (on accident) that my boyfriend has an extreme obsession
with
> rape fantasies. His porn collection is entirely made up of rape vids and that
> is basically all he watches or downloads. He doesn't know that I am aware of
> this, but I have sort of tried to get him to tell me about it in roundabout
> ways by asking him to tell me what his fetish is (to which he replied "I have
> none") and also telling him what MY fetishes are in hopes he would open up
with
> his. I have even asked him to share his porn collection with me, he refuses,
> and I know it is because he doesn't want me to know his whole collection is
> rape porn.
>
> Of course I understand that having rape fantasies doesn't necessarily mean you
> really want to rape someone, but it is still a little hard for me to wrap my
> brain around the concept.
> At first I wasn't so upset over it because I figured that everyone has their
> thing, but I am now a little worried that it seems thats the only thing he is
> into, and he goes to great lengths to hide it from me. The fact that he wont
be
> open about it bothers me quite a lot.
>
> So my question now is.. Should I be worried that his fantasies consist of
> nothing but rape?
No! He's obviously well socialised to distinguish between the crime of doing and
the okay of fantasising. In fact, your worry, if anything, should be that he has
so internalised the no-no's that he can't bring himself to admit it or talk
about it with you.
>
> Also, what is a good way to confront him about it?
Why should you confront him about it? I mean, 'confront'?
If he does open up, what do you want to do about it? He obviously fears that
you will be negative towards him, and so he has decided not to open up to you.
And why wouldn't he think that? What acceptance of it can he expect? Why should
he think you are going to be accepting towards him?
I really wanted to avoid
> having to straight out ask him,
You can ask him straight out, and have him disclose, but it depends on how you
go about it. If your motive is to be negative though, why would you want him to
disclose? You already know the facts, and nothing he could say would make any
difference. If your motive is to be accepting and have a better relationship, it
is very easy to ask him straight out, and have him disclose to you - you just
need to use some tact.
because i really want him to share it on his
> own... but somehow i doubt that is going to happen.
You want to sit back, and reserve to yourself the option of either going into
hysterics about what a pervert and a violent psychopath he is, or be accepting
of a private fantasy that is not hurting anyone; and not let him know which way
the wind is blowing, and expect him to open up to you on his own initiative?
Just think about it for a little: why would he?
By the way, what *is* your attitude towards it? Why do you want to know?
I was reading a women's magazine once, and said to my wife "It says here 70% of
women have fantasies about forced sex." And she said "Yeah, and only two percent
have got the guts to admit it."
Ann
wrote:
Well I have to say Gateau, that while I wouldn't have put it in quite
those terms, I did have some of the same thoughts myself. I did
wonder why she was snooping around in his stuff. People ought to have
privacy even in a relationship.
Ann
peng...@nospam.com
You should embrace rape as it is a natural extension of sexuality. You should also
take a digital picture and save it on an apache webserver for others to view.
DEDHeather94
Having rape fantasies is a hard thing to admit to, especially to an SO who
hasn't a clue (or he at least thinks that you have no clue). As for the fact
that he has them, I wouldn't worry about it. We all have secret dark corners
we wouldn't want anyone to know about, and apparently that's his. But don't be
so hasty in trying to get him to fess up. Even though you've been friends a
long time, 3 months isn't that long for a romantic relationship and I assume he
doesn't want to frighten you away by revealing his dark corner.
Unless he's been violent to you, and you haven't indicated that he has, I
really really wouldn't worry about it. Now if that sort of fantasy excites you
as well, then bring it up sometime--maybe say you like the idea of being
"taken". That doesn't mean he'll tell you about his porn stash, but at least
you and he may have a hot time ;)
As for the privacy thing, I agree that you shouldn't have been snooping--you
never know what you may find.
Welcome to the group, btw. :)
Heather
Bateau
." ". Sat, 03 Jan 2004 10:52:36 +0000
| . ` ` | in
\( )/ talk.rape,
// >..< \\ spoke
|__.' vv '.__/ 50
>On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 17:28:27 +0800, Bateau <Gam...@work.stomping.aza>
Then why do you look at (and use) your son's pornography?
Geneva999
already so there are no more worries.
But for the record.. I didn't do any snooping to find stuff. He is just very
bad a hiding things in places where i might not find them while searching for
something else. Trust me, i value privacy more than anyone.. i didnt go seeking
out to find things, it just kinda jumped out at me unexpectedly.
perhaps some people on this group shouldn't be such jerks to those who ask for
help. If you are going to be an ass, what the hell are you doing on a support
group?
Neil
This isn't a support group, and sadly we do seem to attract more than our
share of jerks - must be that we're *so* damn attractive. There are a
lot of supportive people here though, and you can always choose to ignore
those who aren't.
Glad you found an answer anyway.
--
Neil
Rich
Cele did not like this kind of advice for some reason.
Rich
Cele
I choose to ignore those who aren't supportive far, far more often
than not, Rich. My comments in the other thread to which I believe
you're referring, were WRT the overall atmosphere and its impact on my
posting behaviour, which I specifiied was reduced. Not posting to the
trolls *is* ignoring them. The fact that they nonetheless have an
impact on the atmosphere, of which I'm aware, does not mean I'm unable
or unwilling to ignore them.
This remark came off as snide. Was that your intention?
Cele
Laurie S.
Cele *gives* this advice, basically, and usually follows it. This is
the first time I've seen her specifically say she isn't talking about
things she wants to talk about, because of the atmosphere here. I've
seen her say before that she's been quiet because the threads have
been too noisy (or whatever) and she didn't feel like getting into it,
but that's not the same as holding back because she isn't comfortable
posting sensitive information in an atmosphere that includes some
hostility.
I don't understand why you seem to be bothered by the fact that Cele
considers these post(er)s too hostile for her to talk about things
she'd like to discuss. The topics aren't the issue here; it's the
tone. Two people can write about the same topic, and have some similar
opinions, but one can be diplomatic and the other can be hostile. For
example, Michael Snyder is more diplomatic than Andre Lieven, who is
more diplomatic than Darkfalz, Bateau or Bob or XXX. Or to turn to
talk.rape regulars, Cele is more diplomatic than Neil, who is more
diplomatic than Heather. But none of these three regulars are
generally hostile or undiplomatic, in the way that Darkfalz, Bateau,
Bob or XXX are. Any of Cele, Neil or Heather can be diplomatic, and
any can be hostile, but I've never seen any of them be hostile except
when provoked. Some of the people that have bothered Cele lately are
*generally* hostile to people concerned about rape.
Furthermore, there are two or three posters right now who are talking
about rape in a "fun" way. That makes for a creepy atmosphere for
someone to talk about sensitive things wrt rape, whether for
themselves or for a loved one who was raped. And for Cele, that loved
one is her child.
Laurie
Laurie
Bateau
." ". 04 Jan 2004 23:49:18 GMT
| . ` ` | in
\( )/ talk.rape,
// >..< \\ spoke
|__.' vv '.__/ 11
>well thanks to those who said helpful things. I kind of resolved the issue
>already so there are no more worries.
>
>But for the record.. I didn't do any snooping to find stuff. He is just very
>bad a hiding things in places where i might not find them while searching for
>something else. Trust me, i value privacy more than anyone.. i didnt go seeking
>out to find things, it just kinda jumped out at me unexpectedly.
Uh huh. You looked through his ENTIRE porn collection by accident.
>perhaps some people on this group shouldn't be such jerks to those who ask for
>help. If you are going to be an ass, what the hell are you doing on a support
>group?
Does this look like alt.support.* to you? Fuckchops.
Sky King
wrote:
She has the power to avoid reading any post that she finds offensive
or killfile anyone she finds offensive.
Two people can write about the same topic, and have some similar
>opinions, but one can be diplomatic and the other can be hostile. For
>example, Michael Snyder is more diplomatic than Andre Lieven, who is
>more diplomatic than Darkfalz, Bateau or Bob or XXX. Or to turn to
>talk.rape regulars, Cele is more diplomatic than Neil, who is more
>diplomatic than Heather. But none of these three regulars are
>generally hostile or undiplomatic, in the way that Darkfalz, Bateau,
>Bob or XXX are. Any of Cele, Neil or Heather can be diplomatic, and
>any can be hostile, but I've never seen any of them be hostile except
>when provoked. Some of the people that have bothered Cele lately are
>*generally* hostile to people concerned about rape.
I can provide you with may cites where THEY have been hostile when not
provoked. I guess it depends on your definition of provoked.
>
>Furthermore, there are two or three posters right now who are talking
>about rape in a "fun" way. That makes for a creepy atmosphere for
>someone to talk about sensitive things wrt rape, whether for
>themselves or for a loved one who was raped. And for Cele, that loved
>one is her child.
>
>Laurie
>
Why does she have to read what they post?
Rich
> On 5 Jan 2004 14:00:33 -0800, rpa...@mybluelight.com (Rich) wrote:
>
> >Neil <ix_ta...@saintly.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9466F3D79702As...@130.133.1.4>...
> >> Geneva999 <gene...@aol.com> wrote in message:
> >> news:20040104184918...@mb-m10.aol.com:
> >>
> >> > well thanks to those who said helpful things. I kind of resolved the
> >> > issue already so there are no more worries.
> >> >
> >> > But for the record.. I didn't do any snooping to find stuff. He is
> >> > just very bad a hiding things in places where i might not find them
> >> > while searching for something else. Trust me, i value privacy more
> >> > than anyone.. i didnt go seeking out to find things, it just kinda
> >> > jumped out at me unexpectedly.
> >> >
> >> > perhaps some people on this group shouldn't be such jerks to those who
> >> > ask for help. If you are going to be an ass, what the hell are you
> >> > doing on a support group?
> >>
> >> This isn't a support group, and sadly we do seem to attract more than our
> >> share of jerks - must be that we're *so* damn attractive. There are a
> >> lot of supportive people here though, and you can always choose to ignore
> >> those who aren't.
> >
> >Cele did not like this kind of advice for some reason.
>
> Cele *gives* this advice, basically, and usually follows it.
Currently that seems questionable. She has been complaining about
such posts making the group seem "hostile". Hard to get such an
impression from posts you did not read, don't you think?
> This is
> the first time I've seen her specifically say she isn't talking about
> things she wants to talk about, because of the atmosphere here. I've
> seen her say before that she's been quiet because the threads have
> been too noisy (or whatever) and she didn't feel like getting into it,
> but that's not the same as holding back because she isn't comfortable
> posting sensitive information in an atmosphere that includes some
> hostility.
She seemed a bit miffed when I suggested that she just skip the
posts that seem to be upsetting her.
> I don't understand why you seem to be bothered by the fact that Cele
> considers these post(er)s too hostile for her to talk about things
> she'd like to discuss.
I don't understand why you say that I am upset about this. I'm not
even sure what you just said, exactly. :^/
> The topics aren't the issue here; it's the
> tone. Two people can write about the same topic, and have some similar
> opinions, but one can be diplomatic and the other can be hostile.
Then again there is also the issue of perceptions.
> For
> example, Michael Snyder is more diplomatic than Andre Lieven, who is
> more diplomatic than Darkfalz, Bateau or Bob or XXX.
Can you rate them from 1 to 10? :^/
> Or to turn to talk.rape regulars, Cele is more diplomatic than Neil,
I always thought Neil was pretty diplomatic.
> who is more diplomatic than Heather.
I'm not sure she belongs on a scale with the word "diplomatic" in it.
> But none of these three regulars are generally hostile or undiplomatic,
I disagree, Heather is usually hostile. Ann is often hositile. For
some reason no one has any problems with their blatant hostility, or
even acknowledges it. But the hostility remains. You may ignore it,
but tell me why you think new posters or lurkers will.
> in the way that Darkfalz, Bateau,
> Bob or XXX are. Any of Cele, Neil or Heather can be diplomatic, and
> any can be hostile, but I've never seen any of them be hostile except
> when provoked.
Flat out disagree. Both Heather and Ann have been blatantly hostile
totally unprovoked. But then in the past women have used provocation
to excuse the most horrible misandrist comments. Women here. Or do
you remember the stain of the white male oppression of women? It just
won't wash out.
> Some of the people that have bothered Cele lately are
> *generally* hostile to people concerned about rape.
Since you cannot even identify Heathers constant unprovoked hostility,
your viewpoint is so biased as to be worth little. No objectivity.
Heather rarely even posts about rape, she is almost always simply
attacking and denigrating others. For some reason, it seems acceptable
for her to do so, when it is not acceptable for Bob or other male (??)
posters. Why is this Laurie?
> Furthermore, there are two or three posters right now who are talking
> about rape in a "fun" way. That makes for a creepy atmosphere for
> someone to talk about sensitive things wrt rape, whether for
> themselves or for a loved one who was raped.
As I said, trolls don't characterise any group.
> And for Cele, that loved one is her child.
The issue was hostility. I want to know why Ann's and Heather's
hostiltity not only does not count, but is not even acknowledged
as such even when that is the subject. Can you tell me? You've
raised hostility by myself as an issue in the past, and it's the
issue here and now, so why is it that the hostility of women
posting here is not at issue as well. Women posting similarly in
the past have been treated the same BTW.
Rich
> Laurie
>
> Laurie
Rich
> On 5 Jan 2004 14:00:33 -0800, rpa...@mybluelight.com (Rich) wrote:
>
> >Neil <ix_ta...@saintly.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9466F3D79702As...@130.133.1.4>...
> >> Geneva999 <gene...@aol.com> wrote in message:
> >> news:20040104184918...@mb-m10.aol.com:
> >>
> >> > well thanks to those who said helpful things. I kind of resolved the
> >> > issue already so there are no more worries.
> >> >
> >> > But for the record.. I didn't do any snooping to find stuff. He is
> >> > just very bad a hiding things in places where i might not find them
> >> > while searching for something else. Trust me, i value privacy more
> >> > than anyone.. i didnt go seeking out to find things, it just kinda
> >> > jumped out at me unexpectedly.
> >> >
> >> > perhaps some people on this group shouldn't be such jerks to those who
> >> > ask for help. If you are going to be an ass, what the hell are you
> >> > doing on a support group?
> >>
> >> This isn't a support group, and sadly we do seem to attract more than our
> >> share of jerks - must be that we're *so* damn attractive. There are a
> >> lot of supportive people here though, and you can always choose to ignore
> >> those who aren't.
> >
> >Cele did not like this kind of advice for some reason.
>
> I choose to ignore those who aren't supportive far, far more often
> than not, Rich.
But the discussion is about now is it not? Why is now different?
> My comments in the other thread to which I believe
> you're referring, were WRT the overall atmosphere and its impact on my
> posting behaviour, which I specifiied was reduced.
I understand that. What I don't understand is why you ignore blatant
hostility by Ann and Heather yet get upset about posts by those whom
you consider trolls.
> Not posting to the trolls *is* ignoring them.
Not reading their posts is ignoring them. If you read their posts,
you ain't ignoring them.
> The fact that they nonetheless have an
> impact on the atmosphere, of which I'm aware, does not mean I'm unable
> or unwilling to ignore them.
I don't see how posts you ignore affect the atmosphere. I don't see how
trolls (who infest every group I've ever been a part of) set the tone
for a group or characterize a group. It's simple enough to ignore them,
and in doing so what they post does not affect your ambiance.
> This remark came off as snide. Was that your intention?
snide adj. snid·er, snid·est
Derogatory in a malicious, superior way.
I don't understand what you mean.
I tend to think that if hostility is a problem, then it's source should
be irrelevant. But what I see is that hostility by some parties is accepted
(and never acknowledged) while hostility from other parties is seen as a
problem. I don't understand why this is. I would like to.
Rich
> Cele
Sky King
Chuckle. Couldn't agree more.
>
>> But none of these three regulars are generally hostile or undiplomatic,
>
>I disagree, Heather is usually hostile. Ann is often hositile. For
>some reason no one has any problems with their blatant hostility, or
>even acknowledges it. But the hostility remains. You may ignore it,
>but tell me why you think new posters or lurkers will.
If you check my posting history of late you will see that she has been
"hostile" to me every chance she gets and I think she said she will
continue to do so. I am talking about Heather.
>
>> in the way that Darkfalz, Bateau,
>> Bob or XXX are. Any of Cele, Neil or Heather can be diplomatic, and
>> any can be hostile, but I've never seen any of them be hostile except
>> when provoked.
>
>Flat out disagree. Both Heather and Ann have been blatantly hostile
>totally unprovoked. But then in the past women have used provocation
>to excuse the most horrible misandrist comments. Women here. Or do
>you remember the stain of the white male oppression of women? It just
>won't wash out.
Just check Heather's posts to me lately. Totally unprovoked attacks
by Heather
>
>> Some of the people that have bothered Cele lately are
>> *generally* hostile to people concerned about rape.
>
>Since you cannot even identify Heathers constant unprovoked hostility,
>your viewpoint is so biased as to be worth little. No objectivity.
>Heather rarely even posts about rape, she is almost always simply
>attacking and denigrating others. For some reason, it seems acceptable
>for her to do so, when it is not acceptable for Bob or other male (??)
>posters. Why is this Laurie?
Again..Nail..on..Head.
DEDHeather94
>your viewpoint is so biased as to be worth little. No objectivity.
>Heather rarely even posts about rape,
That is a flat out lie, but I've come to expect that from you. You really
can't stop talking about me, can you?
she is almost always simply
>attacking and denigrating others.
Those who troll the group to say rapists are heros and such, that's right. Do
YOU think rapists are heros, Rich? If not, then what's your problem with my
denigrating those who say so?
For some reason, it seems acceptable
>for her to do so, when it is not acceptable for Bob or other male (??)
>posters. Why is this Laurie?
Sit on it Richard. Neither Ann nor I are any more hostile than YOU and that's
on your good days. You just don't like us because we won't bend over backwards
to kiss your ass. Deal with it.
Heather
***************
Raping someone who isn't conscious to experience the lesson kindly being
taught to her is pointless. --Darkfalz
Neil
news:vhmlvv0gu2tdgvp5s...@4ax.com:
> She has the power to avoid reading any post that she finds offensive
Fuck off.
Could you have avoided reading that?
--
Neil
Sky King
wrote:
>>Since you cannot even identify Heathers constant unprovoked hostility,
>>your viewpoint is so biased as to be worth little. No objectivity.
>>Heather rarely even posts about rape,
>
>That is a flat out lie, but I've come to expect that from you. You really
>can't stop talking about me, can you?
Nope...lately you have been nasty when unprovoked.
>
>she is almost always simply
>>attacking and denigrating others.
>
>Those who troll the group to say rapists are heros and such, that's right. Do
>YOU think rapists are heros, Rich? If not, then what's your problem with my
>denigrating those who say so?
Name the ones that state rapist are heros and such and cite them. Are
you saying that is the only people you are hostile to?
>
> For some reason, it seems acceptable
>>for her to do so, when it is not acceptable for Bob or other male (??)
>>posters. Why is this Laurie?
>
>Sit on it Richard. Neither Ann nor I are any more hostile than YOU and that's
>on your good days. You just don't like us because we won't bend over backwards
>to kiss your ass. Deal with it.
>
>
>Heather
>***************
It seems you are the one having a hard time dealing with it
hon.....maybe that is why you are so damn hostile.
Chuckle
Neil
news:3a256c50.04010...@posting.google.com:
> Laurie S. <lauri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<5gpkvvklrk6vb3vmj...@4ax.com>...
[...]
>> Or to turn to talk.rape regulars, Cele is more diplomatic than Neil,
>
> I always thought Neil was pretty diplomatic.
Always? Your memory must be as bad as mine. ;-)
i tend to be more diplomatic with people that i'm familiar with, and
(naturally) considerably more so with people that i like. New people, i'm
likely to go at if unless i immediately perceive a lot to agree with.
i'd agree with Laurie's assessment, anyway.
>> who is more diplomatic than Heather.
>
> I'm not sure she belongs on a scale with the word "diplomatic" in it.
>
>> But none of these three regulars are generally hostile or
>> undiplomatic,
>
> I disagree, Heather is usually hostile. Ann is often hositile. For
> some reason no one has any problems with their blatant hostility, or
> even acknowledges it. But the hostility remains. You may ignore it,
> but tell me why you think new posters or lurkers will.
i don't think that the above is entirely true - Heather has been
criticised, certainly by Daran, probably by others. But anyway, the point
here is the nature and the target of the hostility. Without getting into
the rights or wrongs of that, i would say that part of Cele's point is as
follows.
There are certain posters in this group now who will specifically target
other posters, jump on their personal information and use it to try to
provoke them (or others) - standard troll tactic. There are other posters
who have such little regard for anyone else that they will casually call
people or their relatives liars, whores, etc if there's a suggestion that
they've been raped. If Cele were to post private information about her
daughter(s) here, i would expect one, if not several of those posters to
make offensive remarks on the subject, and Cele doesn't want to read that,
and doesn't want to give them the satisfaction - why should she? i was
prepared to prove this point with a test post under a pseudonym, but the
thread 'rape is NEVER ok!' saved me the trouble.
otoh, Cele *knows* that however frequently and to whoever Heather or Ann,
for example (or myself, or any number of other 'occasionally' hostile
posters) make hostile posts, it's unlikely in the extreme that they're
going to respond to a personal post of hers with something offensive. Like
i said, right or wrong, it's an easy distinction to see.
> Rich
--
Neil
DEDHeather94
>wrote:
>
>>>Since you cannot even identify Heathers constant unprovoked hostility,
>>>your viewpoint is so biased as to be worth little. No objectivity.
>>>Heather rarely even posts about rape,
>>
>>That is a flat out lie, but I've come to expect that from you. You really
>>can't stop talking about me, can you?
>
>
>Nope...lately you have been nasty when unprovoked.
Cites?
>>she is almost always simply
>>>attacking and denigrating others.
>>
>>Those who troll the group to say rapists are heros and such, that's right.
>Do
>>YOU think rapists are heros, Rich? If not, then what's your problem with my
>>denigrating those who say so?
>
>Name the ones that state rapist are heros and such and cite them.
Have you not read anything by Darkfalz? If not then do your own homework.
Are
>you saying that is the only people you are hostile to?
Well them and you, but you're really no better.
>> For some reason, it seems acceptable
>>>for her to do so, when it is not acceptable for Bob or other male (??)
>>>posters. Why is this Laurie?
>>
>>Sit on it Richard. Neither Ann nor I are any more hostile than YOU and
>that's
>>on your good days. You just don't like us because we won't bend over
>backwards
>>to kiss your ass. Deal with it.
>>
>>
>>Heather
>>***************
>
>
>It seems you are the one having a hard time dealing with it
>hon....
dealing with what? Not kissing Richard's ass? I deal with that just fine.
.maybe that is why you are so damn hostile.
>Chuckle
I haven't been hostile to Rich since he came back even though he posted lies
about me last time he was here, was called on it by others and never
apologized. I even asked him politely not to start with me, but like you he
seems to be obsessed. If that's being hostile, then so be it. Oh and you can
sit on it as well. Chuckle.
robertmaasjr
> >Since you cannot even identify Heathers constant unprovoked hostility,
> >your viewpoint is so biased as to be worth little. No objectivity.
> >Heather rarely even posts about rape,
>
> That is a flat out lie, but I've come to expect that from you. You really
> can't stop talking about me, can you?
>
> she is almost always simply
> >attacking and denigrating others.
>
> Those who troll the group to say rapists are heros and such, that's right. Do
> YOU think rapists are heros, Rich? If not, then what's your problem with my
> denigrating those who say so?
>
> For some reason, it seems acceptable
> >for her to do so, when it is not acceptable for Bob or other male (??)
> >posters. Why is this Laurie?
>
> Sit on it Richard. Neither Ann nor I are any more hostile than YOU and that's
> on your good days. You just don't like us because we won't bend over backwards
> to kiss your ass. Deal with it.
>
>
Heather, Rich is correct. Ann is just plain hateful.
Laurie S.
There is no implication that she doesn't read posts. I said she's
given such advice, and usually follows it. Cele doesn't normally seem
to have much a problem reading negative posts here. She normally seems
pretty thick-skinned. But sometimes things can get under your skin.
There have been times here where I have felt that the atmosphere
wasn't conducive to my discussing sensitive information.
>> This is
>> the first time I've seen her specifically say she isn't talking about
>> things she wants to talk about, because of the atmosphere here. I've
>> seen her say before that she's been quiet because the threads have
>> been too noisy (or whatever) and she didn't feel like getting into it,
>> but that's not the same as holding back because she isn't comfortable
>> posting sensitive information in an atmosphere that includes some
>> hostility.
>
>She seemed a bit miffed when I suggested that she just skip the
>posts that seem to be upsetting her.
>
So? She apparently doesn't *want* to "just skip" them. It's an
*option*. And it's not always that easy.
>> I don't understand why you seem to be bothered by the fact that Cele
>> considers these post(er)s too hostile for her to talk about things
>> she'd like to discuss.
>
>I don't understand why you say that I am upset about this. I'm not
>even sure what you just said, exactly. :^/
>
You seem bothered (not upset) that Cele is singling out certain
hostilities and not others. I don't know why.
>> The topics aren't the issue here; it's the
>> tone. Two people can write about the same topic, and have some similar
>> opinions, but one can be diplomatic and the other can be hostile.
>
>Then again there is also the issue of perceptions.
>
Perceptions of those reading them, or the two people posting?
>> For
>> example, Michael Snyder is more diplomatic than Andre Lieven, who is
>> more diplomatic than Darkfalz, Bateau or Bob or XXX.
>
>Can you rate them from 1 to 10? :^/
>
I'd need to see 8x10 glossies. If I had to guess, I'd say Michael's
the dreamiest.
>> Or to turn to talk.rape regulars, Cele is more diplomatic than Neil,
>
>I always thought Neil was pretty diplomatic.
>
Pretty much (when he feels like it ;)), but just not so much as Cele,
who generally is extremely diplomatic.
>> who is more diplomatic than Heather.
>
>I'm not sure she belongs on a scale with the word "diplomatic" in it.
>
I used Heather as the other end of the scale not to insult her, but to
show that she's more volatile than Neil, who is more volatile than
Cele.
>> But none of these three regulars are generally hostile or undiplomatic,
>
>I disagree, Heather is usually hostile.
To those who are in a fight with her, yes, she is often hostile. She
is not *generally* hostile, in terms of posting *to* express
hostility. She is hostile in context, while some other posters are
hostile *period*.
> Ann is often hositile.
I don't think you know Ann very well. Ann is one of the least hostile
people I have ever seen here. She has a posting style that you may
interpret differently than she means it. I don't know how to describe
it, but maybe to say that she writes kind of drily?
> For
>some reason no one has any problems with their blatant hostility, or
>even acknowledges it. But the hostility remains. You may ignore it,
>but tell me why you think new posters or lurkers will.
>
Tell me why this is relevant to the hostilities that are bothering
Cele. Is it because of their sex, in comparison with the sex of the
hostile posters that Cele is bothered by?
>> in the way that Darkfalz, Bateau,
>> Bob or XXX are. Any of Cele, Neil or Heather can be diplomatic, and
>> any can be hostile, but I've never seen any of them be hostile except
>> when provoked.
>
>Flat out disagree. Both Heather and Ann have been blatantly hostile
>totally unprovoked.
I think you're either fudging on "blatantly hostile" or "totally
unprovoked," or either. I have never once seen either of them spew
hostility in an otherwise benevolent atmosphere.
> But then in the past women have used provocation
>to excuse the most horrible misandrist comments. Women here. Or do
>you remember the stain of the white male oppression of women? It just
>won't wash out.
>
You're obsessing, Rich, and as usual you're only focusing on the bad
actions of one sex. I don't care to do that. The actions of "women" or
"men" don't have any special significance to me. Being female gives me
exactly zero ties to other women. I'm interested in what *people* say,
which means that I pay as much attention to the bad things that men
say as to the bad things that women say. And I try to look at them as
the bad things that *people* say.
>> Some of the people that have bothered Cele lately are
>> *generally* hostile to people concerned about rape.
>
>Since you cannot even identify Heathers constant unprovoked hostility,
>your viewpoint is so biased as to be worth little. No objectivity.
>Heather rarely even posts about rape, she is almost always simply
>attacking and denigrating others.
Oh, Christ, Rich. Most of the posts to which you refer involve Heather
and Sky King exchanging insults. Big deal. You don't have to like it,
but it's not like either of them are unarmed.
Otherwise, Heather bitches at the trolls now and then, and that's
pretty much it. And as far as you, she's not much more hostile to you
than you are to her. She *won't* try to work with you, Rich, the way
others have. She *will* react when you call her a bitch, for example.
She's a hothead. Again, you don't have to like it, but it's
unrealistic to say it's unprovoked.
> For some reason, it seems acceptable
>for her to do so, when it is not acceptable for Bob or other male (??)
>posters. Why is this Laurie?
>
So it *is* about the sex of the posters for you. <grumble>
But this isn't about you, and it isn't about the sex of posters. It's
about the specific posters and posts that feel hostile to Cele. It's
not up to you to decide whether it's "fair" for Cele to feel this way.
Bob is almost universally hostile to virtually all female posters here
and to most of the t.r. men as well. He scoffs at rape ("Sex is a
normal, pleasurable body function. Rape is normal pleasurable body
function, even sometimes including orgasm, with a disagreement over
who is to decide."). He claims to see anti-male hate in *every* bit of
discussion over rape as a traumatic experience. He has made many
despicable comments here, general ones as well as comments to
individuals who have not even been talking to him.
However, Bob does not, to my knowledge, post to talk.rape-only
threads, which is a plus. But Bateau, Darkfalz, XXX (and perhaps a
couple of other trolls) do. Yes, someone could decide not to read what
they write, but it's understandable that they might not. Some trolls
get to some people more than others do. I've posted recently about
being perplexed that some people will publicly drool over rape and/or
say things that are cruel to rape victims.
>> Furthermore, there are two or three posters right now who are talking
>> about rape in a "fun" way. That makes for a creepy atmosphere for
>> someone to talk about sensitive things wrt rape, whether for
>> themselves or for a loved one who was raped.
>
>As I said, trolls don't characterise any group.
>
So? No one's said they do. The atmosphere still exists, though.
>> And for Cele, that loved one is her child.
>
>The issue was hostility.
No, the issue was the particular hostility that bothered Cele.
> I want to know why Ann's and Heather's
>hostiltity not only does not count,
Are you being deliberately simplistic? The issue was never about
hostility in general. You've been told this already by Cele.
> but is not even acknowledged
>as such even when that is the subject.
Cele gets to decide the subject, since she brought it up.
> Can you tell me? You've
>raised hostility by myself as an issue in the past,
Yes, I have. The vast majority of your hostility, however, I have
ignored over the years, as I do the hostility of some other people.
> and it's the
>issue here and now, so why is it that the hostility of women
>posting here is not at issue as well. Women posting similarly in
>the past have been treated the same BTW.
The hostility of men posting here is not at issue, Rich. The hostility
of women posting here is not at issue. Specific hostility that
specifically bothers Cele is at issue. That is the entire issue.
Everything else is your invention.
I can't believe that you are reducing this to something sexed.
Laurie
Sky King
wrote:
>>On 06 Jan 2004 19:29:15 GMT, dedhea...@aol.comnospam (DEDHeather94)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Since you cannot even identify Heathers constant unprovoked hostility,
>>>>your viewpoint is so biased as to be worth little. No objectivity.
>>>>Heather rarely even posts about rape,
>>>
>>>That is a flat out lie, but I've come to expect that from you. You really
>>>can't stop talking about me, can you?
>>
>>
>>Nope...lately you have been nasty when unprovoked.
>
>Cites?
You can just read any post you have made to me lately or you can DO
your own homework. I have not called you any names lately.
>
>>>she is almost always simply
>>>>attacking and denigrating others.
>>>
>>>Those who troll the group to say rapists are heros and such, that's right.
>>Do
>>>YOU think rapists are heros, Rich? If not, then what's your problem with my
>>>denigrating those who say so?
>>
>>Name the ones that state rapist are heros and such and cite them.
>
>Have you not read anything by Darkfalz? If not then do your own homework.
Translation: She has no cites.
>
> Are
>>you saying that is the only people you are hostile to?
>
>Well them and you, but you're really no better.
But you said you did not call folks name unless you were provoked.
>
>>> For some reason, it seems acceptable
>>>>for her to do so, when it is not acceptable for Bob or other male (??)
>>>>posters. Why is this Laurie?
>>>
>>>Sit on it Richard. Neither Ann nor I are any more hostile than YOU and
>>that's
>>>on your good days. You just don't like us because we won't bend over
>>backwards
>>>to kiss your ass. Deal with it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Heather
>>>***************
>>
>>
>>It seems you are the one having a hard time dealing with it
>>hon....
>
>dealing with what?
Dealing with any man.
>
>.maybe that is why you are so damn hostile.
>>Chuckle
>
>I haven't been hostile to Rich since he came back even though he posted lies
>about me last time he was here, was called on it by others and never
>apologized. I even asked him politely not to start with me, but like you he
>seems to be obsessed. If that's being hostile, then so be it. Oh and you can
>sit on it as well. Chuckle.
>
>
>
>Heather
>***************
>
And she is still in the dark ladies and gentlemen.
LOL
Rich
This thread is an indication that she does, is it not?
> I said she's given such advice, and usually follows it.
What is the value of this point in a case where she clearly cannot be
following such advice? Does your generality somehow negate or change
the current situation?
> Cele doesn't normally seem
> to have much a problem reading negative posts here.
It is not at all clear whether she normally reads them or not, at least
nothing so far posted has provided this level of detail. However, in the
current situation it seems a requirement, without which the complaint
of a hostile atmosphere can have no basis.
> She normally seems
> pretty thick-skinned. But sometimes things can get under your skin.
Parasites, ewwwww.
> There have been times here where I have felt that the atmosphere
> wasn't conducive to my discussing sensitive information.
I understand the point. I don't understand the point WRT what seem to
be the current crop of trolls. They are always here, they are in every
group. Business as usual requires that they generally be ignored.
> >> This is
> >> the first time I've seen her specifically say she isn't talking about
> >> things she wants to talk about, because of the atmosphere here. I've
> >> seen her say before that she's been quiet because the threads have
> >> been too noisy (or whatever) and she didn't feel like getting into it,
> >> but that's not the same as holding back because she isn't comfortable
> >> posting sensitive information in an atmosphere that includes some
> >> hostility.
> >
> >She seemed a bit miffed when I suggested that she just skip the
> >posts that seem to be upsetting her.
>
> So? She apparently doesn't *want* to "just skip" them. It's an
> *option*. And it's not always that easy.
It's always that easy. Do you actually read every one of Bateau's posts?
I really don't understand your point.
> >> I don't understand why you seem to be bothered by the fact that Cele
> >> considers these post(er)s too hostile for her to talk about things
> >> she'd like to discuss.
> >
> >I don't understand why you say that I am upset about this. I'm not
> >even sure what you just said, exactly. :^/
>
> You seem bothered (not upset) that Cele is singling out certain
> hostilities and not others. I don't know why.
I'm trying to understand why. I don't think you know, but if you have
any clues you ain't being helpful.
> >> The topics aren't the issue here; it's the
> >> tone. Two people can write about the same topic, and have some similar
> >> opinions, but one can be diplomatic and the other can be hostile.
> >
> >Then again there is also the issue of perceptions.
>
> Perceptions of those reading them, or the two people posting?
WRT a thread, both play a part. But that someone reads hostility in
a post does not necessarily mean that it was posted with the intent to
be hostile. You can always 'take' offense. That does not mean that it
was offered.
> >> For
> >> example, Michael Snyder is more diplomatic than Andre Lieven, who is
> >> more diplomatic than Darkfalz, Bateau or Bob or XXX.
> >
> >Can you rate them from 1 to 10? :^/
>
> I'd need to see 8x10 glossies. If I had to guess, I'd say Michael's
> the dreamiest.
< taking notes >
Gotcha. :^/
> >> Or to turn to talk.rape regulars, Cele is more diplomatic than Neil,
> >
> >I always thought Neil was pretty diplomatic.
>
> Pretty much (when he feels like it ;)), but just not so much as Cele,
> who generally is extremely diplomatic.
I agree with this assessment. :^/
> >> who is more diplomatic than Heather.
> >
> >I'm not sure she belongs on a scale with the word "diplomatic" in it.
>
> I used Heather as the other end of the scale not to insult her, but to
> show that she's more volatile than Neil, who is more volatile than
> Cele.
I don't think she belongs on a scale with the word "diplomatic" at all,
there is a total and complete lack of diplomaticity (??).
> >> But none of these three regulars are generally hostile or undiplomatic,
> >
> >I disagree, Heather is usually hostile.
>
> To those who are in a fight with her, yes, she is often hostile.
She is not often 'not' hostile you mean.
HTH
> She is not *generally* hostile, in terms of posting *to* express
> hostility.
I don't know what this means. The hostility remains, not as an
occasional thing, but as the expected thing.
> She is hostile in context,
If the context is her posts I agree.
> while some other posters are hostile *period*.
Heather *is* hostile period. She has never, to my knowledge posted
a single positive thing.
> > Ann is often hositile.
>
> I don't think you know Ann very well. Ann is one of the least hostile
> people I have ever seen here. She has a posting style that you may
> interpret differently than she means it. I don't know how to describe
> it, but maybe to say that she writes kind of drily?
Well how do you interpret this?
- From: Ann (m...@privacy.net)
- Subject: Re: This is curious.
- Newsgroups: talk.rape
- Date: 2003-12-15 14:05:55 PST
-
- On 14 Dec 2003 06:50:44 -0800, rpa...@mybluelight.com (Rich) wrote:
-
- >"David Lee Kollberg" <david.lee...@belgacom.net> wrote in message
- news:<3fdc06a2$0$17561$ba62...@reader3.news.skynet.be>...
- >> "Rich" <rpa...@mybluelight.com> wrote in message
- >
- >[...]
- >
- >> > > My kind of humour is; *all* your posts.
- >> >
- >> > I'm still astounded that you did not find this funny.
- >> >
- >> > Mr. F. LeMur wrote: "I'm half Swedish and half English - one half
- >> > wants to rape and pillage, but the other half is worried about what
- >> > the neighbors would think."
- >> >
- >> > I mean, it is your kind of humor.
- >>
- >> I must admit I find it funny.
- >
- >Odd then that you posted it in a list of "deplorable views".
-
- ...but it was funny.. so what?.. fuck off you twerp...
-
- Ann
But then, what's the point? You seem in denial that Ann can even be
hostile. No doubt you'll find some way to see provocation (despite the
fact that she was not in this thread nor mentioned in this thread at
all when she posted this).
> >For
> >some reason no one has any problems with their blatant hostility, or
> >even acknowledges it. But the hostility remains. You may ignore it,
> >but tell me why you think new posters or lurkers will.
>
> Tell me why this is relevant to the hostilities that are bothering
> Cele.
Is hostility a problem or is it not?
It's like sexism, if sexism is a problem, why is not all sexism an
equal problem? It seems that Cele's problem is not with hostility per
se, as neither Ann's nor Heather's hostility seem to bother her.
> Is it because of their sex, in comparison with the sex of the
> hostile posters that Cele is bothered by?
That's one possibility. It's supported by the available data (Cele
clearly has no issues whatsoever with any of the women who have
posted hostility here, for whatever reason). I'm not asserting that
it must be because of the sex of the posters, maybe it's a matter
of posting style or content, but hostility per se cannot be the
issue unless hostility only by men is seen as a problem. And I'm
not ruling this out either.
> >> in the way that Darkfalz, Bateau,
> >> Bob or XXX are. Any of Cele, Neil or Heather can be diplomatic, and
> >> any can be hostile, but I've never seen any of them be hostile except
> >> when provoked.
>
> >Flat out disagree. Both Heather and Ann have been blatantly hostile
> >totally unprovoked.
>
> I think you're either fudging on "blatantly hostile" or "totally
> unprovoked," or either.
Then explain Ann's post above.
> I have never once seen either of them spew
> hostility in an otherwise benevolent atmosphere.
I have, to me. Perhaps these don't count?
> > But then in the past women have used provocation
> >to excuse the most horrible misandrist comments. Women here. Or do
> >you remember the stain of the white male oppression of women? It just
> >won't wash out.
>
> You're obsessing, Rich, and as usual you're only focusing on the bad
> actions of one sex.
Why is it that when Cele is at issue, you focus upon her perceptions,
but my perceptions (even when I can provide evidence that I am not
hallucinating) never seem to count? Why do you treat Cele's posts one
way and mine another Laurie? It's exactly like Cele's being bothered
by some hostility and not by other hostility. That she is not bothered
by all hostility seems to show that hostility per se is not the
underlying issue. What's your underlying issue with me?
> I don't care to do that.
What you don't care to do Laurie is to acknowledge that equal actions
by men and women are neither seen nor treated the same here or anywhere.
Here, from two recent posts...
- There is no 'solution' as such. I can quite understand a reluctance on your
- part to share personal information on a forum currently infested by immature
- adolescent males out to get cheap thrills (they're not always here BTW) - it
- takes a thick skin. That said, there are many people here who still form the
- real core of t.r. that will understand your situation, and if you wanted I'm
- sure they'd be prepared to talk privately. I'm a man, and I don't do support
- here out of principle (for obvious reasons - any woman coming here *should*
- be automatically suspicious of a man who wants to learn details about the
- experiences of a rape victim). But I can certainly vouch for many of the
- women - Laurie, Cele, Ann, Kerry, Heather, (and of course anyone I've
- forgotten...). They're all very caring people.
-
- I hope you find what you're looking for - if not here, then somewhere.
-
- John James (JJ)
and...
- I am a survivor of child molestation and rape by my stepfather. I
- dare anyone to tell me that I deserved it or that I seduced him. I
- was only 6 when he first started coming into my room at night and I
- was 12 when he raped me. I didn't press charges because the male
- police officer that questioned me made me feel dirty and repulsed. I
- challenge anyone to say that I came forward about my abuse out of
- revenge or attention seeking. Furthermore I would like to see some of
- you men raped and treated as indignantly as I and many other women.
- Now I will be the first to admit that there are some women out there
- that do cry wolf, but not all of us are like that. You shouldn't
- group all of us together. Rape is not something to play around with.
I don't know if you can see that there is a difference in the way
men and women are portrayed, but it remains and it will remain even
if you don't make such distinctions.
> The actions of "women" or "men" don't have any special significance
> to me.
Well it does to JJ and 'just_me1issa' and so many others who have posted
here in the past. Do you insist that it makes no difference to anyone?
It's an issue whether you do it or not Laurie (and I don't recall that
anyone's pointed that finger in your direction in this regard anyway,
so you were never at issue here to begin with).
> Being female gives me exactly zero ties to other women.
Funny, JJ thinks it makes you safer for female rape victims to talk
to. I'd agree just because of who you are, but he has specifically
singled out the women in the group, he says so himself. So if you
have any issues with this it's with him (and all the others who have
said similar things in the groups history), not with me for pointing
it out.
> I'm interested in what *people* say,
I don't see that WRT my posts Laurie. You seem interested in showing
that what I say is wrong or questionable somehow. Why is Cele's
perspecitive valid while mine is not?
> which means that I pay as much attention to the bad things that men
> say as to the bad things that women say. And I try to look at them as
> the bad things that *people* say.
Why is it that you always think you are at issue?
Why is it that you think that if you don't do it it's not a problem and
that it's wrong to bring it up or even discuss it?
Why do you think that bringing up what you do or don't do is the
end to any and every issue?
I don't recall that you, what you do or what you don't do were ever
at issue in this thread. Have you forgotten Cele being bothered by the
hostility in this group (but apparently not by the hostility of Ann
or Heather)?
> >> Some of the people that have bothered Cele lately are
> >> *generally* hostile to people concerned about rape.
> >
> >Since you cannot even identify Heathers constant unprovoked hostility,
> >your viewpoint is so biased as to be worth little. No objectivity.
> >Heather rarely even posts about rape, she is almost always simply
> >attacking and denigrating others.
>
> Oh, Christ, Rich. Most of the posts to which you refer involve Heather
> and Sky King exchanging insults. Big deal. You don't have to like it,
> but it's not like either of them are unarmed.
I don't think I'll touch that one. :^/
But once again I note that you find issue with my perceptions (and I
think you'll find your observation above a little restricted) but not
with Cele's. Everything else being equal, you support Cele and question
me. I don't think your issue is 'what' so much as 'who'. Note, I
don't think sex is your issue here, you'd support JJ as much, even when
he slanders white men for things I've never done. That broad brush is
OK when wielded by some it would seem.
> Otherwise, Heather bitches at the trolls now and then, and that's
> pretty much it.
Now and then? Her posts are not restricted to trolls and she does nothing
else. If you dispute this show me just one substantial discussion in which
she's taken an active part and said something beyond "yer an idiot".
> And as far as you, she's not much more hostile to you than you are to
> her.
We seem to have reached an equilibrium of some sort.
> She *won't* try to work with you, Rich, the way others have.
She's not tried to work with anyone Laurie.
> She *will* react when you call her a bitch, for example.
I don't recall that I did so as such lately. But insofar as simply
describing what she posts, I don't see any great innaccuracy. And I
note that as with all other hostility by women that I've ever seen
here, it's always acceptable and supported. Hostility by men is
treated differently. This is an observation, and it is accurate.
> She's a hothead.
I'm not sure exactly what this means. But to the extent it's true
it seems as accurate as describing the ocean as 'damp'.
> Again, you don't have to like it, but it's
> unrealistic to say it's unprovoked.
It's accurate, she posts nothing else regardless. There are many
discussions in which she can take part, she chooses not to. All she
does is find something to bitch about (note the verb useage) and
then she does so. If you dispute this show me where she has done
something else.
> > For some reason, it seems acceptable
> >for her to do so, when it is not acceptable for Bob or other male (??)
> >posters. Why is this Laurie?
>
> So it *is* about the sex of the posters for you. <grumble>
Not to me, to TR posters.
Shall I review all the women who's initial (and subsequent) posts have
been hostile and often outright misandrist who have recieved not one
word of rebuke from TR regulars, who have been supported no matter what
they said? I cannot right off think of a single exception (male or female,
recalling DLK, Luke H, atheisticmystic, and others).
I don't know why you claim that the sex of the poster makes no difference,
it seems to me the aspect that makes the major difference (whether you
personally think it important or not).
> But this isn't about you,
No Laurie, this isn't about you.
> and it isn't about the sex of posters. It's
> about the specific posters and posts that feel hostile to Cele. It's
> not up to you to decide whether it's "fair" for Cele to feel this way.
I note the quote marks around the word "fair".
Perhaps you can show me where I used the word?
> Bob is almost universally hostile to virtually all female posters here
> and to most of the t.r. men as well.
So why is Bob's hostility bad while Heather's is not?
> He scoffs at rape ("Sex is a normal, pleasurable body function. Rape
> is normal pleasurable body function, even sometimes including orgasm,
> with a disagreement over who is to decide.").
Maybe, maybe not. He claims that these posts were forged. He made the
same claim when the original was posted. Perhaps you can show that he
is lying when he claims they were forged. I'm not defending Bob in
general, but who would you hold respobsible for forged posts? I'd place
responsibility on the forger, but that's just me.
> He claims to see anti-male hate in *every* bit of
> discussion over rape as a traumatic experience.
This I'll accept. Do you claim that he's 100% wrong, or just wrong
in seeing it 100% of the time?
> He has made many
> despicable comments here, general ones as well as comments to
> individuals who have not even been talking to him.
It seems OK when Ann does this.
> However, Bob does not, to my knowledge, post to talk.rape-only
> threads, which is a plus. But Bateau, Darkfalz, XXX (and perhaps a
> couple of other trolls) do.
You might want to point out to Cele that these posters are not TR
regulars and that it's OK to skip their posts.
> Yes, someone could decide not to read what
> they write, but it's understandable that they might not.
If they claim to be bothered by them I don't understand it at all.
If taking asprin gave you a headache, would you keep taking it?
> Some trolls get to some people more than others do.
True.
> I've posted recently about
> being perplexed that some people will publicly drool over rape and/or
> say things that are cruel to rape victims.
That's what trolls do Laurie, they post contentious material with the
intent of upsetting people, normally crossposted to groups that are at
cross purpose and normally crossposted to AUK. The fact that several
regulars have started adding AUK is and should be rather disturbing.
> >> Furthermore, there are two or three posters right now who are talking
> >> about rape in a "fun" way. That makes for a creepy atmosphere for
> >> someone to talk about sensitive things wrt rape, whether for
> >> themselves or for a loved one who was raped.
> >
> >As I said, trolls don't characterise any group.
>
> So? No one's said they do. The atmosphere still exists, though.
Newsgroups have no air. There is no ambiance but for the posts you
read. Troll posts do not create an atmosphere, they are smoke easily
brushed aside. If you choose to breath the smoke, you choose what
you percieve as atmosphere.
> >> And for Cele, that loved one is her child.
> >
> >The issue was hostility.
>
> No, the issue was the particular hostility that bothered Cele.
I'm raising an issue Laurie, please stop spitting on it.
> > I want to know why Ann's and Heather's
> >hostiltity not only does not count,
>
> Are you being deliberately simplistic?
I'm asking a question. Your own hostility does not answer it.
> The issue was never about hostility in general.
That's always the issue I raised, don't tell me what it is or
what it is not.
> You've been told this already by Cele.
I'm not talking about Cele and your dismissiveness is as upsetting
as your attempt to piss on the issue I myself have raised (even if
you are too pig headed to address is).
> > but is not even acknowledged
> >as such even when that is the subject.
>
> Cele gets to decide the subject, since she brought it up.
I get to decide what the issues I bring up are, and this is my issue.
> > Can you tell me? You've
> >raised hostility by myself as an issue in the past,
>
> Yes, I have. The vast majority of your hostility, however, I have
> ignored over the years, as I do the hostility of some other people.
>
> > and it's the
> >issue here and now, so why is it that the hostility of women
> >posting here is not at issue as well. Women posting similarly in
> >the past have been treated the same BTW.
>
> The hostility of men posting here is not at issue, Rich.
Name one woman who's hostililty has ever been an issue for TR regulars
Laurie. Just one.
> The hostility of women posting here is not at issue.
It never is. That's the point.
Shall I post some blasts from the past to illustrate?
> Laurie
Rich
Rich
> >Since you cannot even identify Heathers constant unprovoked hostility,
> >your viewpoint is so biased as to be worth little. No objectivity.
> >Heather rarely even posts about rape,
>
> That is a flat out lie, but I've come to expect that from you.
Post a link to the last post where you responded to the issue of
rape, FRAs, recovery, or anything else topical then.
> You really can't stop talking about me, can you?
You're just so cute.
> >she is almost always simply attacking and denigrating others.
>
> Those who troll the group to say rapists are heros and such, that's right.
> Do YOU think rapists are heros, Rich?
Of course, dosen't everybody?
> If not, then what's your problem with my denigrating those who say so?
You know, right now Cele is posting about the atmosphere of the group.
Like it or not, understand it or not, your post's are little different
from the troll posts, and they do contribute to the atmosphere. They
are not a positive contribution Heather.
I'd be shocked if you responsed to an OT post with something relevant or
informative. But as it is, all you do is attack the trolls or me or
anyone else who you don't like. Is two troll posts an improvement over
one Heather?
> For some reason, it seems acceptable
> >for her to do so, when it is not acceptable for Bob or other male (??)
> >posters. Why is this Laurie?
>
> Sit on it Richard.
You have me confused with your callers.
> Neither Ann nor I are any more hostile than YOU
You are always hostile Heather, it's what you do. It's all you do.
It's not all I do, what I do every post, or all I've done since I
got here.
> and that's on your good days.
I've posted more discussion today than you have since you got
here Heather.
> You just don't like us because we won't bend over backwards
> to kiss your ass. Deal with it.
I understand that you think attacking me solves the problem, that's
what you do, attack people. And understand it or not, you are not
really much different from those you complain about.
You could be if you tried Heather.
How about it, just once this year, post something which is not simply
an attack, flame, troll, or denigration alone. Just one post.
I'm not holding my breath.
Rich
Sky King
Me either. :)
John James
> >I'm not holding my breath.
> >
> >Rich
> >
>
>
> Me either. :)
Another insightful and positive post from Terry.
John James (JJ)
Sky King
If you check the posts lately its only Heather that is doing the name
calling...EVERY chance she gets and she says she intends on keeping
it up. Besides there are many other people she has attacked
including DLK.
>
>I don't think I'll touch that one. :^/
I took care of it since it was about me.
>
>But once again I note that you find issue with my perceptions (and I
>think you'll find your observation above a little restricted) but not
>with Cele's. Everything else being equal, you support Cele and question
>me. I don't think your issue is 'what' so much as 'who'. Note, I
>don't think sex is your issue here, you'd support JJ as much, even when
>he slanders white men for things I've never done. That broad brush is
>OK when wielded by some it would seem.
>
>> Otherwise, Heather bitches at the trolls now and then, and that's
>> pretty much it.
Have you read her posts lately?
>
>Now and then? Her posts are not restricted to trolls and she does nothing
>else. If you dispute this show me just one substantial discussion in which
>she's taken an active part and said something beyond "yer an idiot".
>
>> And as far as you, she's not much more hostile to you than you are to
>> her.
>
>We seem to have reached an equilibrium of some sort.
>
>> She *won't* try to work with you, Rich, the way others have.
That sounds a little condensending...like you folks have to come down
to his level or something.
>
>She's not tried to work with anyone Laurie.
>
>> She *will* react when you call her a bitch, for example.
>
>I don't recall that I did so as such lately. But insofar as simply
>describing what she posts, I don't see any great innaccuracy. And I
>note that as with all other hostility by women that I've ever seen
>here, it's always acceptable and supported. Hostility by men is
>treated differently. This is an observation, and it is accurate.
>
>> She's a hothead.
So we can excuse some for some reasons?
And you can stop them by not responding. I did it with the AUK bunch.
Bateau
." ". 7 Jan 2004 11:24:32 -0800
| . ` ` | in
\( )/ talk.rape,
// >..< \\ spoke
|__.' vv '.__/ 571
>> >She seemed a bit miffed when I suggested that she just skip the
>> >posts that seem to be upsetting her.
>>
>> So? She apparently doesn't *want* to "just skip" them. It's an
>> *option*. And it's not always that easy.
>
>It's always that easy. Do you actually read every one of Bateau's posts?
>I really don't understand your point.
It's not like I dont give ample indication that a post is from me.
>> However, Bob does not, to my knowledge, post to talk.rape-only
>> threads, which is a plus. But Bateau, Darkfalz, XXX (and perhaps a
>> couple of other trolls) do.
>
>You might want to point out to Cele that these posters are not TR
>regulars and that it's OK to skip their posts.
Yes I am.
Ann
wrote:
Glad to see that I've got under your skin.
I'm tempted to borrow one of Terry's chuckles.
Ann
Neil
Oh, go on. i'll email you when it's time to stop.
--
Neil
DEDHeather94
>wrote:
>
>>>On 06 Jan 2004 19:29:15 GMT, dedhea...@aol.comnospam (DEDHeather94)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Since you cannot even identify Heathers constant unprovoked hostility,
>>>>>your viewpoint is so biased as to be worth little. No objectivity.
>>>>>Heather rarely even posts about rape,
>>>>
>>>>That is a flat out lie, but I've come to expect that from you. You really
>>>>can't stop talking about me, can you?
>>>
>>>
>>>Nope...lately you have been nasty when unprovoked.
>>
>>Cites?
>
>
>You can just read any post you have made to me lately or you can DO
>your own homework. I have not called you any names lately.
Translation: He has no cites.
>>>>she is almost always simply
>>>>>attacking and denigrating others.
>>>>
>>>>Those who troll the group to say rapists are heros and such, that's right.
>>>Do
>>>>YOU think rapists are heros, Rich? If not, then what's your problem with
>my
>>>>denigrating those who say so?
>>>
>>>Name the ones that state rapist are heros and such and cite them.
>>
>>Have you not read anything by Darkfalz? If not then do your own homework.
>
>
>Translation: She has no cites.
Is there an echo here? lol
>> Are
>>>you saying that is the only people you are hostile to?
>>
>>Well them and you, but you're really no better.
>
>
>But you said you did not call folks name unless you were provoked.
OR when they come in here with their pro-rape crap and I feel like slapping
them around. If you have a problem with that then that's what it is--your
problem.
>>>> For some reason, it seems acceptable
>>>>>for her to do so, when it is not acceptable for Bob or other male (??)
>>>>>posters. Why is this Laurie?
>>>>
>>>>Sit on it Richard. Neither Ann nor I are any more hostile than YOU and
>>>that's
>>>>on your good days. You just don't like us because we won't bend over
>>>backwards
>>>>to kiss your ass. Deal with it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Heather
>>>>***************
>>>
>>>
>>>It seems you are the one having a hard time dealing with it
>>>hon....
>>
>>dealing with what?
>
>
>Dealing with any man.
My husband will be surprised to hear that.
>>.maybe that is why you are so damn hostile.
>>>Chuckle
>>
>>I haven't been hostile to Rich since he came back even though he posted lies
>>about me last time he was here, was called on it by others and never
>>apologized. I even asked him politely not to start with me, but like you he
>>seems to be obsessed. If that's being hostile, then so be it. Oh and you
>can
>>sit on it as well. Chuckle.
>>
>>
>>
>>Heather
>>***************
>>
>
>And she is still in the dark ladies and gentlemen.
>LOL
>
Can you say non-sequitor?
DEDHeather94
>news:<20040106142915...@mb-m05.aol.com>...
>
>> >Since you cannot even identify Heathers constant unprovoked hostility,
>> >your viewpoint is so biased as to be worth little. No objectivity.
>> >Heather rarely even posts about rape,
>>
>> That is a flat out lie, but I've come to expect that from you.
>
>Post a link to the last post where you responded to the issue of
>rape, FRAs, recovery, or anything else topical then.
Look under the thread "Rape is NEVER ok" and you'll see where I was trying to
be helpful to a recent poster. I do that, Rich, whether you've seen me do it
or not.
>> You really can't stop talking about me, can you?
>
>You're just so cute.
Keep it up. I'm a sucker for flattery.
>> >she is almost always simply attacking and denigrating others.
>>
>> Those who troll the group to say rapists are heros and such, that's right.
>> Do YOU think rapists are heros, Rich?
>
>Of course, dosen't everybody?
>
>> If not, then what's your problem with my denigrating those who say so?
>
>You know, right now Cele is posting about the atmosphere of the group.
>Like it or not, understand it or not, your post's are little different
>from the troll posts, and they do contribute to the atmosphere. They
>are not a positive contribution Heather.
I acknowledged that very thing recently. I know it isn't and maybe it's time
for a break. Nobody really needs my help dealing with trolls and Sky King is
getting terribly boring.
>I'd be shocked if you responsed to an OT post with something relevant or
>informative.
Rich, I'd be more than happy to look up something relative or informative I've
posted recently, but google isn't my friend because it freezes my computer
every time I try to use it. It's not an excuse, just the truth. But if you
really want to see, be my guest. If you can't find any I won't kick about it.
But as it is, all you do is attack the trolls or me or
>anyone else who you don't like.
Ok I have to call bs on that, because I haven't attacked you ONCE since you
came back. The only thing I said to you was to ask you not to start with me
when you started talking about me again and I agreed beforehand to do the same.
But you had to drag me into this so I felt I should respond. In other words,
you attacked first.
Is two troll posts an improvement over
>one Heather?
Maybe not. I try to throw humor into my flames of trolls to give the rest of
you a chuckle (oh lord I said chuckle). But seriously, if my doing that is
bothering the rest of the regulars I'll stop. Like I said, I probably need a
break anyway.
>> For some reason, it seems acceptable
>> >for her to do so, when it is not acceptable for Bob or other male (??)
>> >posters. Why is this Laurie?
>>
>> Sit on it Richard.
>
>You have me confused with your callers.
LOL! Actually I tell them to do more than sit on it, but I digress....
>> Neither Ann nor I are any more hostile than YOU
>
>You are always hostile Heather, it's what you do. It's all you do.
Yes, I've been hostile lately with scumbags who only come in here to say cruel
things to and about rape victims. I'm never hostile to one and all.
>It's not all I do, what I do every post, or all I've done since I
>got here.
True, you've posted about serious issues, but you can't seem to do so without
saying something about how TR posters don't think what you're saying is
serious. They do--and so do I, but you're just not listening to them.
>> and that's on your good days.
>
>I've posted more discussion today than you have since you got
>here Heather.
You've clearly not read all my posts. But it doesn't really matter. Think
what you want.
>> You just don't like us because we won't bend over backwards
>> to kiss your ass. Deal with it.
>
>I understand that you think attacking me solves the problem, that's
>what you do, attack people.
I don't understand how responding to your attack is an attack on you.
And understand it or not, you are not
>really much different from those you complain about.
>
Ok, that's a reasonable statement. If the rest of t.r. feels the same way then
maybe I should leave. Would that make you happy? Not being sarcastic here
although it probably reads that way.
>You could be if you tried Heather.
Thank you for saying so, Rich. Really. But for various reasons I haven't felt
like trying.
>How about it, just once this year, post something which is not simply
>an attack, flame, troll, or denigration alone. Just one post.
Already have, but we covered that.
>I'm not holding my breath.
No, don't turn blue on my account. :)
>Rich
Be well, Rich. I mean that. Believe it or not I mean no harm.
Heather
robertmaasjr
Laurie S.
Like I said. I said she *tends* to stay away from things she doesn't
wish to read; I've seen her say so. That's about all I can say on the
matter. I don't know precisely who and what she reads on any regular
basis.
>> I said she's given such advice, and usually follows it.
>
>What is the value of this point in a case where she clearly cannot be
>following such advice? Does your generality somehow negate or change
>the current situation?
>
It is directly in response to your observation that "Cele did not like
this kind of advice for some reason." If you no longer wish to follow
that line of discussion, we can always lop this part of it off. It's
not a big deal for me.
>> Cele doesn't normally seem
>> to have much a problem reading negative posts here.
>
>It is not at all clear whether she normally reads them or not, at least
>nothing so far posted has provided this level of detail.
I said she doesn't normally seem *to have much of a problem* reading
negative posts. She doesn't seem to shy away from posts or to wish to
shy away from them. She does read many negative posts, since she
replies to quite a few of them.
> However, in the
>current situation it seems a requirement, without which the complaint
>of a hostile atmosphere can have no basis.
>
Huh? If someone chooses to read things that upset them, you consider
it a self-imposed requirement?
>> She normally seems
>> pretty thick-skinned. But sometimes things can get under your skin.
>
>Parasites, ewwwww.
>
Those are not *quite* the things I was talking about. =P
>> There have been times here where I have felt that the atmosphere
>> wasn't conducive to my discussing sensitive information.
>
>I understand the point. I don't understand the point WRT what seem to
>be the current crop of trolls. They are always here, they are in every
>group. Business as usual requires that they generally be ignored.
>
It doesn't *require* it. Lots of people read troll posts. I do, at
least some of them, and I would probably skim more if I had more time.
It's one way to keep up with what shit is being tossed around on one's
newsgroup. What do you think t.r. would be like if no one read the
trolls except for the new posters and the lurkers? There'd be no one
reading to tell those people that the trolls are just trolls and to
give them advice on how to deal with their posts.
>> >> This is
>> >> the first time I've seen her specifically say she isn't talking about
>> >> things she wants to talk about, because of the atmosphere here. I've
>> >> seen her say before that she's been quiet because the threads have
>> >> been too noisy (or whatever) and she didn't feel like getting into it,
>> >> but that's not the same as holding back because she isn't comfortable
>> >> posting sensitive information in an atmosphere that includes some
>> >> hostility.
>> >
>> >She seemed a bit miffed when I suggested that she just skip the
>> >posts that seem to be upsetting her.
>>
>> So? She apparently doesn't *want* to "just skip" them. It's an
>> *option*. And it's not always that easy.
>
>It's always that easy.
Um, are we all monolithic now? You have no idea how easy, or not, it
is for other people.
> Do you actually read every one of Bateau's posts?
Most of them, yes. I mean, Christ, they're usually just a line or two
surrounded by irritating ASCII. "Irritating ASCII" sounds like some
sort of plant, like stinging nettles.
I skip threads more often than I skip posts by individuals. If I see a
thread that sounds stupid and doesn't have any regulars posting to it,
I'll usually skip it. But if I see a thread that sounds like it could
have something interesting in it, and/or has regulars posting to it,
I'll read the entire thread.
>I really don't understand your point.
>
Perhaps that's because you think it's always that easy.
>> >> I don't understand why you seem to be bothered by the fact that Cele
>> >> considers these post(er)s too hostile for her to talk about things
>> >> she'd like to discuss.
>> >
>> >I don't understand why you say that I am upset about this. I'm not
>> >even sure what you just said, exactly. :^/
>>
>> You seem bothered (not upset) that Cele is singling out certain
>> hostilities and not others. I don't know why.
>
>I'm trying to understand why. I don't think you know, but if you have
>any clues you ain't being helpful.
>
Um. She's upset by the crudeness and pro-rape comments of the trolls
(and perhaps others, I don't know), ITSM. She's already, IIRC, pointed
out some of the specific hostility that bothers her, as an example.
>> >> The topics aren't the issue here; it's the
>> >> tone. Two people can write about the same topic, and have some similar
>> >> opinions, but one can be diplomatic and the other can be hostile.
>> >
>> >Then again there is also the issue of perceptions.
>>
>> Perceptions of those reading them, or the two people posting?
>
>WRT a thread, both play a part. But that someone reads hostility in
>a post does not necessarily mean that it was posted with the intent to
>be hostile. You can always 'take' offense. That does not mean that it
>was offered.
>
Fine. Do you think Ann intends to be hostile?
That said, saying crude things wrt rape is hostile per se.
>> >> For
>> >> example, Michael Snyder is more diplomatic than Andre Lieven, who is
>> >> more diplomatic than Darkfalz, Bateau or Bob or XXX.
>> >
>> >Can you rate them from 1 to 10? :^/
>>
>> I'd need to see 8x10 glossies. If I had to guess, I'd say Michael's
>> the dreamiest.
>
>< taking notes >
>
>Gotcha. :^/
>
You probably would choose a woman. Sexist bastard. ;)
>> >> Or to turn to talk.rape regulars, Cele is more diplomatic than Neil,
>> >
>> >I always thought Neil was pretty diplomatic.
>>
>> Pretty much (when he feels like it ;)), but just not so much as Cele,
>> who generally is extremely diplomatic.
>
>I agree with this assessment. :^/
>
>> >> who is more diplomatic than Heather.
>> >
>> >I'm not sure she belongs on a scale with the word "diplomatic" in it.
>>
>> I used Heather as the other end of the scale not to insult her, but to
>> show that she's more volatile than Neil, who is more volatile than
>> Cele.
>
>I don't think she belongs on a scale with the word "diplomatic" at all,
>there is a total and complete lack of diplomaticity (??).
>
You haven't read her enough, Rich, or you've forgotten.
>> >> But none of these three regulars are generally hostile or undiplomatic,
>> >
>> >I disagree, Heather is usually hostile.
>>
>> To those who are in a fight with her, yes, she is often hostile.
>
>She is not often 'not' hostile you mean.
>
Um, what's the difference?
>HTH
>
>> She is not *generally* hostile, in terms of posting *to* express
>> hostility.
>
>I don't know what this means. The hostility remains, not as an
>occasional thing, but as the expected thing.
>
No. Her posts are not there TO be hostile. She's hostile in response
to things that piss her off. She doesn't generally unleash hostility
on people who are having friendly conversations with others, or
addressing her in a non-confrontational manner.
>> She is hostile in context,
>
>If the context is her posts I agree.
>
Heather isn't hostile with most t.r. regulars. Would you care to amend
your statement?
>> while some other posters are hostile *period*.
>
>Heather *is* hostile period. She has never, to my knowledge posted
>a single positive thing.
>
She's posted positive things TO YOU, Rich. Briefly.
She's also posted positive things to every single regular t.r. poster.
Even a few soc.men posters. I've seen her apologize to people for
blowing up at them, even.
"Fuck off you twerp" is hostile? Well, shit, color me hostile. And
you. And pretty much everyone else here.
>> >For
>> >some reason no one has any problems with their blatant hostility, or
>> >even acknowledges it. But the hostility remains. You may ignore it,
>> >but tell me why you think new posters or lurkers will.
>>
>> Tell me why this is relevant to the hostilities that are bothering
>> Cele.
>
>Is hostility a problem or is it not?
>
Per se? I don't think so. Do you?
I will sometimes consider some hostilities to be problematic, however.
And I accept that some people are more bothered by hostile posters
than I am.
>It's like sexism, if sexism is a problem, why is not all sexism an
>equal problem? It seems that Cele's problem is not with hostility per
>se,
Of COURSE it isn't. She's already explained that to you. So have I.
I don't think I ever read posters who are is uncomfortable with all
hostility. I mean, why would they post to Usenet in the first place?
> as neither Ann's nor Heather's hostility seem to bother her.
>
Yeah, well, she never did imply anything of the sort, Rich. It was
always clear that she was talking about posters who were hostile wrt
things that she's sensitive about.
>> Is it because of their sex, in comparison with the sex of the
>> hostile posters that Cele is bothered by?
>
>That's one possibility. It's supported by the available data (Cele
>clearly has no issues whatsoever with any of the women who have
>posted hostility here, for whatever reason). I'm not asserting that
>it must be because of the sex of the posters, maybe it's a matter
>of posting style or content, but hostility per se cannot be the
>issue unless hostility only by men is seen as a problem. And I'm
>not ruling this out either.
>
I wasn't referring to Cele above; I was referring to you. You're the
only one who's trying to make an issue of male vs. female hostility.
>> >> in the way that Darkfalz, Bateau,
>> >> Bob or XXX are. Any of Cele, Neil or Heather can be diplomatic, and
>> >> any can be hostile, but I've never seen any of them be hostile except
>> >> when provoked.
>>
>> >Flat out disagree. Both Heather and Ann have been blatantly hostile
>> >totally unprovoked.
>>
>> I think you're either fudging on "blatantly hostile" or "totally
>> unprovoked," or either.
>
>Then explain Ann's post above.
>
She was blowing you off. She obviously wasn't being kind about it, but
her delivery doesn't seem anywhere close to *blatantly* hostile; it
seems remarkably casual
And Rich, negative comments directed toward you are rarely "totally
unprovoked." Your halo is too tarnished to play innocent here.
>> I have never once seen either of them spew
>> hostility in an otherwise benevolent atmosphere.
>
>I have, to me. Perhaps these don't count?
>
Um, when do you offer Heather or Ann a benevolent atmosphere?
>> > But then in the past women have used provocation
>> >to excuse the most horrible misandrist comments. Women here. Or do
>> >you remember the stain of the white male oppression of women? It just
>> >won't wash out.
>>
>> You're obsessing, Rich, and as usual you're only focusing on the bad
>> actions of one sex.
>
>Why is it that when Cele is at issue, you focus upon her perceptions,
Because Cele is the one who brought up the issue, and you were the one
claiming that you were trying to understand it.
>but my perceptions (even when I can provide evidence that I am not
>hallucinating) never seem to count? Why do you treat Cele's posts one
>way and mine another Laurie?
Perhaps because I am more often in agreement with Cele than I am with
you. Otherwise, I don't "treat" you differently.
> It's exactly like Cele's being bothered
>by some hostility and not by other hostility. That she is not bothered
>by all hostility seems to show that hostility per se is not the
>underlying issue.
Which was clear all along.
> What's your underlying issue with me?
Frustration, as usual. Cele explained something clearly to you and you
still go off half-cocked, imagining some sexist nonsense.
>> I don't care to do that.
>
>What you don't care to do Laurie is to acknowledge that equal actions
>by men and women are neither seen nor treated the same here or anywhere.
>
It wasn't at issue, IMO, but I've written plenty on the subject, both
ways.
However, I've also pointed out that sexist behavior isn't common in
talk.rape, as it is (among both sexes) in soc.men, soc.women,
alt.feminism, and other forums.
>Here, from two recent posts...
>
>- There is no 'solution' as such. I can quite understand a reluctance on your
>- part to share personal information on a forum currently infested by immature
>- adolescent males out to get cheap thrills (they're not always here BTW) - it
>- takes a thick skin. That said, there are many people here who still form the
>- real core of t.r. that will understand your situation, and if you wanted I'm
>- sure they'd be prepared to talk privately. I'm a man, and I don't do support
>- here out of principle (for obvious reasons - any woman coming here *should*
>- be automatically suspicious of a man who wants to learn details about the
>- experiences of a rape victim). But I can certainly vouch for many of the
>- women - Laurie, Cele, Ann, Kerry, Heather, (and of course anyone I've
>- forgotten...). They're all very caring people.
>-
>- I hope you find what you're looking for - if not here, then somewhere.
>-
>- John James (JJ)
>
I'm not sure what you're highlighting here, but JJ has already
clarified that he was referring to men offering support via private
email. I would think you would agree that accepting such support from
a stranger hanging out in t.r. is probably not the greatest idea.
And yes, it's probably true (even though it doesn't apply to me) that
more women respond better to other women, particularly if those women
can relate to their experiences.
It's probably also true that there are specific things that men are
better equipped to discuss with other men, than women would be, and
that men would likely be more comfortable discussing those subjects
with other men. Again, that doesn't apply to me, since the few men I
hang out with are more comfortable discussing these things with me
(and perhaps other women) than with men.
>and...
>
>- I am a survivor of child molestation and rape by my stepfather. I
>- dare anyone to tell me that I deserved it or that I seduced him. I
>- was only 6 when he first started coming into my room at night and I
>- was 12 when he raped me. I didn't press charges because the male
>- police officer that questioned me made me feel dirty and repulsed. I
>- challenge anyone to say that I came forward about my abuse out of
>- revenge or attention seeking. Furthermore I would like to see some of
>- you men raped and treated as indignantly as I and many other women.
>
>- Now I will be the first to admit that there are some women out there
>- that do cry wolf, but not all of us are like that. You shouldn't
>- group all of us together. Rape is not something to play around with.
>
>
>I don't know if you can see that there is a difference in the way
>men and women are portrayed, but it remains and it will remain even
>if you don't make such distinctions.
>
The latter post shows some negativity toward men by someone who was
upset by what she read here. I can understand why she'd be upset. It
doesn't mean that I think what she said was OK; she has since said she
doesn't really want to see any men raped or treated indignantly. I
believe that.
OTOH, I've often seen men from soc.men and alt.feminism expressing
negativity toward women because of experiences they've had, and those
men who have thought better of it have been allowed to back off and
say they didn't really mean it, that they were just frustrated and
angry. And then they've talked about what was behind the anger.
>> The actions of "women" or "men" don't have any special significance
>> to me.
>
>Well it does to JJ and 'just_me1issa' and so many others who have posted
>here in the past. Do you insist that it makes no difference to anyone?
>It's an issue whether you do it or not Laurie (and I don't recall that
>anyone's pointed that finger in your direction in this regard anyway,
>so you were never at issue here to begin with).
>
You're discussing it with me. I don't look at it the same way you do.
That's your handicap, IMO. It's perhaps my handicap that I am
individualistic, but I can live with that.
But, Rich, I don't look at men and women separately. It doesn't occur
to me, most of the time. You need to understand that.
>> Being female gives me exactly zero ties to other women.
>
>Funny, JJ thinks it makes you safer for female rape victims to talk
>to. I'd agree just because of who you are, but he has specifically
>singled out the women in the group, he says so himself. So if you
>have any issues with this it's with him (and all the others who have
>said similar things in the groups history), not with me for pointing
>it out.
>
I've already replied to JJ.
>> I'm interested in what *people* say,
>
>I don't see that WRT my posts Laurie. You seem interested in showing
>that what I say is wrong or questionable somehow. Why is Cele's
>perspecitive valid while mine is not?
>
1. The only perspective of Cele's here that is relevant is the
particular hostilities that bother her, since that is the only context
of Cele's here.
2. You're misinterpreting Cele's perspective. Doesn't that make you
wrong?
3. I often disagree with you, Rich, and you're provocative enough to
piss me off sometimes. You've pissed off more people in your years of
posting to deserve a medal. =P
>> which means that I pay as much attention to the bad things that men
>> say as to the bad things that women say. And I try to look at them as
>> the bad things that *people* say.
>
>Why is it that you always think you are at issue?
>
>Why is it that you think that if you don't do it it's not a problem and
>that it's wrong to bring it up or even discuss it?
>
>Why do you think that bringing up what you do or don't do is the
>end to any and every issue?
>
>I don't recall that you, what you do or what you don't do were ever
>at issue in this thread.
All I'm trying to show you is that I'm not hampered by the biases and
suspicions that you are.
> Have you forgotten Cele being bothered by the
>hostility in this group (but apparently not by the hostility of Ann
>or Heather)?
>
How could I forget? I've been trying to explain it to YOU.
>> >> Some of the people that have bothered Cele lately are
>> >> *generally* hostile to people concerned about rape.
>> >
>> >Since you cannot even identify Heathers constant unprovoked hostility,
>> >your viewpoint is so biased as to be worth little. No objectivity.
>> >Heather rarely even posts about rape, she is almost always simply
>> >attacking and denigrating others.
>>
>> Oh, Christ, Rich. Most of the posts to which you refer involve Heather
>> and Sky King exchanging insults. Big deal. You don't have to like it,
>> but it's not like either of them are unarmed.
>
>I don't think I'll touch that one. :^/
>
>But once again I note that you find issue with my perceptions (and I
>think you'll find your observation above a little restricted) but not
>with Cele's.
Er, Cele's perceptions about what hostilities bother her? Why would I
find issue with that? She's pretty much the expert on what sorts of
hostility bother her.
> Everything else being equal, you support Cele and question
>me.
Support Cele in *what*, exactly? She hasn't said anything that I find
controversial. She has simply said that certain hostile posts/posters
make her feel uncomfortable about posting sensitive information (come
to think of it, she may also be wary about posting this sort of
information just *knowing* there are people reading who might find it
titillating or amusing).
You have taken issue with this. No, you have created another issue
that has little to nothing to do with Cele's dilemma.
> I don't think your issue is 'what' so much as 'who'. Note, I
>don't think sex is your issue here, you'd support JJ as much, even when
>he slanders white men for things I've never done. That broad brush is
>OK when wielded by some it would seem.
>
JJ slanders white men? I don't remember that one.
JJ and I have disagreed now and then, sometimes significantly. I don't
unilaterally support anyone here, but there are people I agree with
more often than not. JJ is one of those people. My replies to him are
in the context of knowing him. So are my replies to you, for that
matter, and your replies to me. I know not to jump to conclusions
about you based on some snippet of a post, and you appear to trust my
words relatively well.
I won't respond that same way to some transient poster, or a
crossposter I don't know well.
OTOH, David and I recently argued rather strongly about sensationalism
in the media, and Neil and I got a little hot under our collars
arguing about the program by which U.S. mothers of newborns can safely
drop off their babies. I've argued with Heather about corporal
punishment for violent criminals. I've argued with Cele about age of
consent laws. I've occasionally gotten pissed off at Daran, and I've
argued with Alan now and then, too. I even argued with Baba once.
C'mon, I may not bite anyone's head off most of the time, but I'm not
totally meek with the people I like.
I'm closer to biting *your* head off than I am with those other
people, and you're farther away from biting my head off than you are
with most of those other people, and I think that balances us out
somewhat in a really weird way...
>> Otherwise, Heather bitches at the trolls now and then, and that's
>> pretty much it.
>
>Now and then? Her posts are not restricted to trolls and she does nothing
>else. If you dispute this show me just one substantial discussion in which
>she's taken an active part and said something beyond "yer an idiot".
>
I'm not online at the moment, so I can't dig up proof (although I can
try to remember for later), but I can tell you that I've seen her talk
about her daughter, her husband, Cele's family, my family, her
hairstyle, etc. I've seen her welcome new posters to the group, both
male and female. I've seen her talk about rape fantasy, about anger,
about being raped by an intimate partner. I've seen her talk to others
who have been raped by someone they were married to or otherwise
intimately involved with. I've seen her in any number of silly
threads. I've seen her express how she feels about others here.
This isn't really for me to say, but I suspect that bitching at trolls
and at posters she's at odds with is somewhat therapeutic to Heather.
It was for me, some time ago. And I think that's about all I'll say
unless Heather is interested in continuing the conversation.
>> And as far as you, she's not much more hostile to you than you are to
>> her.
>
>We seem to have reached an equilibrium of some sort.
>
The odd thing is, she probably likes you on some level, or wants to.
You always did have a way with the women here...
>> She *won't* try to work with you, Rich, the way others have.
>
>She's not tried to work with anyone Laurie.
>
You're misunderstanding me, Rich. A number of people over the years
have tried to show you that they're more than what you think they are,
and often it has worked. But Heather doesn't seem like the type to
bend over backward. Heather seems more like a "take me like I am"
person.
>> She *will* react when you call her a bitch, for example.
>
>I don't recall that I did so as such lately. But insofar as simply
>describing what she posts, I don't see any great innaccuracy. And I
>note that as with all other hostility by women that I've ever seen
>here, it's always acceptable and supported.
Heather has been criticized for hostile posts at various times by
several of the regulars here.
Hm. I'm going to oversimplify, Rich: Heather is on the "good" side wrt
talk.rape. She's concerned about rape and rape victims, which is the
primary focus of this group. Bob is on the "bad" side. So hostility by
Bob will be judged more harshly than hostility than Heather, since Bob
is mocking rape victims while Heather is on their side.
Doesn't that make some sense?
> Hostility by men is
>treated differently. This is an observation, and it is accurate.
>
No. Hostility by talk.rape regulars (and some others who have special
concerns about rape) is treated differently than hostility by people
who express negativity toward rape victims, people who express
negativity toward talk.rape regulars, people who are trolls, etc.
>> She's a hothead.
>
>I'm not sure exactly what this means. But to the extent it's true
>it seems as accurate as describing the ocean as 'damp'.
>
LOL.
Is it really so bad for Heather to be a hothead? Are you really so
bothered by her hostility toward people who you don't seem to read
much in the first place? Are you bothered because it's mostly men? If
so, you'll notice she's wrangled with Ellen a bit. I don't think
Heather targets men with her bullseye...
>> Again, you don't have to like it, but it's
>> unrealistic to say it's unprovoked.
>
>It's accurate, she posts nothing else regardless. There are many
>discussions in which she can take part, she chooses not to. All she
>does is find something to bitch about (note the verb useage) and
>then she does so. If you dispute this show me where she has done
>something else.
>
I addressed this a bit earlier in this post.
>> > For some reason, it seems acceptable
>> >for her to do so, when it is not acceptable for Bob or other male (??)
>> >posters. Why is this Laurie?
>>
>> So it *is* about the sex of the posters for you. <grumble>
>
>Not to me, to TR posters.
>
According to YOU. Most of us would dispute this.
OK. I can turn this around easily enough. For some reason, you don't
seem bothered by Bob's hostility, but you're bothered by Heather's.
Why is that? Could it be because Heather is concerned about rape
issues and Bob is concerned about men's issues?
>Shall I review all the women who's initial (and subsequent) posts have
>been hostile and often outright misandrist who have recieved not one
>word of rebuke from TR regulars, who have been supported no matter what
>they said?
Sure.
But what of the women who've come here with hostile misandrist views
who have been criticized?
Also, it's true that people here sometimes try to take into
consideration that rape victims may have skewed perspectives, and will
sometimes be gentle in their rebukes.
I don't like to see sexistly skewed perspectives as a result of rape,
and I will challenge them when I see them, but I won't avoid
understanding how it can happen.
> I cannot right off think of a single exception (male or female,
>recalling DLK, Luke H, atheisticmystic, and others).
>
Um, give me a break. The three you've mentioned have all received some
negativity. I think the majority of regulars argued with
atheisticmysic, incidentally. I don't remember Luke very well, but I
think I was one who argued with him.
Jean Collins. She was extremely negative at first and was extremely
negatively received by most regulars. She later settled down and was
accepted; I think you and she even had a semblence of cordiality much
of the time. ;)
And remember, there used to be lots of crossposts from alt.feminism.
Marg and Carol Ann and Meri and other feminists (those three are
obvious thorns) never, ever got along well with posters over here.
>I don't know why you claim that the sex of the poster makes no difference,
>it seems to me the aspect that makes the major difference (whether you
>personally think it important or not).
>
I'm quite glad that it doesn't make a difference to me. It means that
I'm open to what the poster has to say.
I admit to having some preconceptions about men and women; I try to
keep them to a reasonable level, though, and to keep them to myself.
>> But this isn't about you,
>
>No Laurie, this isn't about you.
>
I thought it was about Cele when I wrote the post you replied to.
>> and it isn't about the sex of posters. It's
>> about the specific posters and posts that feel hostile to Cele. It's
>> not up to you to decide whether it's "fair" for Cele to feel this way.
>
>I note the quote marks around the word "fair".
>
>Perhaps you can show me where I used the word?
>
You didn't, and I didn't quote you. I put it in quotes because I think
it's a silly notion, that Cele should look at all hostility equally.
>> Bob is almost universally hostile to virtually all female posters here
>> and to most of the t.r. men as well.
>
>So why is Bob's hostility bad while Heather's is not?
>
I've been bothered at times by Heather's hostility, and I've said so.
We disagree about some things, while agreeing on some other things.
And we are in agreement that rape is a bad thing, which is something
the rest of the core group of regulars can easily agree on, too.
That makes Heather's hostility less problematic than Bob's, who is
antagonistic toward rape victims and mocking of rape.
>> He scoffs at rape ("Sex is a normal, pleasurable body function. Rape
>> is normal pleasurable body function, even sometimes including orgasm,
>> with a disagreement over who is to decide.").
>
>Maybe, maybe not. He claims that these posts were forged. He made the
>same claim when the original was posted. Perhaps you can show that he
>is lying when he claims they were forged. I'm not defending Bob in
>general, but who would you hold respobsible for forged posts? I'd place
>responsibility on the forger, but that's just me.
>
The forger *quoted* Bob, who said that quote, and similar variations,
on numerous occasions over the past year, and did not shy away from
taking credit for it, including during arguments with me. I certainly
expressed hostility toward Bob in those arguments, and I don't regret
it (except it being a collosal waste of time). I don't have a problem
with hostility per se.
>> He claims to see anti-male hate in *every* bit of
>> discussion over rape as a traumatic experience.
>
>This I'll accept. Do you claim that he's 100% wrong, or just wrong
>in seeing it 100% of the time?
>
The latter, although I'd say it's not there 95 percent of the time he
points it out in t.r., depending on what transients may be around at
the time.
>> He has made many
>> despicable comments here, general ones as well as comments to
>> individuals who have not even been talking to him.
>
>It seems OK when Ann does this.
>
Ann doesn't make despicable comments, Rich. I don't throw that word
around lightly.
>> However, Bob does not, to my knowledge, post to talk.rape-only
>> threads, which is a plus. But Bateau, Darkfalz, XXX (and perhaps a
>> couple of other trolls) do.
>
>You might want to point out to Cele that these posters are not TR
>regulars and that it's OK to skip their posts.
>
Why? She already knows this. Why are you being so condescending? Why
does it *bother* you that she reads their posts and is upset by them?
>> Yes, someone could decide not to read what
>> they write, but it's understandable that they might not.
>
>If they claim to be bothered by them I don't understand it at all.
>If taking asprin gave you a headache, would you keep taking it?
>
No, but there would be no possible benefit to taking aspirin if it did
the opposite of what it's supposed to do. Reading posts keeps one
informed, whether they upset you or not. Cele apparently doesn't want
to censor the posts, but ALSO feels that in the current climate, there
are things she doesn't feel comfortable talking about.
>> Some trolls get to some people more than others do.
>
>True.
>
>> I've posted recently about
>> being perplexed that some people will publicly drool over rape and/or
>> say things that are cruel to rape victims.
>
>That's what trolls do Laurie, they post contentious material with the
>intent of upsetting people,
I know, Rich. It doesn't make it any less perplexing that people will
publicly display themselves as awful people.
>normally crossposted to groups that are at
>cross purpose and normally crossposted to AUK. The fact that several
>regulars have started adding AUK is and should be rather disturbing.
>
I never even heard of AUK until the past year, when Peter Ross started
posting. The whole thing makes me scratch my head.
>> >> Furthermore, there are two or three posters right now who are talking
>> >> about rape in a "fun" way. That makes for a creepy atmosphere for
>> >> someone to talk about sensitive things wrt rape, whether for
>> >> themselves or for a loved one who was raped.
>> >
>> >As I said, trolls don't characterise any group.
>>
>> So? No one's said they do. The atmosphere still exists, though.
>
>Newsgroups have no air. There is no ambiance but for the posts you
>read. Troll posts do not create an atmosphere, they are smoke easily
>brushed aside. If you choose to breath the smoke, you choose what
>you percieve as atmosphere.
>
You speak about atmosphere, in so many words, just as surely as I do.
The trolls in talk.rape have become prolific enough that they are
affecting the overall tone of the group. If you can ignore them,
great. But would you ignore female trolls who spewed anti-male
bullshit? I don't think so.
>> >> And for Cele, that loved one is her child.
>> >
>> >The issue was hostility.
>>
>> No, the issue was the particular hostility that bothered Cele.
>
>I'm raising an issue Laurie, please stop spitting on it.
>
This is the first indication that you were raising a separate issue.
Yet you still seem to be saying that you're talking about what Cele
said, which is completely at odds with the issue you're raising.
>> > I want to know why Ann's and Heather's
>> >hostiltity not only does not count,
>>
>> Are you being deliberately simplistic?
>
>I'm asking a question. Your own hostility does not answer it.
>
You asked a question that in context did not make sense. The issue
Cele raised was about specific hostility; Heather's and Ann's
hostility isn't part of that specific hostility, so it can't count, in
*that* context.
I already ended up addressing what you said about Ann's and Heather's
hostility, I think.
As far as my own hostility to which you refer above, I was simply at a
loss to understand how you could warp so much of what Cele said to you
about the hostility that concerned her.
>> The issue was never about hostility in general.
>
>That's always the issue I raised, don't tell me what it is or
>what it is not.
>
If that's always the issue you raised, why did you apply it to Cele?
They are two completely separate issues.
>> You've been told this already by Cele.
>
>I'm not talking about Cele
I had no way of knowing that, Rich. You *were* talking about Cele,
throughout this post. How am I supposed to figure out at which point
you stop talking about her and raise a new issue, especially since you
seemed unable to understand that she wasn't upset by hostility per se?
> and your dismissiveness is as upsetting
>as your attempt to piss on the issue I myself have raised (even if
>you are too pig headed to address is).
>
How am I dismissive?
1. I had no way of knowing that you were piggybacking on Cele's issue
to bring up another issue.
2. I don't agree with you on your basic premise. I disagree *strongly*
with you on your basic premise.
>> > but is not even acknowledged
>> >as such even when that is the subject.
>>
>> Cele gets to decide the subject, since she brought it up.
>
>I get to decide what the issues I bring up are, and this is my issue.
>
Then take credit for it. You have been acting as if your issue is what
Cele brought up; you have been acting as if Cele were complaining
about hostility per se. You know she wasn't. And you never said that
you were going off in a different direction; the implication was
always that you were addressing the issue that Cele brought up.
>> > Can you tell me? You've
>> >raised hostility by myself as an issue in the past,
>>
>> Yes, I have. The vast majority of your hostility, however, I have
>> ignored over the years, as I do the hostility of some other people.
>>
>> > and it's the
>> >issue here and now, so why is it that the hostility of women
>> >posting here is not at issue as well. Women posting similarly in
>> >the past have been treated the same BTW.
>>
>> The hostility of men posting here is not at issue, Rich.
>
>Name one woman who's hostililty has ever been an issue for TR regulars
>Laurie. Just one.
>
Jean Collins.
Val (V...@notyour.biz), who posted for a while and was quite hostile
for some of that time, particularly toward men.
Lots of the soc.men/alt.feminism feminists via crossposts.
An assortment of "fragile" and/or angry women who used their
experiences as an excuse to lash out at male posters.
Etc. I can't figure out how to isolate posts like this through Google,
because these women don't tend to stick around long. But I did give
you more than the one you asked for.
>> The hostility of women posting here is not at issue.
>
>It never is. That's the point.
>
And that's not true. You won't accept that, even when you have
witnessed us (and other former regulars) criticizing specific women's
hostilities over the years. Some of us have even bitched at some
women who have attacked you. It's frustrating that you forget who we
are and what's important to us. The common thread that unites most of
us here is the issue of rape as it is experienced by its victims. When
people are hostile toward rape victims and hostile about rape, that is
going to be seen as a greater evil than being hostile toward those
posters. It only makes sense.
>Shall I post some blasts from the past to illustrate?
You could if you wanted to, but what would be the point? You could dig
up some examples of women who posted negative stuff and weren't
admonished for it, and I could dig up some examples of women who
posted negative stuff and *were* admonished for it. Big deal.
I could also dig up examples of men who posted negative stuff and
weren't admonished for it. We're not so sensitive that we have to call
out the sexist police at every turn.
Laurie
Bateau
." ". Wed, 07 Jan 2004 23:29:50 +0000
| . ` ` | in
\( )/ talk.rape,
// >..< \\ spoke
|__.' vv '.__/ 35
>On 6 Jan 2004 18:17:23 -0800, grigo...@yahoo.com (robertmaasjr)
Admitting that you're a troll now?
Bateau
." ". 08 Jan 2004 02:07:16 GMT
| . ` ` | in
\( )/ talk.rape,
// >..< \\ spoke
|__.' vv '.__/ 136
>>dedhea...@aol.comnospam (DEDHeather94) wrote in message
>>news:<20040106142915...@mb-m05.aol.com>...
>>
>>> >Since you cannot even identify Heathers constant unprovoked hostility,
>>> >your viewpoint is so biased as to be worth little. No objectivity.
>>> >Heather rarely even posts about rape,
>>>
>>> That is a flat out lie, but I've come to expect that from you.
>>
>>Post a link to the last post where you responded to the issue of
>>rape, FRAs, recovery, or anything else topical then.
>
>Look under the thread "Rape is NEVER ok" and you'll see where I was trying to
>be helpful to a recent poster. I do that, Rich, whether you've seen me do it
>or not.
All you did is whine to the new person about how much you hate everyone
in here. That's hardly topical.
Sky King
wrote:
CHUCKLE, No one does it like Sky King.
Sky King
They wouldn't admit it even if they believed it.
>
> >You could be if you tried Heather.
>
> Thank you for saying so, Rich. Really. But for various reasons I haven't felt
> like trying.
You are kidding?
>
> >How about it, just once this year, post something which is not simply
> >an attack, flame, troll, or denigration alone. Just one post.
>
> Already have, but we covered that.
>
> >I'm not holding my breath.
>
> No, don't turn blue on my account. :)
>
> >Rich
>
> Be well, Rich. I mean that. Believe it or not I mean no harm.
>
> Heather
I don't believe you.
Sky King
wrote:
So now you try to clarify.........too late.
Can you say,, IN THE DARK?
Rich
> >dedhea...@aol.comnospam (DEDHeather94) wrote in message
> >news:<20040106142915...@mb-m05.aol.com>...
> >
> >> >Since you cannot even identify Heathers constant unprovoked hostility,
> >> >your viewpoint is so biased as to be worth little. No objectivity.
> >> >Heather rarely even posts about rape,
> >>
> >> That is a flat out lie, but I've come to expect that from you.
> >
> >Post a link to the last post where you responded to the issue of
> >rape, FRAs, recovery, or anything else topical then.
>
> Look under the thread "Rape is NEVER ok" and you'll see where I was trying to
> be helpful to a recent poster. I do that, Rich, whether you've seen me do it
> or not.
Your first post to that thread was yesterday, same day as my post.
I found it. You said little, but it was not your usual flames. Thank you.
> >> You really can't stop talking about me, can you?
> >
> >You're just so cute.
>
> Keep it up. I'm a sucker for flattery.
>
> >> >she is almost always simply attacking and denigrating others.
> >>
> >> Those who troll the group to say rapists are heros and such, that's right.
> >> Do YOU think rapists are heros, Rich?
> >
> >Of course, dosen't everybody?
> >
> >> If not, then what's your problem with my denigrating those who say so?
> >
> >You know, right now Cele is posting about the atmosphere of the group.
> >Like it or not, understand it or not, your post's are little different
> >from the troll posts, and they do contribute to the atmosphere. They
> >are not a positive contribution Heather.
>
> I acknowledged that very thing recently. I know it isn't and maybe it's time
> for a break. Nobody really needs my help dealing with trolls and Sky King is
> getting terribly boring.
You two alone swamp out all the regular postings (in volume). Volume is
still low enough that it's easy to pick off the posts potentially worth
reading. But as yours were all the same, I stopped reading them (unless
I was bored).
> >I'd be shocked if you responsed to an OT post with something relevant or
> >informative.
>
> Rich, I'd be more than happy to look up something relative or informative
> I've posted recently, but google isn't my friend because it freezes my
> computer every time I try to use it. It's not an excuse, just the truth.
My off the cuff analysis is that you are using an old browser. Upgrading to
a newer browser might help. Oh wait, you're using AOL. Perhaps they could
help you?
> But if you really want to see, be my guest. If you can't find any I
> won't kick about it.
I'll admit that they are not totally missing, just extremely rare. Would not
half-and-half be a better proportion?
> > But as it is, all you do is attack the trolls or me or
> >anyone else who you don't like.
>
> Ok I have to call bs on that, because I haven't attacked you ONCE since you
> came back. The only thing I said to you was to ask you not to start with me
> when you started talking about me again and I agreed beforehand to do the
> same. But you had to drag me into this so I felt I should respond. In
> other words, you attacked first.
Well, it was not really an attack so much as a description. Inasmuch as
the context was DLK claiming that I'd disagree with him no matter what he
posted, I thought it relevant to acknowledge something I agreed with and
there it was.
> > Is two troll posts an improvement over one Heather?
>
> Maybe not. I try to throw humor into my flames of trolls to give the rest of
> you a chuckle (oh lord I said chuckle).
But it's not like clever insults are rare and unusual, it's pretty much
all that you see in sitcoms and the net. And a flame remains a flame even
in a pretty wrapping. The tone remains.
> But seriously, if my doing that is
> bothering the rest of the regulars I'll stop.
Don't know about everyone else, but I find it annoying.
> Like I said, I probably need a break anyway.
You deserve a break today. No wait, that means you have to eat at McD's. :^/
> >> For some reason, it seems acceptable
> >> >for her to do so, when it is not acceptable for Bob or other male (??)
> >> >posters. Why is this Laurie?
> >>
> >> Sit on it Richard.
> >
> >You have me confused with your callers.
>
> LOL! Actually I tell them to do more than sit on it, but I digress....
LOL. No doubt you give them detailed advice. :^/
> >> Neither Ann nor I are any more hostile than YOU
> >
> >You are always hostile Heather, it's what you do. It's all you do.
>
> Yes, I've been hostile lately with scumbags who only come in here to
> say cruel things to and about rape victims.
But not to posters who wish that some t.r. posters be raped. How is
that? Do you think posts like that deserve some attention?
> I'm never hostile to one and all.
No, you are selective.
> >It's not all I do, what I do every post, or all I've done since I
> >got here.
>
> True, you've posted about serious issues, but you can't seem to do so without
> saying something about how TR posters don't think what you're saying is
> serious.
You mean like Dymaxia claiming that the idea behind posting about FRAs
was to discredit real rape victims?
----
From: dymax1a (dym...@ripco.com)
Subject: Re: Frequent false reports: where's the evidence?
(was: Re: Rape Education Story #60
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Date: 2003-11-25 08:08:59 PST
[...]
Also, I have no idea whether rape "allegations" are more common
than any other type of allegation. How can we even know
how many people are "lying" when a lot of them don't even
come forward?
Do you understand - they are using this "false accusation"
stuff to discredit ANYONE who says they were raped,
whether they go to the police or not.
-- Kerry
-----
> They do--and so do I, but you're just not listening to them.
I don't see much of a response, except some like Kerry's.
> >> and that's on your good days.
> >
> >I've posted more discussion today than you have since you got
> >here Heather.
>
> You've clearly not read all my posts.
As I said, most are pretty much the same.
> But it doesn't really matter. Think what you want.
Why thank you.
> >> You just don't like us because we won't bend over backwards
> >> to kiss your ass. Deal with it.
> >
> >I understand that you think attacking me solves the problem, that's
> >what you do, attack people.
>
> I don't understand how responding to your attack is an attack on you.
I made an observation, not an attack. It was not 'too' you, but about
how you post.
> And understand it or not, you are not
> >really much different from those you complain about.
>
> Ok, that's a reasonable statement. If the rest of t.r. feels the same
> way then maybe I should leave.
I've not seen any indication that this is so (or indeed, any indication
at all except an occasional random comment).
> Would that make you happy?
No.
> Not being sarcastic here although it probably reads that way.
I'm just suggesting that you could do better than you are doing, if
you agree that trolling trolls is not at all productive.
> >You could be if you tried Heather.
>
> Thank you for saying so, Rich. Really. But for various reasons I
> haven't felt like trying.
Well do as you wish. But do keep in mind that this is what people see
of you. And while I doubt anyone's gonna complain, it does affect the
group's tone. I'm just not sure that being a mini alt.flame is to any
groups credit (except possibly alt.flame's :^)
> >How about it, just once this year, post something which is not simply
> >an attack, flame, troll, or denigration alone. Just one post.
>
> Already have, but we covered that.
Then let's try for two, shall we?
> >I'm not holding my breath.
>
> No, don't turn blue on my account. :)
But blue is my color. :^/
> >Rich
>
> Be well, Rich. I mean that. Believe it or not I mean no harm.
And you also.
Rich
> Heather
Sky King
Why is that Heather..because you can't get me to call you names? Will
it help you if I do?
>
>You two alone swamp out all the regular postings (in volume). Volume is
>still low enough that it's easy to pick off the posts potentially worth
>reading. But as yours were all the same, I stopped reading them (unless
>I was bored).
>
>> >I'd be shocked if you responsed to an OT post with something relevant or
>> >informative.
>>
>> Rich, I'd be more than happy to look up something relative or informative
>> I've posted recently, but google isn't my friend because it freezes my
>> computer every time I try to use it. It's not an excuse, just the truth.
>
>My off the cuff analysis is that you are using an old browser. Upgrading to
>a newer browser might help. Oh wait, you're using AOL. Perhaps they could
>help you?
>
>> But if you really want to see, be my guest. If you can't find any I
>> won't kick about it.
>
>I'll admit that they are not totally missing, just extremely rare. Would not
>half-and-half be a better proportion?
>
>> > But as it is, all you do is attack the trolls or me or
>> >anyone else who you don't like.
>>
>> Ok I have to call bs on that, because I haven't attacked you ONCE since you
>> came back.
You attack me every chance you get and I have not attacked you
lately..so Rich is right, you do it to anyone who you do not like.
The only thing I said to you was to ask you not to start with me
>> when you started talking about me again and I agreed beforehand to do the
>> same. But you had to drag me into this so I felt I should respond. In
>> other words, you attacked first.
>
>Well, it was not really an attack so much as a description. Inasmuch as
>the context was DLK claiming that I'd disagree with him no matter what he
>posted, I thought it relevant to acknowledge something I agreed with and
>there it was.
>
>> > Is two troll posts an improvement over one Heather?
>>
>> Maybe not. I try to throw humor into my flames of trolls to give the rest of
>> you a chuckle (oh lord I said chuckle).
And what makes you think we get a chuckle from what you post. Its the
most unfunny stuff here.
>
>But it's not like clever insults are rare and unusual, it's pretty much
>all that you see in sitcoms and the net. And a flame remains a flame even
>in a pretty wrapping. The tone remains.
>
>> But seriously, if my doing that is
>> bothering the rest of the regulars I'll stop.
Who do you consider the regulars? I am more of a regular then most.
If we had a club and some members had belonged to that club for
years but had only attended some of the meetings would they be more
of a regular than the person that had been a member of the club for
less time but showed up more often? Its participation that makes one
a regular...not length of time belonging.............
DEDHeather94
>to
>>be helpful to a recent poster. I do that, Rich, whether you've seen me do
>it
>>or not.
>
>All you did is whine to the new person about how much you hate everyone
>in here. That's hardly topical.
>--
On the contrary, I was warning a new person about the trolls in here and how
they would most likely make hurtful comments to her. I was right, too. HTH
Heather
Bateau
." ". 08 Jan 2004 20:07:33 GMT
| . ` ` | in
\( )/ talk.rape,
\)__. _._(/ DEDHeather94
// >..< \\ spoke
>>>Look under the thread "Rape is NEVER ok" and you'll see where I was trying
>>to
>>>be helpful to a recent poster. I do that, Rich, whether you've seen me do
>>it
>>>or not.
>>
>>All you did is whine to the new person about how much you hate everyone
>>in here. That's hardly topical.
>
>On the contrary, I was warning a new person about the trolls in here and how
>they would most likely make hurtful comments to her. I was right, too. HTH
Hardly topical help. Just complaining about and insulting other posters
as usual.
Rich
> On 7 Jan 2004 11:24:32 -0800, rpa...@mybluelight.com (Rich) wrote:
[...]
Blatantly.
> Well, shit, color me hostile. And you.
I don't recall ever claiming that I was not hostile. Are you claiming
that I have?
> And pretty much everyone else here.
What I said was that Ann is "often" hostile. She is. I think your
response is another example of dismissive posting. And it's not like
it's an attack on Ann so much as a simple observation. The fact
that you cannot recognise it is slightly disturbing.
Rich
> Laurie
[...]
Rich
> On 7 Jan 2004 11:24:32 -0800, rpa...@mybluelight.com (Rich) wrote:
>
> >Laurie S. <lauri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<f3anvvstgi3d138i5...@4ax.com>...
[...]
> >> > and it's the
> >> >issue here and now, so why is it that the hostility of women
> >> >posting here is not at issue as well. Women posting similarly in
> >> >the past have been treated the same BTW.
> >>
> >> The hostility of men posting here is not at issue, Rich.
> >
> >Name one woman who's hostililty has ever been an issue for TR regulars
> >Laurie. Just one.
>
> Jean Collins.
>
> Val (V...@notyour.biz), who posted for a while and was quite hostile
> for some of that time, particularly toward men.
I've been looking again at the threads with Val, and you know, I can't
find any posts where her hostility was an issue. I can't find many
posts
where there's even much that looks like disagreement (by t.r.
regulars).
This is as close as I can find so far that's a disagreement with her
words (and it's really the same kind of an excuse Melissa got). And of
course, being offered an excuse Val took it.
- From: Kerry Keane (lud...@ripco.com)
- Subject: Re: Rich Payne Is A *Thoroughly* Abusive Person (was - Val:
- registered misandrist.
- Newsgroups: soc.men, alt.feminism, talk.rape
- Date: 1998/01/21
-
- Luis Bueno (lu...@NOSPAM.bueno.net) wrote:
- : On 21 Jan 1998 19:52:18 GMT, lud...@ripco.com (Kerry Keane)
wrote:
- : > I think they both suck. But where did Val state that
- : > all men want to beat their wives and sexually
- : > abuse children? I haven't been following the VAWA
- : > threads, I'll admit.
-
- __________________________________(from DejaNews):_______________
-
- : [Val responded:]
- : The right to have the best jobs, the right to abuse women, the
right
- : to have sex with underage children, the privilege to demand
deference
- : and respect without reciprocity ... these are all presumptions of
a
- : patriarchal society. Shall I continue?
-
- I don't agree with this, but it's not saying that *all* men
- *want* to beat their wives and sexually abuse children.
- She is making the argument, if I may paraphrase, that
- in a sexist society, men have license to do these things.
- Again, I disagree, but I certainly believe that in the
- past, white men have had these licenses. I feel Val's
- language is too sweeping and hyperbolic, and doesn't
- clarify issues of sexism in our society.
-
- However, IMO someone can hold such views without
- indicting all men. I do think there is a difference
- between an analysis in which men have all power
- and privilege, and one in which all men are rapists
- and batterers.
-
- Mostly, I see views like Val's
- expressed by young women, late teens to early
- 20s, who are just discovering feminism, and who
- are just becoming aware of how shabbily they were
- treated when they were growing up. A lot of
- anger comes out at that time, which is why
- you see some overreaction sometimes on the
- part of college women around the issue of rape.
- However untrue this analysis might be *globally*
- speaking, it is unfortunately still true in a lot
- of families. In an oppressive family situation,
- you don't get much opportunity to "compare notes"
- with the rest of the world. So while
- I might disagree with these views on a rational
- level, I can understand why someone who
- is only recently coming out of a really bad situation
- might feel that way.
-
- _________________________________
-
- Kerry L. Keane
- http://www.ripco.com:8080/~luddite
Here's this threads URL.
Oh, here's JJ's defense of Val's words.
- From: John James (J...@btch.demon.co.uk)
- Subject: Re: Rich Payne Is A *Thoroughly* Abusive Person (was - Val:
- registered misandrist.
- Newsgroups: alt.feminism, soc.men, talk.rape
- Date: 1998/01/21
-
- In the news article <34c60234...@news.enterprise.net> dated 21
Jan
- 1998, it was said by ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk (Angilion) that ...
-
- > On Tue, 20 Jan 1998 14:08:15 GMT, m...@netcom.com (Mark S. Bilk)
wrote:
- >
- > [..]
- >
- > So Rich uses the insult "bitch" a lot. Whoopie do. It is
- > far more abusive to state that men want to beat their
- > wives and sexually abuse children, which Val has
- > done.
-
- Oh come *on*. This witch-hunt is starting to remind me of the
- 'white male stain of oppression' farrago, and is at least as
- unsavoury. She *didn't* say that, Angilion, and you ought to
- know better. She said they are "presumptions of a patriarchal
- society", which is way different from claiming that all men
- want to do it. I think it was an unfortunate post, and I don't
- agree with the sentiments myself, but this hysterical reaction
- is again completely out of proportion to the alleged offense.
-
- You dismiss Rich's persistent abuse to less experienced posters
- as though it were a trifle. It's not - it's uncalled-for, it's
- insulting, and it's indefensible. I am not above indulging in
- the odd light ad hominem myself, but if I were to consistently
- start referring to certain anti-feminists (naming no names ;-))
- as 'thick pigs' or 'stinking bastards', the very people who are
- now defending his liberal use of 'stupid bitch' would be
- all over me like a rash. That's because, with a few exceptions,
- they're a bunch of hypocrites who like to hunt as a pack.
-
- John James (JJ)
Feel free to show me a single objection to Val's hostility. I'd be
amazed if you could even find a t.r. regular who actually objected
to her words, rather than defending them directly or obliquely.
The other posters I'll get to later, time allowing.
> Laurie
Rich
John James
[...]
> Oh, here's JJ's defense of Val's words.
Since we're on the subject for some reason (it *was* over 5 years ago you
know), I *actually* said that I thought her post was unfortunate, and I
didn't agree with the sentiments. That's hardly the same as a spirited
defense, is it? I was criticising the hysterical reaction you whipped up
over the issue as I recall - rather as I did during your earlier campaign
against Anna and the 'white male stain of oppression'. It's a pattern you've
long adopted.
>
> Feel free to show me a single objection to Val's hostility. I'd be
> amazed if you could even find a t.r. regular who actually objected
> to her words, rather than defending them directly or obliquely.
Angilion. I was replying to his attack on Val in the post you quoted if
you'll notice.
>
> The other posters I'll get to later, time allowing.
Oh, the anticipation - I can't wait...
>
> > Laurie
>
> Rich
John James (JJ)
Rich
>
>"Rich" <rpa...@mybluelight.com> wrote in message
>news:3a256c50.0401...@posting.google.com...
>[...]
>> Oh, here's JJ's defense of Val's words.
>[...]
>
>Since we're on the subject for some reason (it *was* over 5 years ago you
>know), I *actually* said that I thought her post was unfortunate, and I
>didn't agree with the sentiments. That's hardly the same as a spirited
>defense, is it?
It rather reads as a defense JJ.
>I was criticising the hysterical reaction you whipped up
>over the issue as I recall - rather as I did during your earlier campaign
>against Anna and the 'white male stain of oppression'. It's a pattern you've
>long adopted.
The subject here however, is Laurie's claim that many here objected
to her hostility, and I've not found a single example of that yet,
you don't object to her hostility.
And WRT to her words, I seem to recall that you defended Anna's
"stain of the white male oppression of women" as well. Given your
current remarks about white males, it's hardly a surprise that your
bigotry resonated with hers. No doubt those white males at the
pub whom you found so objectionable are deeply as stained by the
white male oppression of women as are all white men, said stain
being carried on the skin and genitals of all white men. All white
men are no doubt responsible for the actions of any white man in
Anna's world, and yours. Make all the excuses you want JJ, her
words remain highly offensive bigotry, as does your defense of
them and her.
>> Feel free to show me a single objection to Val's hostility. I'd be
>> amazed if you could even find a t.r. regular who actually objected
>> to her words, rather than defending them directly or obliquely.
>
>Angilion. I was replying to his attack on Val in the post you quoted if
>you'll notice.
I don't think Angilion was responding to her hostility any more
than you were, rather it was the claims she made that he responded to.
Unlike you he did find them objectionable.
>> The other posters I'll get to later, time allowing.
>
>Oh, the anticipation - I can't wait...
Try a few beers to kill the time JJ.
Rich
Laurie S.
>Laurie S. <lauri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<qampvv052rbjeo5se...@4ax.com>...
>> On 7 Jan 2004 11:24:32 -0800, rpa...@mybluelight.com (Rich) wrote:
>>
>> >Laurie S. <lauri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<f3anvvstgi3d138i5...@4ax.com>...
>
>[...]
>
>> >> > and it's the
>> >> >issue here and now, so why is it that the hostility of women
>> >> >posting here is not at issue as well. Women posting similarly in
>> >> >the past have been treated the same BTW.
>> >>
>> >> The hostility of men posting here is not at issue, Rich.
>> >
>> >Name one woman who's hostililty has ever been an issue for TR regulars
>> >Laurie. Just one.
>>
>> Jean Collins.
>>
>> Val (V...@notyour.biz), who posted for a while and was quite hostile
>> for some of that time, particularly toward men.
>
>I've been looking again at the threads with Val, and you know, I can't
>find any posts where her hostility was an issue. I can't find many
>posts
>where there's even much that looks like disagreement (by t.r.
>regulars).
[...]
>Feel free to show me a single objection to Val's hostility. I'd be
>amazed if you could even find a t.r. regular who actually objected
>to her words, rather than defending them directly or obliquely.
Well, I'll try to accommodate your request at some point, but for now
I will just point out a few people who did bitch at Val:
Me, JJ and Dan Holzman. While JJ was complaining at *you* in the post
you pasted in here, his initial encounters with Val were quite
negative, as were mine and Dan's. I think averti and Avedon had some
negative words for Val as well.
Laurie
Rich
I just posted JJ's response Laurie, it was nothing if not supportive.
>While JJ was complaining at *you* in the post
>you pasted in here, his initial encounters with Val were quite
>negative, as were mine and Dan's.
So you say. I read some of the threads and saw not one objection to
her hostility, and that was your specific claim Laurie.
>I think averti
Yeah, right.
>and Avedon had some negative words for Val as well.
Avedon posted negative words about anti-feminists, whom she styled
as women-haters and then in a later post she also said that there
was a thin line between the two easily crossed. In fact, the
only clearly negative words I can recall Avedon posting were about
anti-feminists and those racists who oppose Affirmative Racism,
something Avedon never once did.
If you claim she has negative words I'll have to see them.
No doubt after reading them one has the exact opposite impression,
as when talking about FRAs Avedon's two stories were about women
who recant (she never ever addressed that they don't give a man
his life back) and a man who was acquitted of rape and admitted
on the court steps that he really did it. Avedon's support of
men was in many ways in-line with Meri's, except that she was
far more subtle about it.
But you can always show me.
Rich
>Laurie
Laurie S.
That was one post. Others were not like that. JJ himself also recently
pointed that out.
>>While JJ was complaining at *you* in the post
>>you pasted in here, his initial encounters with Val were quite
>>negative, as were mine and Dan's.
>
>So you say. I read some of the threads and saw not one objection to
>her hostility, and that was your specific claim Laurie.
>
Not even Dan's? Really? He was rather incensed with her over her
scornful attitude toward domestic violence and sexual assault
resources for men.
>>I think averti
>
>Yeah, right.
>
What? You think averti didn't get pissy with the womenfolk?
>>and Avedon had some negative words for Val as well.
>
>Avedon posted negative words about anti-feminists, whom she styled
>as women-haters and then in a later post she also said that there
>was a thin line between the two easily crossed.
I vaguely remember this, oddly enough -- the latter part, anyway. If
she "styled" antifeminists as women-haters, though, how could there be
a thin line to cross?
And while antifeminism isn't women-hating per se, there's sure a lot
to go around among antifeminists on Usenet.
> In fact, the
>only clearly negative words I can recall Avedon posting were about
>anti-feminists and those racists who oppose Affirmative Racism,
>something Avedon never once did.
>
I can't parse most of this. Are you saying that otherwise Avedon never
said negative words, or that these are the only negative words she
said in the Val threads?
>If you claim she has negative words I'll have to see them.
>No doubt after reading them one has the exact opposite impression,
>as when talking about FRAs Avedon's two stories were about women
>who recant (she never ever addressed that they don't give a man
>his life back) and a man who was acquitted of rape and admitted
>on the court steps that he really did it.
Er, Rich, Avedon posted scads of information about FRAs and the men
who have been harmed by them. It was of major concern to her and she
was aware of many cases.
> Avedon's support of
>men was in many ways in-line with Meri's, except that she was
>far more subtle about it.
>
That's one of the most ludicrous statements I've ever seen on Usenet.
Meri indeed.
For the benefit of those who haven't had the pleasure, Meri was a
lesbian feminist college student who posted to alt.feminism and was
planning to become a lawyer. I think she may actually have been one of
those feminists who like Dworkin and MacKinnon. She was into
male-bashing and was scornful toward most of the men around here and
the non-feminist women, as well as any feminist women (Kerry, Avedon,
etc.) who weren't "feminist enough." I remember she called me "leper"
and averti "perverti."
>But you can always show me.
I had the urge to make some sort of snappy comeback with the words
"blow me," but I couldn't work it in. Can you think of anything? ;)
Laurie
Rich
You claim it is not representative?
>Others were not like that.
I'm from Kansas, show me. Is that Kansas?
>JJ himself also recently pointed that out.
JJ has claimed other meanings for the word "malicious" but
as usual he can't post a single reference to one. Pardon
me if I hold out for the evidence. You got any?
>>>While JJ was complaining at *you* in the post
>>>you pasted in here, his initial encounters with Val were quite
>>>negative, as were mine and Dan's.
>>
>>So you say. I read some of the threads and saw not one objection to
>>her hostility, and that was your specific claim Laurie.
>
>Not even Dan's? Really?
I saw none.
>He was rather incensed with her over her
>scornful attitude toward domestic violence and sexual assault
>resources for men.
Perhaps, but not her hostility. It seems to not be a problem
when posted by virtually everyone else.
>>>I think averti
>>
>>Yeah, right.
>>
>What? You think averti didn't get pissy with the womenfolk?
Averti fawned over the womenfolk and attacked anyone who was
not posting similarly.
>>>and Avedon had some negative words for Val as well.
>>
>>Avedon posted negative words about anti-feminists, whom she styled
>>as women-haters and then in a later post she also said that there
>>was a thin line between the two easily crossed.
>
>I vaguely remember this, oddly enough -- the latter part, anyway. If
>she "styled" antifeminists as women-haters, though, how could there be
>a thin line to cross?
She said both Laurie, one in a post and one in a book. It's like
the web sites that say both that women don't lie about rape then
give the fraudulent FBI 2% figure. The latter does not unsay the
former.
Her intention seems clear enough, anti-feminists in her view
are either woman-haters or woman-haters in creation. She never
retracted either claim, despite my starting a thread about it
in which she responded, so her words remain.
And why should the not, Avedon *is* first and foremost a feminist,
her concerns, as FAC's concerns, are exclusively about women and
women not having a voice. She will not object to the worst feminist
sexism, and I'm absolutely positive that you could not even
imagine why.
>And while antifeminism isn't women-hating per se, there's sure a lot
>to go around among antifeminists on Usenet.
Any criticism of women or feminism is taken as woman-hating Laurie.
And any attempt to address men's issues will get men constantly
personally attacked. You, of course don't see any problem with this,
but if the same thing were happening to rape victims I imagine
you'd see things differently. And if they got upset you'd be
quite understanding. But you can constantly piss on men's lives
and issues and if men get pissed off they must be man-haters.
Laurie, your compassion has some limits, and your understanding
ain't all it could be. But I don't expect anything to change,
that's why we are where we are now. That's why none of the
issues can be discussed or solved. That's why things are getting
worse every year. And that's why men kill their family then
commit suicide more and more often, absolutely no hope and
a situation that's unlivable. You know that they hate women
however and I don't expect that I can change that. I know
that Avedon can't believe any differently.
>>In fact, the
>>only clearly negative words I can recall Avedon posting were about
>>anti-feminists and those racists who oppose Affirmative Racism,
>>something Avedon never once did.
>
>I can't parse most of this. Are you saying that otherwise Avedon never
>said negative words, or that these are the only negative words she
>said in the Val threads?
Avedon has negative words about anti-feminists period. There is
no feminist sexism and hate so strong that Avedon can be coaxed
into responding negatively. I tried for years. And it's to be
expected from *any* feminist. Union rules or something.
>>If you claim she has negative words I'll have to see them.
>>No doubt after reading them one has the exact opposite impression,
>>as when talking about FRAs Avedon's two stories were about women
>>who recant (she never ever addressed that they don't give a man
>>his life back) and a man who was acquitted of rape and admitted
>>on the court steps that he really did it.
>
>Er, Rich, Avedon posted scads of information about FRAs and the men
>who have been harmed by them.
She had only one example about a man who was subsequently put to
death, which she mentioned once or twice. She mentioned her
other stories frequently.
>It was of major concern to her and she was aware of many cases.
It was not a concern of hers, at all. She was concerned that if
women were penalized for FRAs then they might not recant. She
had no interest in doing *anything* to stop FRAs. She wanted to
make recantation safe (just like FRAs).
>>Avedon's support of
>>men was in many ways in-line with Meri's, except that she was
>>far more subtle about it.
>>
>That's one of the most ludicrous statements I've ever seen on Usenet.
>Meri indeed.
Avedon's support is for women Laurie, always has been. Read the
FAC web page, it's getting more and more like the N.O.W. web
page every day, women's concerns and women's voice are FAC's
exclusive issues, and the web page is evolving to reflect that.
>For the benefit of those who haven't had the pleasure, Meri was a
>lesbian feminist college student who posted to alt.feminism and was
>planning to become a lawyer. I think she may actually have been one of
>those feminists who like Dworkin and MacKinnon. She was into
>male-bashing and was scornful toward most of the men around here and
>the non-feminist women, as well as any feminist women (Kerry, Avedon,
>etc.) who weren't "feminist enough." I remember she called me "leper"
>and averti "perverti."
Meri had many female supporters and her own cheering section.
>>But you can always show me.
>
>I had the urge to make some sort of snappy comeback with the words
>"blow me," but I couldn't work it in. Can you think of anything? ;)
Not if you're gonna use it against me. :^/
Rich
>Laurie