|
Grex > Femme > #8: False Memory "Syndrome" - True or False? |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 186 responses total. |
brighn
|
|
response 75 of 186:
| 
Dec 8 16:10 UTC 1994 |
Michael, I think that's precisely why the above fight broke out.
The problem is, if some remembered cases of child abuse are falsified,
and some are real, then what's the societal prejudice going to be?
Like or not, society needs a default, a heuristic for approaching
such cases. Twolf, I would think, would approach an allegation by
assuming the memory is real until proven false; Aaron would do the
opposite. The first method endangers innocent people occasionally;
the second, makes it more difficult for those who have been abused to
comeo ut and make allegations. Either way, somebody loses.
Or, we could just change the whole of society so that they actually
TRUST the judicial system, and if a person is found innocent, they're
to be treated so by everyone else. But we've had the ostensible
innocent until proven guilty for quite some time, and society is still
not accepting it (ask O.J., to name a current example).
BTW< Aaron, to try jump ahead of you, assuming that a remembered memory is
real (in part) is not the same thing as assuming the alleged perp is
guilty of a crime. Details may be wrong, etc., but the abuse itself
may have occurred.
the burden of proof... upon whom does the burden of proof lie?
*sigh*
|
sidhe
|
|
response 76 of 186:
|
Dec 9 05:26 UTC 1994 |
I believe, since the above publications are probably only readily available
through the publishers, t(i.e. they are unlikely to be found on library
shelve) twolf did not see the point in full citation of the article...since ant
oneinterested should contact the publishers anyway. F.Y.I. md, ritual abuse is
a documented phenomana, all be it not common, please do not request
citations...I am not a research...however I am sure any one who has experienced
it would not like being included with UFO abduction , which is still very much
open to debate and mostly a matter of personal opinion.
|
md
|
|
response 77 of 186:
|
Dec 9 14:15 UTC 1994 |
My point was that UFO abductions emerge in the same way:
a person with marital troubles, or insomnia, or an eating
disorder, or panic attacks, or someother kind of unhappiness,
consults a therapist; in therapy, the person "recovers"
memories - which are assumed to have been "repressed" - of
having been abducted by space aliens. The process is the
same for satanic ritual abuse, which by the way is quite
common according to its aficionados. No, I don't imagine
anyone one who thinks he or she was subjected to it would
like being included with the UFO loonies, nor do I imagine
that someone who "recovered" "repressed" memories of non-
satanic childhood incest would like being included with
either the SRA loonies or the UFO loonies. The scale of
looniness seems well defined. But above all, I don't think
that someone who actually was abused as a child and who
never forgot or repressed his or her memories of it would
like being lumped together with *any* of these unfortunate
people. Many of these people have spent their entire lives
achieving a kind of peace - only to see it invaded by a
traveling carnival.
|
brighn
|
|
response 78 of 186:
|
Dec 9 23:02 UTC 1994 |
"UFO loonies"? Wow, Michael, that's constructive and non-biased!
"SRA loonies"? -- Ditto comment. Hey folks, they're crazy, but at
least they're a bit more stable than the UFO loonies.
Congrats, Michael: you made my point glowingly. Anybody who
remembers a repressed memory -- whether the memory is valid or
not -- is first tagged a loony, then, maybe, if we listen to them,
we'll change our minds.
How many seriously abused people are likely to prefer to suffer
their current pain rather than suffer public ridicule *on top of*
their public and still unresolved current pain?
Michael, i've seen UFOs. That's right, I've looked up into the sky
and seen things which I couldn't identify. Do I think they were alien
spaceships up there? Not hardly. But remember what UFO stands for...
Seeing an unknown object and identifying it as a spaceship instead of
writing it off as "nothing to be concerned about" is not "loony" --
not my process, but not loony.
I guess religious folk are loony because they haven't got the photos
and the documentation to prove their conception of deity?
<BTW, I'm incredulous, not angry... just surprised at the word choice>
|
aaron
|
|
response 79 of 186:
|
Dec 10 00:39 UTC 1994 |
re #66: No offense, Paul, but if you expect us to put up with your
biased kvetching you could at least try not to be a hypocrite.
My points are there, set up for rebuttal. If you're capable,
give it a try. I'm sorry that I didn't answer your
questions your way -- as I explained, your questions don't
capture certain aspects of the issues.
I again ask your for suggestions of how memory research can be
performed without experimentation. On one hand, you complain
that there aren't studies showing the implantation of abuse
memories -- something that would be clearly unethical -- and on
the other you complain that any effort to manipulate memory is
unethical. You can't have it both ways.
re #68: How about trying my question #4.
Set the ad hominem aside for a minute -- do you have any points
to raise?
re #69: Peter Freyd makes no argument that his daughter should be muzzled,
and does not argue with the allegations she has made in public.
(Those allegations speak mostly of so-called "boundary issues"
and do not include any direct accusations of molestation. They
are primarily an attack on her father's character and background.
This, to date, is her only public statement on the alleged abuse.
Some woudl construe the "documentation" as indicative of teenage
angst.)
To the extent that falsely accused parents (or even guilty
parents) try to keep in touch with their children, I am anything
but surprised. Are you? Do you deny the harm of false allegations?
Incidentally, it is quite common for organizations to let people
resign rather than firing them. I am surprised you find that
unusual. It makes things much more amicable. BTW, have you read
Underwager's remarks in their entirety?
re #70: There are a number of recent books on the issue. The best,
according to a psychologist with whom I correspond and who believes
in the concepts of "robust repression" and memory recovery, is
that of Elizabeth Loftus. Mark Pendergrast recently published a
book that is primarily composed of interviews with various people
from various sides of the debate. His book has an official release
date of 1995, so don't expect to find a copy lying around. (I
will supply more complete citations later.)
Basic information on these issues can be found in the position
papers of the American Medical Association and American Psychological
Association, cited above. I can supply ascii copies on request.
Debbie Nathan's "Cry Incest" is an interesting look at the
incest recovery movement, detailing Nathan's experiences at a
retreat for women who suffered abuse (all kinds) as children.
I was skeptical when I first read it, but have been told by
several people who were in such therapy that it accurately
depicts that type of therapy. Somebody recently emailed me a copy,
which I can pass along.
re #75: Paul, there is a sizeable gap between corroboration and proof.
I spoke only to allegedly recovered memories, and suggested that
they should be treated as suspect, not false, in the absence of
corroboration. Perhaps you should try to get past your biases.
Incidentally, in the case of false memories, both parties lose.
Our society has traditionally placed the burden of proof on the
accuser. It is called "the presumption of innocence."
re #76: So-called ritual abuse has been found and documented in isolated
cases, sometimes involving a handful of people. Allegations of cult-
level conspiratorial ritual abuse have been actively investigated
for over a decade in several nations, including the U.S., Canada,
the U.K., and Australia. No evidence of any sort has been found
of any connection between the isolated cases, or of any larger
activity.
re #77: It should be noted that recent studies show that alleged "UFO
kidnapping victims" typically score in the "normal" range on
personality inventories -- i.e., they are as normal as the next
guy.
re #78: I know of no personality inventory studies of alleged SRA
survivors. Given the documented phenomena that can result in
hallucinations of UFO abduction (including sleep paralysis),
versus the absence of such explanations for SRA, I would be
surprised if you were correct. Note also that SRA events are
typically far more traumatic and invasive than are UFO abductions.
(Human sacrifice, infanticide, forced preganacy and abortion,
forced consumption of blood or human flesh, etc.)
|
twolf
|
|
response 80 of 186:
|
Dec 10 01:03 UTC 1994 |
I am a bit suprized at the choice myself, and that is part of what my concern
was before.. say you have survived abuse, and the first thing some people will
question will be the reality of it..other may question if you somehow provoced
it. The first concern should be how deeply this has affected the person and if
it has left them shaken... it is reasonable to make a working assumption that
something besides the person's own imagination has left
mark.
Some "repressed memories" are not true, but that , again should not mean
all of them are untrue...and if the memory was inplanted somehow by the actions
of a therapist, that does not mean the person is a "loonie". Brighn is correct
in saying this is why many people who have survived abuse keep silent...not
because the don't need to talk, but for fear of the lables that might be
attatched to the. Also, I believe you missed sidhe's point, ritual abuse is an
uncommon but documented pheonomena andsurviving it leaves a person very
troubled but does not justify labling them a "loonie". Many of these indiduals
actually have multiple personalities and in some cases, because of the
siverity of the abuse have repressed memories. I am not a suvivor of
religious ritual abuse. I do not wish to try to locate the articles, but I do
know that on more then one occasion, police have been able to conferm the
detailes of a survivors testimony , including locating remains from RA
nosurvivors in the locations they were reported. RA survivor are often very
reluctant to come forward because of threat (often remembered from childhood,
but sometimes recent) from the group that abused them, but even more then that
they are told it could never happen and this must be made up.
As for UFO's, I have on one occassion seen an object I could not identify...I
grew up never an air national guard base so i have a good idea what many
basic types of aircraft look like... any way, I could not identify it and
I continue to refer to it as such...unidentified.
As for the UFO abductions, there seems to be some evidecne that some of the
people have experience something, but not enough evidence to convince
me personally that the phenomena is unearthly.
This is why sidhe said it was a matter of opinion, no doubt. But let's
no get into his mess. I believe it is even more explosive then the
topic of this conference and it is definately far removed from the
subctopic in this item
|
twolf
|
|
response 81 of 186:
|
Dec 10 01:28 UTC 1994 |
Aaron,you will not let anyone else make a point without belittling them
and generally attempting to dominer the current discussion. If some
one succeeds in making a point you ignore it, if some one uses a stange
turn of phrase you us it to misquote them , and if they make a mistake
you attack like a rabid dog.
No one wants to play with you anymore aaron, go away.
|
kentn
|
|
response 82 of 186:
|
Dec 10 02:47 UTC 1994 |
Don't ever ever ever go to grad school twolf.
|
aaron
|
|
response 83 of 186:
|
Dec 10 07:00 UTC 1994 |
re #80: There is a big difference between abuse cases with no alleged
repression (the vast majority) and those with alleged repression.
You seem to be confusing the two separate scenarios.
Is it reasonable to assume that a person who remembers a past
life or an abduction by a UFO actually experienced what is
remembered? What would cause such memories? Are you applying
a double standard?
Again: There have been confirmed, isolated incidents of abuse
with satanic and/or ritualistic elements. But there is no evidence
of anything beyond those isolated incidents -- no cults, networks,
or any type of larger organization or conspiracy.
re #81: You need to go back and try again. If you believe that, you
haven't been reading what I have stated. (Suggestion: Start
with #79.68.)
|
aaron
|
|
response 84 of 186:
|
Dec 10 19:16 UTC 1994 |
Recent Books on "Repressed Memory"
Victims of Memory, by Mark Pendergrast.
Upper Access Books, $24.95
Toll-free number for orders: 800-356-9315.
This book includes many interviews with the various players in the debate,
providing the text so the reader can evaluate the positions in context.
The final chaper is devoted to Pendergrast's own experiences as an accused
parent.
Diagnosis For Disaster, by Claudette Wassil-Grimm
Overlook, $ 22.95 (Feb. 1995 release date)
This book examines the evolution of theories of "repression," and gives
significant attention to how and why people might develop "false memories"
of abuse. It has not yet been released, and this information is derived
solely from a book review.
Suggestions Of Abuse: True and False Memories of Childhood Sexual Trauma.
By Michael D. Yapko.
Simon & Schuster, $ 22.
Yapko, a practicing psychotherapist, analyzes how false memories can develop,
and how certain questionable therapies contribute to their development. Yapko
does not deny the existence of "repression," but reminds the reader that it is
a largely unknown phenomenon. Yapko also advises parents on how they should
deal with abuse accusations.
The Myth of Repressed Memory: False Memories and Allegations of Sexual Abuse"
By Elizabeth Loftus and Katherine Ketcham
St. Martin's Press, $ 22.95
This book tries to find middle ground in the repressed memory debate. It has
been recommended to me by a therapist who actively believes in repressed memory
and recovery of memory as a good-faith effort to approach these issues in a
scholarly fashion.
Making Monsters: False Memories, Psychotherapy, and Sexual Hysteria
By Richard Ofshe and Ethan Watters
Scribners, $ 23
Richard Ofshe is perhaps the most outspoken critic of the theory of repression.
This book has been accused of overreaching what is known for the purpose of
denouncing recovered memories; ironically, the same thing the authors criticise
in those who prolaim the validity of recovered memories. This is not to say
that Ofshe has not contributed to the field of memory research -- his
contributions are well documented. It is to say that he shows considerable
bias, and that this is not a good starting point for learning about the issues.
|
twolf
|
|
response 85 of 186:
|
Dec 10 22:37 UTC 1994 |
yet again you have proved my point aaron, I applied no double standard to
anything. Things such as UFO abduction and past life regression ado not belong
being discussed in this item. Also, I said these sort of things are not
currently provable, and are very much a matter of opinion. I suggest you
actually begin reading others comments in full for a change you would never
have written that, the term"loony" was in reference to an earlier comment,
where the term was originated for the purposes of this discussion. I never
claimed RA was common. Perhaps you, aaron should go back and read your own
coments from a different view point, because many individuals agred with the
opinion I stated , I am just the first one to bother to inform yd
|
sidhe
|
|
response 86 of 186:
|
Dec 10 23:14 UTC 1994 |
Regarding #84: Aaron, I do have a question.. I notice all of the books
that you have listed here are decidedly pro-FMS in content. This is worrisome,
as I would hope that someone who prides themself on their knowledge of
a subject would endeavor to educate themselves on all sides of the pertainant
issues. As it stands, you *appear* to be completely ignorant of what you are
so diametrically opposed to. Not wise. If This is the kind of education that
our future psychological professionals will possess, I hpoe no one ever is
in need of one!
Regarding #82: You quip, without making any further statement.. why?
I find it very interesting when people feel free to attack others, without ever
citing any cause at all. I believe the dishonorable practice is called
"snipering". If you have something to *add* to this conversation, do so.
Otherwise, we have quite enough conflict here without your assistance.
|
kentn
|
|
response 87 of 186:
|
Dec 11 00:44 UTC 1994 |
I don't think either you, sidhe, or twolf would survive in graduate
school if you can't handle the type of arguments that aaron presents.
I haven't found anything aaron has said to be overly objectionable in
content. In fact, you will find much worse in graduate school. I
ought to know...I've seen worse in graduate school. Aaron is quite
correct to point out the shortcomings of your arguments. That is as
far as I'm going in explaining myself. If you want to call it sniping,
the so be it. I've had about all I can take of this discussion.
|
brighn
|
|
response 88 of 186:
|
Dec 11 03:10 UTC 1994 |
Kent, dahling! More ad hominem attacks? Just because there are people in
academia who behave that way, that makes Aaron's behavior acceptable?
Don't cut it, baby. Me gots an MA; Me working for PhD; Me pissed off
at Aaron.
Aaron: You say society has the value of presumed innocence. The Hell it
does. The *legal system* has that value. Laws are made to enforce views
not universally held. Read the papers; plenty of lynching still going in,
just no nooses.
As to my being a hypocrite, probably. So are you -- you decry ad hominems,
and then call me a hypocrite. Pot calling the kettle black, methinks.
But then, I don't have any problem with being a hypocrite... do you?
This isn't an academic journal.
You missed Satanic Panic, by Jeffrey Victor, another pro-FMS (in relevant
parts) book. At any rate, so there's no underground network of Satanists --
so what? People have suffered from isolated incidents. We're talking about
the victims of Satanic Ritual Abuse, not about whether there is an
underground system of Satanism (there isn't). Please reread the topic.
Oh well, I'm tired of talking to you, Aaron.
BTW, Kent, mightn't there be a reason why academics have difficulty
presenting their view to the mainstream? Maybe it has to do with
hostile discourse style?
<brighn feels happy, having jumped back into the fray feetfirst,
then decides it isn't worth his time, and considers jumping out again.>
|
roz
|
|
response 89 of 186:
|
Dec 11 04:21 UTC 1994 |
I, too, have a hard time with aaron's style, regardless of whether or not
it's frequently found in graduate schools. I am always trying to avoid
people who are so sure they are correct that never is heard a "maybe you
have a point about that, but on the other hand . . ." which is the way I
like to explore an issue.
But then again, there's something about this issue, like other hot topics
like religion and abortion for instance, that makes it hard to discuss
without that over-rational quibbling that we've seen here quite a bit.
Everyone seems to be taking things personally but fighting back with
hair-splitting. Looks a lot like national politics. ;-)
|
aaron
|
|
response 90 of 186:
|
Dec 11 07:38 UTC 1994 |
re #86: I cited all of the important, current books on the recovered memory
debate. I posted disclaimers about Ofshe, the endorsement of
Loftus's work by a scholar who is anything but pro-FMS, and the fact
that Pendergrast's book presents materials in a manner that allows
the reader to make his or her own decisions. These books summarize
the research, and broach the other side's arguments. I know of a
book by Lenore Terr, but it only recounts anecdotes and provides
no scholarly basis for its readers.
Tell me -- what books did I omit? Where's your list?
re #88: Why is it that you persist in ad hominem, and ignore that of your
friends, sidhe and twolf? (What is your field of study, btw?)
Before calling me a hypocrite, perhaps you should review what
I said. "Set the ad hominem aside for a minute -- do you have
any points to raise?" Call me all the names you want, Paul.
All I asked is that you occasionally slip in a few intelligent
comments between epithets.
I didn't claim to have posted an exhaustive bibliography, Paul.
If you would like to create and post one, be my guest.
Perhaps you should associate yourself with the recovered
memories of SRA, as they rarely involve isolated incidents.
(Didn't you read past the dust cover of "Satanic Panic"?)
Why don't you ask me for a copy of the Debbie Nathan article?
I find your remarks on the presumption of innocence to be
quite astonishing. "Ha. This is my rule, and here's the
exception that proves it." The presumption of innocence is
a deeply held value in this society, Paul. It should not be
confused with "judgment upon insufficient evidence" or
vigilantism -- where guilt may well be established.
re #89: If you have questions, Rosalind, ask them. I have been more than
cooperative with your requests for information. Should you want
it, I remind you that I have even made offers of such material via
email.
Perhaps you could specifically refer to the places where I have
insisted that I am right and that there is no room for discussion.
Perhaps you could summarize my "radical" opinions for us. Perhaps
you could list those points that I have not adequately supported
so I can supply the missing details. Wouldn't it be better if
you addressed the issues? I am dead serious here, Rosalind. I
would really appreciate some thoughtful input here. I am getting
only argument without substance -- something that results in the
filling of screen after screen, but accomplishes little.
I should point out -- I don't take this personally. If I did,
I suppose, I might shrink from confrontation, try to sit on the
fence, and run for cover when an ideologue appears. Sometimes
I argue against my beliefs, just to poke holes in the arguments
of ideologues. The point is not to "win" or "lose" -- the point
is to refine arguments, hone points, weed out weaknesses. The point
is to think. To challenge and be challenged. You can't do that
by limiting yourself to one-sided discussions or sitting on the
sidelines.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 91 of 186:
|
Dec 11 16:01 UTC 1994 |
This response has been erased.
|
roz
|
|
response 92 of 186:
|
Dec 11 16:50 UTC 1994 |
Aaron, I'm sorry if my failure to adopt your confrontational style makes it
sound like a don't welcome ideas other than my own. I have enough respect
for myself, though, that I don't set myself up for direct challenge except
in situations where it seems to be warranted and where I'm sure I have all my
"ducks in a row". As I said in an earlier post, my opinion is that there is
not yet sufficient way to distinguish authentic recovered memories from any
that might be incorrect and that the lack of a reliable distinguishing
feature meant that many innocents on both sides of the question would
probably be harmed. That _is_ my opinion. It's not sideline-sitting to
refrain to come out swinging on an issue that is fuzzy instead of clearcut --
in my opinion, it's the correct, prudent and kind action. I'm not foolish
enough to think that impassioned argument will sway any with vested interest
in a controversial issue, so why would I bother? I have no problem with
having my opinions challenged. What I have a problem with is folks who believ
e
that if I don't fit myself into a cubbyhole by either fully agreeing or
fully disagreeing with them, that I don't understand the question.
|
aaron
|
|
response 93 of 186:
|
Dec 11 17:07 UTC 1994 |
re #91: In response to what, Valerie? I won't be rhetorical and suggest
that you can't keep a sunny disposition when responding to several
hundred lines of invective, as you seem capable. You also seem
to know some of the parties on the other side. What I would like
you to note is that this is anything but one-sided.
re #92: All I did was ask you to ask thoughtful questions. Sorry if that's
a style you won't adopt.
|
roz
|
|
response 94 of 186:
|
Dec 11 20:46 UTC 1994 |
Sorry aaron, but you annoy me. You characterize the style as "asking
thoughtful questions" and are sorry I won't do that. I feel patronized.
Could you please just share with us ONE thing you're not absolutely sure
of yourself on?
|
twolf
|
|
response 95 of 186:
|
Dec 12 00:47 UTC 1994 |
1 I do not see any anti-FMS books in the list you supplied, while
I did see more then one pro-FMS. This could not be a comprehensive
list. Just because a book would be clasified as anicdotal by you does
not mean it is of no value...we are not just talking about case studies in a
lab.,we are talking about living breathing human beings. Personal experience
can not always be studied under a microscope and all fielda of psycology,
psyciatry, etc are much more art then science. More then that, this
conference is not a professional journal...it is a discussion between
any one who has access and wishes to join in. Aaron, people here have
been trying to have a meaningful discussion, if you wish to have hollar
at people and conduct heated debates, perhaps you should try to form
a debate conference.
2 I recall no Darwinian theroies about debating. And survival of the loudest
and most tenacious is no way to hold a friendly discussion. Which is what
most people here seem to be saying they want. I know that is what II have
been trying to tell you.
3 Punching holes in your own arguements or undermining your own opinions
are only counter preduction actions. It is fine to challenge your own
positions , so long as you do it in a civil manner so you do not alienate
every one who might otherwise agree with your real opinions. I suspect
most people here would welcome such a discussion, for a change. It is
an old trit saying, but very true that you can draw more flies with honey
then you do with vinegar. Please remember, the only thing accomplished
by shooting yourself in the foot is crippling yourself.
4 I would be very interested to know what points you,aaron, have tried not
to present yourself as being absolutely convinced of, atleast one. I have yet
to find one, I honestly would like to see it. 5 It is very disturbing that you
state no one else but you has presented a sound arguement. Such a statement
makes you sound egotistical, whether or not you are, or wish to come off that
way. In you grex plan, it says you enjoy being devil's advocate. Sady, a
devil's avocate has only one ally , and no friends.
|
aaron
|
|
response 96 of 186:
|
Dec 12 07:20 UTC 1994 |
re #94: I am well aware, now, that you won't ask thoughtful questions.
You don't like the tone of this item? Then why are you so hostile?
re #95: So you don't know of a single book that I omitted from my list?
Wouldn't it have been easier to simply admit as much?
Call me when you have something to say. That's another 30 lines
of substance-free attack. (Of course, roz has no criticism for
your style.... Go figure.)
|
acelt
|
|
response 97 of 186:
|
Dec 12 16:07 UTC 1994 |
People, could we /please/ cease with the catfighting and return to the
subject at hand? (It was, I believe, a discussion of "False Memory
Syndrome," and the merits , or lack thereof.) Endless postings (and
posturing) concerning what degree one holds, who has or hasn't been to
grad school, who would or wouldn't survive there, &c. are doing nothing
but wasting bandwidth, drive space and time. Moreover, I believe we've
passed the point where the "I don't like your
hostility/confrontation/writing style" commentary is continuing to serve a
purpose. Yes, there *have* been a number of asinine posts to this
discussion. Continuing to holler, scream and farch about it, however,
won't change the behaviour of those posting them, and only serve to lead
us farther off topic.
Can we *please* finish with all this nonsense, and keep further remarks
germane to the question at hand (FMS)?
Thank you.
|
md
|
|
response 98 of 186:
|
Dec 12 16:56 UTC 1994 |
Oh, shut up.
Paul et al., I wasn't calling *you* "loonies." At least, I
hope none of you have recovered previously repressed memories
of satanic ritual abuse or UFO abductions. (Just seeing
something in the sky you can't identify doesn't count,
obviously.)
You may object to my choice of words. Imho, "loony" is an
appropriate vernacular term for a clinically nulliparous woman
who, under selective reinforcement or hypnosis by a therapist,
produces memories of having been impregnated by her father and
of having given birth to a baby which she was then forced to
eat at a satanic ritual. What would you call her? Confused?
I'm confused when I forget where I left my glasses. The women
is loony. Sorry.
But, as I said, you may object to my choice of words if you
feel it is unkind to the woman or her therapist. I'm a
relativist, though, and consider "loony" to be very kind indeed
next to "murderer," "rapist" and "pedophile" - not to mention
"satanic cultist" - which is what the woman's stunned parents
get called in court.
Re #84: excellent bibliography, thanks for entering it.
|
twolf
|
|
response 99 of 186:
|
Dec 12 17:57 UTC 1994 |
Aaron, you assume i have no books to add to the list, actually I do, but with
your attitude, I honestly do not wish to at this point. I raise concerns, and
you call them subatance free attacks? Man are you parinoid. I honestly wanted
answers to some of those question, in a civil manner. You seem to infer roz and
I are aquainted"of course, roz has no criticism for your style... go figure"
Honestly we are not. Now, can we please return to the subject at hand(to
literally any one reading this) and please address it? I am open to
suggestions of basic ground rules of behavior for a meaningful and civil
discussion. Does any one have any suggestions? Perhaps if we set a few basic
guidelines down we could compare view points without trying to character
assasinate each other? This ilast comment is not aimed at any one in
particular, depending upon perspective, many recent enteries many be guilty oif
this to some degree or another.
Perhaps we should start withone simple question. Who here would like a civil,
relatively calm discussion and comparision of view point?
|