A terribly satisfying one liner, circa June 15, 1999.

>So either Otis heard Laura wrong, or he's deliberately misreporting what he did hear.  I'm willing to assume the former.  It's not a big deal, Mitch.  Not a big deal at all.  But it is a fact.
>    C Kinbote

On the contrary, Kinbote, I think Otis is reporting to a general nontechnical audience that which is a common usage of the term June issue.




In: Why the hell do they call it "Corporal Punishment"?

defacto100@my-deja.com wrote :

> > > > > Ruth, the "kid" is now 21 years old and you don't have all the facts and therefore not in a position to pass judgement.

> > > > There was actually no information stating WHEN she had asked him the question - could have been the other day, could have been 10 years ago or 10 minutes after the slap.

> > > How about we ask her then?
> >

> > For the reasons I listed below, I don't really think it matters.

> > >  I also don't think I passed any judgement at all.

> > > > I did offer an alternative way of looking at the reliability of self-reporting however.  You pass more judgement on the statement when you accept it as truth without questioning any alternatives  than I did when I offered an alternate explanation.  Even if she asked him the other day, there are many possible reasons he could have lied

> > >  thousands of reasons Rugh, thousands (Gaaaaawd!)

> > So you deny that there could be reasons why he lied to her?  Besides the one I gave (not to hurt her feelings) how about he didn't want to get into it? He couldn't really remember why she slapped him?  She was going to pay for his new car tires/college/wedding?  Your sarcasm adds nothing to your arguement.

> > > (....)to her and said "yes" - not the least of them the wish not to hurt her feelings.  THAT, defacto, is
> > > > why one must have a multiplicity

> > > A MUNICIPALITY of sources?  CRIPES!
> >

> > I'm not quite sure I get your ignorance here.  That was not the word I typed, nor meant.  If you don't wish to discuss things, then don't answer. If you so object to having anything you say challenged, then proffer irrefutable proof rather than your anti-intellectual jibes.

> Ruth, I'm not anti-intellectual, I just think that in many cases people
> who consider themselvs to be "intellectually superior" get far too
> carried away with many things.  This is a perfect example of that.

Oh no defacto - you are not anti-intellectual at all.  Every time someone tries to discuss a point with you, you end up farting in their faces because it doesn't matter what kind of evidence they offer you, you just KNOW.  You refuse to see anything from any other point of view other than your own. That is all my original post was about - that there was another way of looking at things.  You can't even admit that.  Instead you spout off about how I was calling it abusive and passing judgement etc.  Though I am pleased you see me as intellectually superior.

> > > Ruth, lets look at the FACTS then.  She smacked him ONCE, I'll repeat, ONCE.  If you are suggesting THAT is abbusive then you are arguing simply for the sake of argument.

> > Where did I suggest it was abusive?  This conversation started when you answered someone who asked if she had ever asked him whether he felt he deserved the slap.  You seemed very satisfied that his "yes" closed the books on that question.

> Yes, I was.

And I said that this passes more judgement than I ever did in regards to this situation.  You have everyone acquitted on this one word answer.  I simply suggested that maybe one ought to WITHHOLD judgement until more reliable information could be found.
>>  I simply said that was not enough evidence for me and gave some reasons why it was not.  You in turn have offered nothing but sarcastic raspberries to the discussion.  Try it, defacto - give me one statement that I made that is either untrue or impossible under the circumstances.  I dare you.

Didn't take the dare did you defacto?  Whatsa matter?  Chicken?

> > > of sources, studies, intuition and facts available at one's disposal in order to decide THE TRUTH or even
> the truth about a situation.  But you don't believe in most of those things anyway.

> > > Regarding this particular issue, EMPHATICALLY NO!

> > I still don't understand why you think my suggestions are so impossible. You have absolutely nothing to back you up, except the fact that Kelly, the shortest fuse on Artdl,

>what's Artdl?

I'm supposed to be arguing an intellectual point with someone who doesn't even know where she IS?

> > SAYS she asked her son whether he deserved that slap and she SAYS he said yes...  Come to think of it, she also SAYS she only slapped him once.  We don't know if we can believe any of that.  It is really irrelevant to the discussion other than as as a starting point.

> I happen to think it IS relevant.  You don't know if I am telling you
> the truth, and vice versa, we can only make our decisions based on the
> information we have.

sigh - my point, defacto, was that we really didn't have anymore information than that yes and that there could be a whole lot more going on behind that yes than we had access to.

> And for the record, my mother asked me that same question when I was
> about 25 years old and I also answered yes.  I said it and I meant it.
> She raised me with love and I could talk to her about anything.  I had
> no reason to lie to her.

Good.  I said it was possible...just not the only possibility.

>>  Even horrifically abused kids often back up their parents-

> I would bet that those kids lie about the abuse more often than those
> who have been smacked from time to time.  Children who have genuinely
> been abused fear the reprercussions of what may happen as a result of
> their truthfulness.


Probably, they do.  But more often is not always, defacto, and as you are the one who keeps stating that we don't have ALL the FACTS, please withhold your judgment that all is well and consider the possibility that there may be more to it.
> that was my point - that self-reporting is not the most reliable evidence at hand and should be considered with other evidence for validity. If you want to take it another way, one that might play more nicely into your prejudices - try this on for size.  Sometimes kids report that they have been abused when they have not been.  Why do they do this, defacto.
> Your guess is as good as mine.


> > Perhaps, maybe, possibly, just-on-the-off-chance they might have their own reasons for lying about this?  That really is all I said. Methinks, you are just a tad too self-defensive about this issue. Your husband slapped your son, so now everyone who slaps their son is perfectly justified,

> Where did I suggest that EVERYONE who slaps their kids is justified?

You have defended this action repeatedly.

>  otherwise you might have to admit you were wrong.
> >
> >
> > (waiting for the barrage of cogent, intelligent point-making by
defacto, but not holding my breath either)

> Well Ruth, I don't want to see your face turn blue, so I decided to
> respond.


READ  ---NOT holding my breath -- good thing too or I might have expired.
> I am sorry if you can't understand my viewpoint.  I think that you (and
> Pogo, well O.K. mostly POGO) have exaggerated this issue, which is
> typical of someone who insists that they are absolutely correct.  Add a
> couple of degrees on to that and they think they are above everyone and
> need to "educate" others instead of accepting that they just MIGHT have
> something to learn themselvs.

Look in a mirror defacto and say this about fifty times to whatever you see there.