NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/talk/rape/2308

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-26 | 8.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!news.ysu.edu!malgudi.oar.net!uoft02.utoledo.edu!dcrosgr
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Ataylor lies--repeats and new ones! Bring the kids!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:27:34 EST
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services
Lines: 219

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Nosy) writes:
>     <[e-mail]>
> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:14:59 GMT
> Lines: 113
>
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
> <Ataylor--said I was clling rape victims stupid. After repeatedly getting tired
> <of that charge, I challenged that person to point out where it happened. After
> <lots of false made up quottes by that person, things turned sour.<
>
>     Like this one?
>
>     Shall I repost the entire article, Cosgrove?
>
>
>
> =========================================================================
> From: [e-mail]
> Newsgroups: talk.rape
> Subject: Re: Critisizing the victim?
> Date: 5 Aug 92 11:52:54 EST
> Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services
>
> [text deleted to save space, but I have the original post]
>
> If the man walking down the street with the bulging cash was stupid,
> the woman in the bad situation she should know to avoid is also
> stupid. Yes or no, your opinion?
>

God, you PERSIST in trying to make this into something it is not. Again and
again. You are pathetic.

No where does that say a rape victim is stupid. It is a BLANKET STATEMENT WHICH
IS NOT POINTED AT A SINGLE EVENT OR ACTION. Notice it ends in a fucking
question mark??? What does that mean? No, don't bother to answer that, it is
obvoius by your repetitive reposting that you do nto know what a question mark
means. It means I was asking a question!

Surprise!

It means I was looking for toher people's opinions on whether or not if her
actions were as blantently wrong as his, would she be classsifed with the same
labels as we apply to him.

Are YOU too stupid to understand that?

Or, just hoping that if you post it enough times I might get disgusted by your
feeble attempt to try and win through repeition.

> ===========================================================================
>
> Pretty clear; a woman who is raped "in a bad situation she should
> know to avoid is also stupid".
>
> Well, Cosgrove?

Kind of like a rorschahch test. You have gotten out of it what you have wanted
to see in it. It does not say what you want, and so you ignore that fact and
post and repost the same tripe hoping it will become what you want. As you have
attempted with the following:

>
> =============================================================================
> From: [e-mail]
> Newsgroups: talk.rape
> Subject: Re: Critisizing the victim?
> Date: 5 Aug 92 12:17:56 EST
> Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, Amy Young Leith <[e-mail]> writes:
>> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
> [text deleted to save space, I have the original posting.]
>
> His comments were not politically correct because they were not entirely
> sypathetic to the rape victim, and dared to depict that maybe some of them were
> stupid in what they did and, while not wanting to be raped, sure invited it.
>
> ===========================================================================
>
>     "some of them were stupid...and...invited it [rape]".
>
>     Cosgrove has posted that women invite rape, yes or no?
>
>
>     There's nothing made up, it's all from
>     Darrell M. Crosgrove.

On the contrary YOU made them up. And you have once more selectively edited out
what I was responding to here. Someone else posted views stating who places
herself in a dnagerous situation is acting as stupid as amn who has done
similarly. I posted that his views were not politically correct. Someone else
asked why they were not politically correct, which led to the out-of-context
quote you have posted here.

Edited to save space. Right. More like edited to try and make it something it
is not. You know if you post the entire message (all twenty lines of it) it
will be apparent that tis says something opposite of what you want.

Tell me, do you think I can't remember what I have said and what it was in
response to? I know I showed just what a lying, stupid, idiot you are the forst
time you tried peddling this garbage as truth--did you really think I would let
it slide by now?

Further, in your interpritation of my quote, I notice you left out where I
said, "His comments were..." Why did you selectively ignore...

No, maybe I should give you the benifit of the doubt. Be a gentleman and such.
Tell me. Do you relly not understand the difference between what I say and when
I am commenting on what other people have said? Just because I say "A said X"
does not mean that I am saying "X is true." All it means is I am saying "I am
saying 'A said X'."

Please go ask an English professor for more help if you still don't understand,
or ask someone in in alt.english.for-handicapped.


>
>
> <In each of these situations, I did NOT initiate combat. I was posting
> <my opinions when someone else came along and started to dig into me.
>
>     Since your opinion was and, so far as I can tell, still
>     *is* that survivors of rape are "stupid"......

Yet, time and again I have stated that I did not post that, and I do not
believe that.

I do know YOU are stupid for still believing such, but that does not have
aything to do with whether or not you are a victim. It is because you face the
choice of admitting you jumped into something without knowing what was being
said, and rather than admit you are wrong, you would prefer to claim that I am
lying when I say, as I have said in the past, whether or not a person is raped
has does not affect one way or the other whehter or not they acted folishly.


>
> <And, I am not
> < yet a lawyer, but I am in training to be one, true.
>
>     Odd, didn't Cosgrove just claim to be an attorney
>     in a previous post?

Oh, please re-post that. I would love to see it.

>
> <However, should I be gentle
> <when someone comes along and tries to show how hot they are?
>
> <To make an analogy--you shouldn't go into a bar and pick a fight with someone.
> <They might be golden gloves and can hurt you real bad real quick.
>
>     Cosgrove is fond of analogizing net.argument as combat.
>
>     I've asked Cosgrove before if he calls people who disagree
>     with him "idiots" to their face, or only over the net.
>
>     He ducked that question.

Ducked? Ducked implies not wanting to answer. Forgive me if in your rantings I
took some questions as rhetorical (or just plain stupid enought not to warrant
one.)

But, since it is sooooo importnat to you, I'll make your day a happy one and
answer these pointless questions.

No, I do not cal everyone who disagrees with me "idiots". Lots of very
intellegent people disagree with me. Unlike you, however, they have at least
some kind of stateable reason for disagreeing.

>
>     I've asked Cosgrove if he is as combattive in real life
>     as he is on the net.

Yes. Aren't you?

>
> <   ________________________
> <   From: [e-mail], University of Toledo, Computer Services
> <   Date: 21 Aug 92 08:53:29 EST
>
> <   Regarding the debate over mace v. home brews, why not just get a
> <   49 cent trial sie of WD-40 or similar product and carry that?
>
> <   It's the same size as a mace canister, and is more effective.
>
>
>     And I asked Cosgrove to support this assertion.
>
>     I wonder if he ever will, or whether he'll just
>     keep on ducking?

That response was posted over 24 hours ago. You should read the posts, you
know, show that your brain holds something other than lies and fragile
perecptions of a private reality, before claiming I ducked that one. It has
been supported.

>
>     Oh, and someone should notify Smith and Wesson that
>     Cosgrove is referring to their trademarked product,
>     Mace(tm) as "mace".

Why don't you? You seem to be the only one to care.

But, I will give you this much, it was wrong for me to not use the (tm) symbol
as you always do. However, that is the ONLY point in a message thread between
you and I where I have been wrong and you have been right.

Now, slither back to your hollow life of false perceptions.



DC

PS. And people want me to be civil with this bozo? Geez.

>