George Herbert wrote: Actually, I think it *was* constructive. It's a point I've wanted to make (perhaps not so harshly) for a long time, but I've been too chicken to make it at all. I don't know Slim Virgin well enough to know whether she's a reasonable person or a drama queen, so I GFly assume that she's a reasonable person. So I'm not talking about Slim Virgin here. But. If we Absolutely Must Not blame a victim, if we Absolutely Must protect them, if we Absolutely Must accept their definition of their own victimhood, then we're rather powerless against being drawn inexorably into disastrously downspiraling drama-queenish situations if we ever have the misfortune of getting involved with someone who is simultaneously (a) a legitimate and comfortworthy victim and (b) deranged. We can't structure the debate so that any dissent with the opinions of a victim is cause for accusation of having blamed that victim. We shouldn't allow such dissenters to be equated with rapists (as has been repeatedly done in the whole drawn-out meta-BADSITES debate). If the emperor has no clothes, or if the victim has no sense, we've got to be willing to say so. So far I haven't said so, because I've been too paranoid about being labeled a victim-blamer or a rape apologist. But I salute Phil for saying so, and I emphatically agree, and I guess I do have to talk about Slim Virgin for a moment after all: if the policy-that-can't-be-called-BADSITES makes no logical sense, if no one (not even its supporters) favors the deleterious potential repercussions which it would be all too likely to have, if the only reason for clinging desperately to the policy is that otherwise Slim Virgin, a respected and longtime contributor, might be badly offended, then I'm terribly sorry, but Slim, I'm afraid you're going to have to be offended (some more).

Steve Summit wrote: One observation that I have made about this latest go-round on the mailing list is that Slim has _not_ participated. Whether she has elsewhere I don't know. It all suggests to me that the topic has taken on a life of its own, and she would be just as happy to see her name disappear from the discussion. I suspect too that she has learned the lesson of not feeding trolls, whether or not the participants really are trolls. Ec

On 10/11/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote: I think you should consider that and then consider apologizing for calling me a troll because I've taken Brandt seriously. If Brandt is full of shit, prove it. Feel free to do this privately if you'd like.

On 10/12/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote: LMAO. You could have at least looked at the message you sent previously before saying this: "You are smart enough to know this, and so I can only assume you've returned to needlessly trolling the list." I didn't misunderstand. You've changed your position. A good reason for me and others not to take *you* seriously.