Conference quark::mennotes-v1

358.99>authors then go on to say that for convenience they will henceforth
358.99>use the word "incest" to encompass the wider set of experiences.
    
    They could just as easily use the more accurate "incestuous."

358.101> Except that there are those who are unwilling to accept that the
358.101> English language is a living entity, that the meanings of perfectly
358.101> good English words change over time to better meet the current needs of
358.101> communication, and that this has been true ever since English came to
358.101> be known as a language. 
    
    That's not it at all.
    
    Some growth and change is necessary and justified, and some, such as
    this, is unnecessary and unjustified.

    Why is unnecessary and unjustified Mike?  Why can't it broaden out to
    include all forms of sexual abuse?  Or should it be kept defined
    according to the Bible's definition of it (where, IMHO, the definition
    comes from).
    
    Karen

    	I have started note 818 for general semantic discussions since I
    have noticed that several topics have been confused by them.
    
>    Why is unnecessary and unjustified Mike?  Why can't it broaden out to
>    include all forms of sexual abuse?  
    
    	As I explain in 818.0, my own *first* association with the word
    does not involve any sexual abuse. We would then end up with a word
    that includes all forms of sexual abuse plus many things that are not
    sexual abuse. The word becomes weakened to mean something like "sexual
    mishap". I recognise that language changes, but I don't think this
    would be a change for the better.

    As I indicated earlier, your complaint is with those in the mental
    health community who have chosen to use the word in a broader sense to
    include non-familial sexual contact, that is, sexual contact with
    poeple who are the emotional equivalent to family members.
    
    Mike

    Actually, our complaint is with anyone who misuses the word in this
    way.

The use of 'incest' to encompass those experiences recounted in .63, .65
is used by way of convenience by mental health professionals. Most books I
have read on the subject -and I have read many- typically specify the
precise meaning of incest and then go on to point out that any sexual
experience that involves the violation of trust between an adult and a
child has a psychologically similar impact on the child as the more
narrowly defined "incest" does when one of the parties is a minor.
The authors then go on to say that for convenience they will henceforth use
the word "incest" to encompass the wider set of experiences. Knowing
completely that the common, and legal use of the word is different. People
who are experienced in this area often forget that those without comparable
experiences have difficulty when the word "incest" is used in a way that
is certainly new and perhaps even challenging.

    Fine, Herb, but this isn't a convention of mental health
    professionals, so in the interest of clarity and communication
    it might be better to stick to standard usage.

>    it might be better to stick to standard usage.

and thus prevent 'stipulated' definitions from informing the discourse?
it smacks of thought control, Dana; "thou shalt not think thoughts without
using the prescribed words as THE BOOK defines them."

DougO

    Doug, I have no problem with specialized usage *if* the person doing
    so defines their terms at the time of said usage. Otherwise, we end
    up with one person saying something and everybody else hearing 
    something else. 
    
    Dana

    DougO, you are, as you always were, entirely free to think and speak as
    you wish.  We simply ask that you and others not use words to mean
    something that they patently do not.  

> DougO, you are, as you always were, entirely free to think and speak as 
> you wish.  

Of course; only one who accepts boundaries is limited thereby.

> We simply ask that you and others not use words to mean something that 
> they patently do not.  

No, David, you ask for something rather more.  The writer's intent to
communicate insights for which the language is not well equipped is a
justification to use any and all words in any fashion desired; though
of course the careful writer will not use words willy-nilly, but will
instead craft new meanings from similar terms.  This has been decried,
but the practise will not cease.  Dialogue will not, cannot, remain
within the bounds you prescribe.  New words will be coined, and old
words will have new meanings overloaded onto them.  Sorry.

DougO

ps- Surely, as one who has read Caputi and Daly, this is old ground?

.3> Why is unnecessary and unjustified Mike?
    
    Because we already have a suitable word : "incestuous."
    
    And, if we want to get fancy, we could also use meta-incest or pseudo-
    incest or incest-like or any similar constructs, without diluting the
    meaning of incest.

    Mike,
    
    I don't understand your anger around this.  I was attacked in another
    conference by you about this.  *I* have not said "lets change the 
    meaning of the word."  All I have done is point out how the mental
    health community is beginning to define the word.  I personally don't
    care how *you* or anyone else defines it.  I'm not trying to say this
    is *the new definition* for the world to use, even though I do agree 
    with it.  And I'm not going to defend that last statement either.
    
    In my case, it was definitely incest, there is no question there.  But
    when I refer to my incest I also use the words "when I was sexually
    abused" or "when I was molested" or "when I was incested" interchangeably.
    They all mean the same thing to me, from a personal point of view.  And
    what they all mean to me is that someone did to me what no adult had any
    right to do to *any* child.
    
    So back off Mike.  Quit attacking me for simply stating how one group
    of people are viewing a particular word.
    
    Karen

    Maybe we need to get definitions from more than the mental health
    world. Perhaps we could maintain a separate note, with each reply
    detailing, say, the religious definition (all major and minor
    denominations included), the legal (perhaps state by state) definition,
    maybe the "traditional" definition, the "new age" definition. Then
    each separate definition could have a number assigned to it, to allow
    for easy cross-reference. 
    
    Won't that make everybody happy ???
    
    Paul C.

    I can't help but wonder what the real agenda is of those who focus on
    definitions. I am confused by it, I don't understand it, but it makes
    me uneasy.

    
    				herb

    RE: .16   Hey herb, I don't know how it happened, but your reply
              is popping up all over the conference. I've seen it in
              3 separate notes, so far.
    
    Paul C.

    Correction:

    I believe I do understand the motivation of those who argue that it is 
    appropriate to use word "incest" to identify childhood sexual abuse.
    
    I think there are about four connected motivations ....


    	o fear that their feelings about sexual abuse are being invalidated
    	o a sense that somehow the experience is less important than its
    	  definition
    	o sympathy towards those who have been subjected to either adult rape
    	  or childhood sexual abuse.
    	o anger at those who persist in "quibbling" about the words that are
    	  used to articulate that experience
    
    Also, it might be useful to point out that there have been for more than
    ten years two national organizations whose purpose is to provide a support
    structure for those who have been victimized by childhood sexual abuse.
    Those two organizations have the "simplified" three letter acronyms
    "ISA" and "SIA" which stand for ...
    
    	Incest Survivors Anonymous 
    	Survivors of Incest Anonymous
    I don't know whether there was recognition immediately that
    non-incestuous childhood sexual abuse had all the markings of
    incestuous childhood sexual abuse. But in the very least it soon became
    apparent that virtually all the issues of non-incestuous childhood
    sexual abuse were relevant to to those who had been incested as a child
    by an adult relative.

    re .17
    
    Now why in the world do you think that is? I wonder whether it could
    POSSIBLY be that there are three different conversations going on whose
    emotional content is very similar.

 No doubt it's intended to add inertia to the next-unseen finger...

    I hope that 817.20 is simply a gauche attempt at humor.
    
    On the other hand if it means what I think it may mean, then my
    feelings are that it is appropriate to characterize it as very
    demeaning, childish, and malevolent. Furthermore in that case, it
    would strike me as indicative of the insensitivity shown by a group
    that I think it is useful to characterize as bright, relatively
    affectless, self-styled preciseness troops.
    
    Do I think precision is important? In science yes, in a forum for
    obsessive-compulsives certainly, in interpersonal communications about
    material that has a huge amount of emotional content much less so, in
    art practically not at all.
    
    				herb

My opinion is that it is only necessary to make a statement once.  That you
may find three different notes (all really discussing the same thing) to which
your opinion applies doesn't, in my belief, require entering the note in
triplicate.

	
				Steve "Just a noter"

    <sigh>
    
    The anal retentives are on the march again.
    
    Mike

    In a perfect world, Steve, I would agree. Since, however, many people
    do not uniformly read each discussion stream, a comment made in one may
    not get read by some who read other discussion streams.
    With hindsight, it would have saved space and not caused any loss in
    clarity for me to have simply replied to the second and third
    discussions with a pointer to my first answer.
    
    				herb

.14>    I don't understand your anger around this.
    
    Karen, I don't understand why you think I'm angry.
    
    You keep talking about "attacks on feminist agenda" (359.61), "mind
    games" (812.114), "irritating nitpicking" (358.73) ... it seems to 
    me that _you're_ getting angry.
    
    I'm content to stick to the discussion without the cheap character
    shots that you and Herb and others are taking.

.18> I believe I do understand the motivation of those who argue that it is 
.18> appropriate to use word "incest" to identify childhood sexual abuse.
    
    And what's the motivation of someone who has already admitted that
    he's wrong, bows out, then hops back in with what seem like personal
    insults meant only to inflame the discussion that was happily pro-
    ceeding with him?

    my agenda is clear, Mike.
    
    I am angry at you (and others). I am angry at you for upsetting this
    conference. I am angry at you and Simpson and <whatzizname> for
    diverting this conference from something that is important -child
    sexual abuse and rape- to something that is very unimportant -precise
    definitions.
    
    The issue isn't about right and wrong definitions. The issue is about
    you and the way you manipulate discussions to suit your agenda whatever
    the hell it is.

 I often wonder if it is as tiresome to be perenially wounded as it is to 
observe the same.

    re .20,.28

    That's disappointing, I thought you had out grown such clever bon mots.
    

    re .10
    
    <Doug, I have no problem with specialized usage *if* the person doing
    <so defines their terms at the time of said usage. Otherwise, we end
    <up with one person saying something and everybody else hearing 
    <something else. 

    I put the definition of and explanation for "incest" in 816.2 
    August 7. Fully 4 1/2 days before your comment above. Everybody has
    been aware of that specialized definition for 'incest' since then. 
    
    Some people are simply arguing that no one has the "right" to "abuse"
    our language. Perhaps they have been emotionally traumatized (or
    psychological abused) by this rape of our dear language?

.27>    The issue isn't about right and wrong definitions. The issue is about
    
    Of course it is.
    
    Perhaps your anger prevents you from realizing this:
    
.27> I am angry at you (and others). I am angry at you for upsetting this
.27> conference. I am angry at you and Simpson and <whatzizname> for
    
    On the other hand, I'm not angry, and am quite able to reason this
    out objectively and rationally.  If you cannot, I suggest you take
    your own earlier advice and stop arguing from an indefensible and
    admittedly wrong point of view.  Or, at the very least, stop the
    snide, petty insults.

    I'm not angry.  I'm irritated that this definition has to be picked
    apart like this and it makes me wonder why.  Is it easier to attack the
    definition than it is to really confront the issue of incest/sexual
    abuse/molestation of a child?  That is what irritates me.
    
    What I am angry at is your attack on my in the other file, but I'll
    address that over there.
    
    Karen

>    That's disappointing, I thought you had out grown such clever bon mots.
    
 Every time I see another of your tantrums because you are "angry" I'm
disappointed that you haven't managed to learn to deal with your emotions
without subjecting us to such obstinacy. Can't you ever have a different
response to anger than <reply>?

re: .31

>    On the other hand, I'm not angry, and am quite able to reason this
>    out objectively and rationally.  If you cannot, I suggest you take
>    your own earlier advice and stop arguing from an indefensible and
>    admittedly wrong point of view.  Or, at the very least, stop the
>    snide, petty insults.
    
    But Mike, perhaps that's exactly what's *not working* in this
    communication.  You're *not* angry, you're *not* hurt, in fact it seems
    like you're remarkably *comfortable* bandying about incest and rape,
    the why's and wherefore's, what it must be like, whether it's violent
    or not.  People's points are not indefensible and admittedly wrong
    necessarily - they are just their opinions - as are yours.  
    
    Perhaps any snide, petty insults you may be receiving have more to do
    with your *lack of* response, than the way you actually respond.  If I
    were a survivor of rape or incest, I would feel hurt and bewildered,
    angered, or frustrated at your casual, logical approach.
    
    -Jody
    

    Jody, if you want our empathy then you must - and I mean must -
    communicate to us in ways that we understand.  That is our point. 
    Don't complain about our lack of response when because of the various
    misuses of language we are yet to determine just what it is we are
    talking about.  Don't use rape if you are not talking about rape; don't
    use incest when you are not talking about incest; don't use violence
    when you are not talking about violence.

.34> But Mike, perhaps that's exactly what's *not working* in this
.34> communication.  You're *not* angry, you're *not* hurt, in fact it seems
.34> like you're remarkably *comfortable* bandying about incest and rape,
.34> the why's and wherefore's, what it must be like, whether it's violent
.34> or not.
    
    Am I reading this right?
    
    You seem to be saying that a calm, unemotional mood is an impediment
    to the discussion at hand.  ?

    re .31 (etc)
    
    For me this issue is not about right and wrong definitions.  This
    is not a matter of reason. This is a matter of insensitivity,
    boorishness, and rudeness. By arguing about these definitions you have
    managed to totally sidetrack a couple of important discussions,
    discussions that for many people are among the most sensitive
    discussion imaginable.  Since this is such a common occurance in other
    conferences and now in this conference, and since you have been told
    about it on many more than one occasion, I think it ought to be easy to
    understand why people may react to it that it is your _intent_ to
    saboutage. Just think, please, about how often you get entangled in
    hours and hours, and days and days of 'discussion' about the definition
    of something. From alcoholism, to rape to incest to dieting is
    easy/simple to God knows what else you argue about.
    
    I did 'agree' with you last week _6 days ago_. In fact I think it is
    more accurate to say that you agree with me since I made the point
    about non-violent rape months ago in another conference.  Given the way
    you think of course you were right. (but that 'rightness' -and it
    _must_ be in quotes) pales in insignificance compared to your
    'wrongness').
    
    Five days ago, I even proposed an alternate set of words "e.g. rape
    causes psychological trauma" as a useful way out of the rathole. But
    you continued. You continued in spite of the ways in which this
    discussion was clearly going nowhere except possibly toward the goal of
    people demonstrating how clever they are.  It is very, very difficult
    to have a sensitive discussion of any kind when people know there is
    somebody (in this case, at least 3 somebodies) lurking in the bushes
    -as it were- just waiting to pounce on any violation of our language.
    And that is precisely what it feels like to me and I believe to many
    others.

    As somebody who spent much of his early adult life doing exactly what I
    have seen you do for the last 3 or 4 years, I believe I understand it
    and I don't like it. I don't like people who are so obsessed with being
    right that they are willing to screw up an entire conference to
    accomplish being right. There is also a real irony Mike (et al). You
    are not going to get anybody to say "you are right". The way this is
    going to end is that people are just going to stop talking.
    
    I know why I was obsessed with being right. And if anything like what
    prompted my obsession is prompting yours, I feel very sorry for y'all.
    
    				herb 

    <Am I reading this right?
    
    <You seem to be saying that a calm, unemotional mood is an impediment
    <to the discussion at hand.  ?
    how about "unfeeling, insensitive" instead of 'calm, unemotional"?
    (I dunno maybe you ARE feeling blissfully serene)
    
    You just will NOT let a discussion procede. You just MUST divert the
    discussion. 
    
    I alternate between pity and rage. (and I'm proud of it Mark)

    The appropriateness of this notes title is overwhelming.
    
    Paul C. 

re: .35
    
>    Jody, if you want our empathy then you must - and I mean must -
>    communicate to us in ways that we understand.  That is our point. 
    
    So I must be cold and clinical?  If I'm cold and clinical and logical,
    what's to empathize with?  And if you show no emotion in your
    discussion on the subject now, why would you *ever* alter that to
    empathize with me, just because I could express myself in your dialect? 
    I have thought about it, and I think the cost is too high for me to do
    that.  I appreciate your offer, though.  Thank you.
    
>    Don't complain about our lack of response when because of the various
>    misuses of language we are yet to determine just what it is we are
>    talking about. 
    
    I guess that's one of my difficult points - anyone who even *imagines*
    being raped or abused is left with a sensation of what it means - and
    words are often unfindable, or inept, at capturing the horror and
    tragedy of it.  You can't put it in a specimine bottle to scrutinize
    from a distance, the topic (to me and some others) doesn't lend itself
    to that.  So I guess we have VASTLY different viewpoints on what we're
    discussing, and how it can be discussed.  Chacun a son gout.
    
    > Don't use rape if you are not talking about rape; don't
>    use incest when you are not talking about incest; don't use violence
>    when you are not talking about violence.
    
    Don't use logic when you're talking about something that can destroy a
    person's life, I say.
    
    
    
re: .36
        
    >Am I reading this right?
    
    >You seem to be saying that a calm, unemotional mood is an impediment
    >to the discussion at hand.  ?
    
    I'm saying if you had some empathy, sympathy, support for those in this
    file who have suffered rape or incest *HOWEVER THEY DEFINE IT OR CANNOT
    DEFINE IT*, it might help the discussion progress.
    
    
    enough.  I've said enough.  
    Those who are listening have heard.
    And if I have not been heard, I will not be heard.
    
    -Jody
    

    Jody, good note.

    re .40
    
    Jody, poor note.
    
>    So I must be cold and clinical?  If I'm cold and clinical and logical,
>    what's to empathize with?  And if you show no emotion in your
    
    That's not what I said or implied.  What I said was:
    
>    Jody, if you want our empathy then you must - and I mean must -
>    communicate to us in ways that we understand.  That is our point. 
    
    If we don't understand what you are talking about because you choose to
    misuse words then it is your problem, not ours.  Assuming that because
    we insist in a level of accuracy and precision in language that we are
    cold and uncaring is illogical.
    
>    empathize with me, just because I could express myself in your dialect? 
>    I have thought about it, and I think the cost is too high for me to do
>    that.  I appreciate your offer, though.  Thank you.
    
    Dialect?  In notes I try to use standard English, and avoid words and
    phrases that have meanings peculiar to Australian English.  When I talk
    about agreed meanings and the like I am referring to such standard
    texts as the OED.  Are you really saying that the cost of your using
    words such that we understand what your problem is is too high?  Do you
    really prefer to be misunderstood?
    
>    to that.  So I guess we have VASTLY different viewpoints on what we're
>    discussing, and how it can be discussed.  Chacun a son gout.
    
    Perhaps this is so, but violating the tenets of public language ensures
    that there can be no discussion.
    
>    Don't use logic when you're talking about something that can destroy a
>    person's life, I say.
    
    So, if I am to discard reason then how am I to understand?  Faith?

    re 817.42
    <Perhaps this is so, but violating the tenets of public language ensures
    <that there can be no discussion.
    
    Well, violating the tenets of social intercourse _also_ ensures there
    can be no discussion. And by y'all showing no sense of affect at all in
    any of your writing (analytic as well as non-analytic) it is ensured
    that discussions will be railroaded. This is a common enuf experience
    for y'all that one has to finally conclude that you either do it
    deliberately or that y'all have not yet learned the reality of and need
    for multiple communications styles.
    
    This 'other' kind of communication is actually much more difficult (or
    at least, more complicated)  for many than the analytic/reasoning style
    of communication. It is a style of communication that I am only
    recently learning, and still don't do very well sometimes (becuz I get
    pissed).
    
    <So, if I am to discard reason then how am I to understand?  Faith?
    Common sense, empathy, sympathy ...
    
    Reason is an essential part of scientific investigation, and is often a
    well-developed tool for young male engineers.
    Intuition, empathy, sympathy, introspection etc are important parts of
    non-analytic communication. Young male engineers often handle this much
    less well. For some, these are tools that have atrophied from dis-use.
    For others these are tools that -sadly- have never been adequately
    nurtured. 
    
    p.s.
    And for a few this lack of affect is a result of early experiences that
    were so illogical, so unreasonable, so traumatic, so confusing, so
    frightening that they have been forced to suppress virtually all their
    non-analytic impulses. As a way of attemping to explain a hostile universe.

    RE: last few

    One "side" wants calm, emotionless debate.

    The other "side" wants sensitivity, understanding and sharing on 
    delicate topics.

    The two sides meet in a poorly defined topic and people wonder why
    there is conflict.  

    David Simpson and Mike Zarlenga insist on technically accurate language 
    in order to understand.....but I doubt they would demand it of a family 
    member who'd been violated in some way, the moment that person came
    crying to them in desperation.

    Jody Bobbit and Herb Nichols want empathy and compassion and some
    leeway in use of language so a sensitive subject can be explored.
    But I doubt they would allow vague definitions to determine the
    guilt or innocence of an accused perpetrator in a court of law.

    Can the two sides meet?

    I don't know.  Do they want to?

    WOMANNOTES seems to have found a way to at least help deal with
    this problem by using "For X-only" notes and FGD (For General 
    Discussion) notes.  I vaguely recall a discussion about this and
    the conclusion was that MENNOTES would not allow it (something about
    it being discriminatory?).   

    FWIW...

    /Greg

.44> The other "side" wants sensitivity, understanding and sharing on 
.44> delicate topics.
    
    Greg, this other side wants accurate debate.  It doesn't have to
    be cold and sterile to be accurate.  Sensitivity and understanding
    are fine, but shouldn't be necessary.

    re .45
    
    >Sensitivity and understanding are fine, but shouldn't be necessary.
    
    Why not?
    
    Karen

    re .44
    
>    The two sides meet in a poorly defined topic and people wonder why
>    there is conflict.  
    
    Greg, according to your own analysis there's at least one side which
    understand exactly why there is conflict - because it is a poorly
    defined topic.
    
>    David Simpson and Mike Zarlenga insist on technically accurate language 
>    in order to understand.....but I doubt they would demand it of a family 
>    member who'd been violated in some way, the moment that person came
>    crying to them in desperation.
    
    Why would it be so hard or unusual for us to ask "What exactly
    happened?"  Or should we wait for the police to ask?

>    >Sensitivity and understanding are fine, but shouldn't be necessary.
    
>    Why not?
    
 If the ability to convey information is predicated on sensitivity and 
compassion on the part of those receiving the information, then there is
clearly something lacking on the part of the transmitter. Any pretense to
intelligent conversation is abandoned when people are able to make false
statements and have them glossed over under the guise of compassion
and sensitivity. 

 Perhaps the obvious dichotomy can be solved by having the people who are
interested in warm feelings use a "therapy" style note and the people
interested in thoughtful exchange of ideas use a "discussion" style note.
It is clear that people are coming into these topics looking for very different 
things, and it is equally clear that it is impossible to satisfy both factions.
Those who wish to discuss these topics in the abstract find themselves
out of their element in a love-in style topic. Those who wish to convey
feelings and emotions are unsatisfied by a structured discussion which
relies on the accurate conveyal of information.

 No reason not to do both. Set up separate topics, and noters pay attention.
If you are going to reply to one of the "other" notes, you have to play by their
rules.

    Re: last few
    
    $set user/mode=angry
    
    "Accurate debate" is fine - if the task at hand is debate.  If the task
    at hand is dealing with BRUTALLY PAINFUL emotional damage, then
    accurate debate is just so much pissing in the wind.  If I've been
    forcibly sodomized, I honestly don't give a rat's ass about your "book"
    definition of rape or force or violence or much of anything else.  I
    want you to understand that I've been violently, ruthlessly violated in
    the very core of who and what I am.  I say violently because even if
    without any external physical manifestation of violence, I am still
    damaged.  In fact, if I've been violated in this way I am damaged to a
    degree that nobody who has not been so violated can *ever* understand. 
    But that doesn't mean they should stand around arguing with me over the
    precise semantics of my agony.  Fer goshsake, people, are we all bloody
    LAWYERS here???
    
    $ set user/mode=cool_off
    
    -dick

    Change debate to discussion or communication.
    
    Now, do you still feel the same way?

    RE: .45
    
    >    Greg, this other side wants accurate debate.  It doesn't have to
    >    be cold and sterile to be accurate.  Sensitivity and understanding
    >    are fine, but shouldn't be necessary.
    
    Surely you are intelligent enough to realize when insisting on
    such accuracy (nearly to the point of obsession) is futile, though.
    Correct?  I mean, if you desire accurate debate and the other person 
    doesn't, what is the point?
    
    /Greg
    

    RE: .47

    > Why would it be so hard or unusual for us to ask "What exactly
    > happened?"  Or should we wait for the police to ask?

     It depends on what you are trying to accomplish.  For example, 
    suppose the crime were rape and you start talking to the victim.
    Are you trying to collect evidence to help catch and prosecute the 
    attacker?  Are you trying to better understand the crime of rape (in 
    all its dimensions) Or are you just trying to comfort the victim?   
    And what is the victim's emotional state?  Does he or she understand 
    your purpose?

    If I were to start questioning a victim of a rape and my goal 
    were to get "just the facts" I would first acknowledge the emotional
    trauma of the event and then proceed to ask that that the ensuing
    discussion remain, as much as is humanly possible, emotionless
    and factual.

    And FWIW, I think Suzanne Conlon's use of the word "violent" to 
    describe rape is accurate.  If there are a handful of non-violent
    rapes each year, why is it so terrible that since the majority
    of them *are* violent that the crime be called violent (and then
    if someone chooses to question that you can say "oh, well yes there
    are exceptions...")?

    /Greg
    /Greg

    re .52
    
>    If I were to start questioning a victim of a rape and my goal 
>    were to get "just the facts" I would first acknowledge the emotional
>    trauma of the event and then proceed to ask that that the ensuing
>    discussion remain, as much as is humanly possible, emotionless
>    and factual.
    
    I'm quite happy to agree with you.  However, in a notes conference,
    which by definition is purely verbal, I see no reason to abandon
    accuracy for some vague feel-good discussion which is predicated upon
    ideologically suspect definitions.

    re:811.283
    
    Why don't you explain why you think my motivation for asking that
    question is relevant?

    Firstly, I gave what I consider to be clear _possible_ explanations
    for the relevance of your motivation in both .274 and also .283
    
    Secondly, I believe your reason for asking why I think your motivation
    is relevant is so you can engage in yet another debate. I am not going
    to give you that opportunity.

    <However, in a notes conference, which by definition is purely verbal,
    
    And a published book of poems is purely verbal of course.

Perhaps Mr. Simpson and Ms. Conlon could bring their interminable game of 
"gotcha last" to this decidedly appropriate topic.

Karl