![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mjg59(This post contains some discussion of rape and sexual assault but does not go into any specifics)
There was a brief controversy at Linux.conf.au back in 2011. The final keynote speaker gave a compelling presentation on online privacy, including some slides containing sexualised imagery. This was against the terms of the conference policies, and resulted in an apology from the conference organisers and the speaker. The situation was unfortunate but well handled, and that should have been the end of it.
Afterwards, there was some pushback on the conference mailing list. Concerns were raised about the policy being overly restrictive and the potential for it to be used to stifle speech that influential groups disagreed with. I don't agree with these arguments, but discussion of why policies have been implemented is completely natural and provides an opportunity for a community to determine what its expected standards are.
And then Ted Ts'o effectively called rape victims liars[1]. At first I assumed that this was just some sort of horrific failure to understand the implications of what he was saying, so I emailed him to check. The reply I got drew a pretty clear distinction between the case of a drunk college student raping another drunk college student in their room and the case of knifepoint rape in a dark park. You know, the difference between accidental rape and rape rape. The difference between the one any of us might have done and the one that only bad people do. Legitimate rape and the "rape" that those feminists talk about. The distinction that lets rapists convince themselves that they didn't really rape anyone because they weren't holding a knife at the time.
Ted Ts'o argues that only a small percentage of rape really counts as what people think of as rape. Ted Ts'o is a rape apologist.
There's an ongoing scandal in the UK at the moment. A well known DJ, Jimmy Savile, died last year. He grew up in a working class family, but through hard work and natural talent was one of the most significant figures in promoting pop music in the UK in the 50s and 60s, and worked in various parts of the BBC for the best part of 30 years. He spent significant amounts of time raising money for charity, and it's estimated that he raised over £40 million for various causes. Since his death, around 300 people have accused him of sexually abusing them. The BBC is desperately trying to explain why it cancelled an expose shortly before it aired. Multiple people who worked there at the time claim that everyone knew he was involved in indecent activities, but saying anything would risk both their career and the charities that depended on his fundraising. Nobody said anything, and he was allegedly free to continue his abuse.
Ted Ts'o is a significant figure in the Linux kernel community. He has expressed abhorrent beliefs that damage that community. Condemnation was limited to a mailing list with limited readership, meaning, effectively, that nobody said anything. Last week the Ada Initiative published a blog post pointing out the damage that did, and I realised that my effective silence was not only helping to alienate 50% of the population from involving themselves with Linux, it was also implicitly supporting my community leadership. I was giving the impression that I was basically fine with our community leaders telling people that it wasn't really rape if you were both drunk enough. I was increasing the chances of members of our community being sexually assaulted. Silence is endorsement. Saying nothing is not ok.
In the absence of an apology and explanation from Ted, I'll be interacting with him to the bare minimum that I'm compelled to as a result of my job. I won't be attending any Linux Foundation events he's involved in organising. If I'm running any events, I won't be inviting him. At a time when we're finally making progress in making our community more open and supportive, we don't need leaders who undermine that work. Support organisations who encourage that progress, not the people who help drag us back.
Footnotes
[1]The original archive has vanished. I've put up a copy of the relevant thread here. Throughout, Ted states that he's actually arguing against the idea that women need to be frightened of sexual assault, and not against the definition of rape. Except saying things like
(Update 2012/10/30: Adam Williamson suggests in this comment that this mail is a better example of Ted's behaviour - there's some explicit victim blaming and a lot of "Is that rape" questioning with the obvious implication that the answer should be "no". Ted Ts'o is a victim blaming rape apologist.)
(Update 2012/11/05: It's been suggested that I haven't been sufficiently clear about which of Ted's statements justify my claims. So, here we go.
In this mail, Ted links to and endorses this article. He explicitly links to it because of its treatment of rape statistics. Quoting directly from that article:
Ted explicitly endorses an article that claims that a significant percentage of reported rapes are false. The study that generated that figure is held in poor regard by other researchers in the field - Australian police figures indicate that 2.1% of rape accusations were classified as false. Ted asserts that he was trying to argue against poor use of statistics, so it's a fair assumption that he agrees with the alternative statistics that he's citing. Ted believes that many rape victims are making false accusations. Ted believes that many rape victims are liars.
Again in this mail, Ted argues against a claimed figure that 1 in 4 women have been sexually assaulted. One of his arguments is that
There was a brief controversy at Linux.conf.au back in 2011. The final keynote speaker gave a compelling presentation on online privacy, including some slides containing sexualised imagery. This was against the terms of the conference policies, and resulted in an apology from the conference organisers and the speaker. The situation was unfortunate but well handled, and that should have been the end of it.
Afterwards, there was some pushback on the conference mailing list. Concerns were raised about the policy being overly restrictive and the potential for it to be used to stifle speech that influential groups disagreed with. I don't agree with these arguments, but discussion of why policies have been implemented is completely natural and provides an opportunity for a community to determine what its expected standards are.
And then Ted Ts'o effectively called rape victims liars[1]. At first I assumed that this was just some sort of horrific failure to understand the implications of what he was saying, so I emailed him to check. The reply I got drew a pretty clear distinction between the case of a drunk college student raping another drunk college student in their room and the case of knifepoint rape in a dark park. You know, the difference between accidental rape and rape rape. The difference between the one any of us might have done and the one that only bad people do. Legitimate rape and the "rape" that those feminists talk about. The distinction that lets rapists convince themselves that they didn't really rape anyone because they weren't holding a knife at the time.
Ted Ts'o argues that only a small percentage of rape really counts as what people think of as rape. Ted Ts'o is a rape apologist.
There's an ongoing scandal in the UK at the moment. A well known DJ, Jimmy Savile, died last year. He grew up in a working class family, but through hard work and natural talent was one of the most significant figures in promoting pop music in the UK in the 50s and 60s, and worked in various parts of the BBC for the best part of 30 years. He spent significant amounts of time raising money for charity, and it's estimated that he raised over £40 million for various causes. Since his death, around 300 people have accused him of sexually abusing them. The BBC is desperately trying to explain why it cancelled an expose shortly before it aired. Multiple people who worked there at the time claim that everyone knew he was involved in indecent activities, but saying anything would risk both their career and the charities that depended on his fundraising. Nobody said anything, and he was allegedly free to continue his abuse.
Ted Ts'o is a significant figure in the Linux kernel community. He has expressed abhorrent beliefs that damage that community. Condemnation was limited to a mailing list with limited readership, meaning, effectively, that nobody said anything. Last week the Ada Initiative published a blog post pointing out the damage that did, and I realised that my effective silence was not only helping to alienate 50% of the population from involving themselves with Linux, it was also implicitly supporting my community leadership. I was giving the impression that I was basically fine with our community leaders telling people that it wasn't really rape if you were both drunk enough. I was increasing the chances of members of our community being sexually assaulted. Silence is endorsement. Saying nothing is not ok.
In the absence of an apology and explanation from Ted, I'll be interacting with him to the bare minimum that I'm compelled to as a result of my job. I won't be attending any Linux Foundation events he's involved in organising. If I'm running any events, I won't be inviting him. At a time when we're finally making progress in making our community more open and supportive, we don't need leaders who undermine that work. Support organisations who encourage that progress, not the people who help drag us back.
Footnotes
[1]The original archive has vanished. I've put up a copy of the relevant thread here. Throughout, Ted states that he's actually arguing against the idea that women need to be frightened of sexual assault, and not against the definition of rape. Except saying things like
This one does a pretty good job of taking apart the Koss / Ms. Magazine study, which is the source for the "1 in 4" number. For example, it points out that over half of those cases were ones where undergraduates were plied with alcohol, and did not otherwise involve using physical force or other forms of coercionis difficult to read in any way other than "Half of the people you're counting as having been raped haven't really been raped", and favourably referring to an article that asserts that the rate of false rape reports is probably close to 50% is pretty strong support for the idea that many rape victims are liars.
(Update 2012/10/30: Adam Williamson suggests in this comment that this mail is a better example of Ted's behaviour - there's some explicit victim blaming and a lot of "Is that rape" questioning with the obvious implication that the answer should be "no". Ted Ts'o is a victim blaming rape apologist.)
(Update 2012/11/05: It's been suggested that I haven't been sufficiently clear about which of Ted's statements justify my claims. So, here we go.
In this mail, Ted links to and endorses this article. He explicitly links to it because of its treatment of rape statistics. Quoting directly from that article:
the rate of false reports is at least 9 percent and probably closer to 50 percent
Ted explicitly endorses an article that claims that a significant percentage of reported rapes are false. The study that generated that figure is held in poor regard by other researchers in the field - Australian police figures indicate that 2.1% of rape accusations were classified as false. Ted asserts that he was trying to argue against poor use of statistics, so it's a fair assumption that he agrees with the alternative statistics that he's citing. Ted believes that many rape victims are making false accusations. Ted believes that many rape victims are liars.
Again in this mail, Ted argues against a claimed figure that 1 in 4 women have been sexually assaulted. One of his arguments is that
Also found in the Koss study, although not widely reported, was the statistic that of the women whom she classified as being raped (although 73% refused to self-classify the event as rape), 46% of them had subsequent sex with the reported assailant. Ted disagrees with a statistic because some rape victims subsequently have sex with the reported assailant. This means that Ted believes that this indicates that they were not really raped. Ted is a rape apologist.)
What a horrible approach to this discussion!
Date: 2012-10-29 10:44 pm (UTC)For the purposes of accurate risk assessment (which is really what this is all about) some levels of the crime can never really apply. Think of all the types of rape and then consider how many of those can happen at an event.
Stay with me, I know you're probably about to delete this comment for being that of another "rape apologist" but I have a point.
What you seem to be inferring from Ted is that some levels of rape are okay somehow… And that's where you lose me completely. Where the hell does he say anything like that? In fact, when I re-read his posts without your sensationalism, all I see is somebody using statistics to make a very specific point about others' fear of statistics.
And what is the block about Jimmy Saville all about? What on earth does a paedophile or the approach around that paedophile have to do with Ted? Are you somehow trying to draw a parallel between what Ted is saying and the *alleged* approach to Saville? I think you're getting dangerously close to defamy.
The only person that deserves an apology here is Ted.
Re: What a horrible approach to this discussion!
Date: 2012-10-29 10:51 pm (UTC)All of them? The only way some of the rapes couldn't happen at one of these events would be to classify them as something other than rape, which Ted carefully makes the argument for.
Re: What a horrible approach to this discussion!
Date: 2012-10-29 11:21 pm (UTC)One of the surveys Ted quotes has the problem _right there_. In the survey, anyone who answered 'yes' to any of these questions was considered to have been raped:
"8. Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?
9. Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.) to make you?
10. Have you had sexual acts (anal or oral intercourse or penetration by objects other than the penis) when you didn’t want to because a man threatened or used some degree of physical
force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.) to make you?"
However, of the people who answered 'yes' to any of those three questions, 27% considered themselves to have been raped. The other 73% didn't. Of those 73%, half characterized the event as a 'miscommunication'.
It's pretty hard to look at that and say it's not a giant icky grey area. Clearly even people who have by a defensible but wide definition been raped don't agree with that definition of rape. There seems something odd about describing someone who's been raped as a rape apologist, but by your logic, it would appear that anyone who has been in a situation which someone else would describe as 'rape' but which they themselves would not describe as 'rape' is a 'rape apologist'. I'm not comfortable with that.
As you probably know I'm usually pretty firmly on the right-on feminist side of these issues, but I get very squicky when it comes to this. It seems inarguable that most people, however you cut it, view there as being distinctions of degree in terms of sexual misconduct, including within an area of a spectrum that some people would apply the single term 'rape' to the whole of. I'm just not sure this whole debate is subject to a 'this is right and everyone who has reservations about it is a part of the problem' approach.
I've always noted that both British and Canadian news publications these days are very reluctant to use the word 'rape', I think because of this whole miasma of messiness. They prefer the term 'sexual assault'.
Re: What a horrible approach to this discussion!
Date: 2012-10-30 01:04 am (UTC)The psychology of all of this is difficult, and there aren't simple answers that cover all situations. However, arguing about it purely on the basis of semantics or statistics merely strengthens the perception that some kinds of rape aren't really serious.
Re: What a horrible approach to this discussion!
Date: 2012-10-30 01:36 am (UTC)What they're disagreeing with is not the definition of what's a scam and what isn't, but the facts of their particular case: they are deluding themselves that they're not like all those other suckers and they'll get their money eventually, so there wasn't a scam.
I don't have the survey data, obviously, but given the questions in the rape survey, it seems clear it was talking about past events with a definite start and end point. The instance of sexual activity happened and finished. There does not appear to be any dispute between the interviewer and the the interviewee about the bare facts of what happened - who stuck what into whom. The ambiguity is not in the pure facts of the case - it's not as if the interviewee is saying "if we just wait long enough, I'm sure it'll turn out that I retroactively consented to the sexual activity'. That's absurd. The ambiguity is in the _interpretation_ of those facts, which makes it a rather different case. What happened is not at issue; how the events are interpreted, whether they constitute a crime and if so _what_ crime are the points at issue.
I didn't mention it in my post, but after 'miscommunication', the next most common category for those interviewed who did not believe they had been raped was something like 'it was a crime, but it wasn't the crime of rape'. That doesn't tally with the 'don't want to be a victim' theory.
The article as a whole is an interesting read, in fact, and presents a lot of pertinent questions about the methodology of the surveys. Bits of it seem somewhat kooky and there's obviously a whole factionalism behind it that I don't know enough about, but a lot of it seems to be solid.
Re: What a horrible approach to this discussion!
Date: 2012-10-30 01:43 am (UTC)To be clear I think in the thread cited that Jacinta's entirely correct and Ted's post doesn't seem to contribute much of use and really just muddies the waters. I don't agree with other commenters that Ted was trying to make some kind of point about the types of rape 'likely to occur' at conferences, he doesn't say anything like that, he just takes issue with some numbers. But I just think the topic of what is and isn't rape is an area of very thin ice indeed and I'm not sure it's correct or helpful to say that Ted's mail constitutes 'rape denial'.
Re: What a horrible approach to this discussion!
Date: 2012-10-30 02:44 am (UTC)And if you ask people about hypotheticals that don't involve them, you may also get different answers.
Re: What a horrible approach to this discussion!
Date: 2012-10-30 03:35 am (UTC)Re: What a horrible approach to this discussion!
Date: 2012-10-30 03:41 am (UTC)Re: What a horrible approach to this discussion!
Date: 2012-10-30 05:24 am (UTC)I think my version of the takeaway from this would be that I can't see any situation in which it makes any sense at all for a guy in the F/OSS community to bring up this whole highly toxic debate in the context of trying to make the community _more_ accessible. I can't see any conceivable way in which it could possibly help that.
Re: What a horrible approach to this discussion!
Date: 2012-10-30 10:42 am (UTC)The people who say stuff like: "but hey think about all the raped men" and "but only 27% say they are raped", are only making it worse. You need to take a very hard stance.
Re: What a horrible approach to this discussion!
Date: 2012-11-01 09:09 pm (UTC)Re: What a horrible approach to this discussion!
Date: 2012-12-09 09:48 pm (UTC)I've had all of this BS I can handle, so here are my thoughts... as a freaking WOMAN who has some actual personal experience with this. Because, gotta say... I'm kind of tired of a bunch of MEN deciding how I do or should feel about an event that happened to ME.
I've been raped under the definition of rape that keeps expanding. (not alcohol, but definitely one of those gray areas where it definitely felt like rape and wasn't consensual that made me feel horrible for awhile and broke down trust in a relationship, but which I recovered from), and I would like to say that I agree with Ted.
Look, I understand the people who are fighting this battle and so concerned with women's rights, I do. With idiots like Todd Aiken out there making it seem like if you get pregnant you couldn't have been raped, then yes, this is a serious issue and women need to be protected. BUT the problem with lumping all the statistics together and then defining it all as the WORST scenario isn't only that it's dishonest (intellectually and otherwise), it's that those of us who have been victims of less horrific forms of rape are being cloaked in this group and being told: "Rape is the most horrific thing that can ever happen to a person. It ruins your life forever and you can never recover or be whole or feel safe again. It destroys you."
What is up with this INSISTENCE on traumatizing me or making me FEEL more traumatized than I would have felt otherwise? Why is it if I don't feel knife-wielding violent stranger rape PTSD trauma over what in my mind IS a lesser form of rape, I'm suddenly "repressing"?
Those statements just aren't true for every single rape victim in the less horrific types. I understand rape is rape and I understand it is NEVER okay or justified. And I understand the desire not to create a slippery slope where rape is okay in XYZ circumstances. But at the same time, why should I have to be a perpetual "broken victim" for the "rape culture" industry which INSISTS on dehumanizing me far worse than the man who had sex with me without my permission ever did?
It's dehumanizing and patronizing to speak to me as if I am some perpetual broken doll based on ONE experience in my life that was NOT the worst rape experience that could have happened. Women have a right to define their own experience and their own feelings about an experience and their own freaking trauma level with regards to that experience.
Lumping me in with the worst, most graphic and horrible examples of rape and then defining rape, ALL rape as being the emotional effects of that worst case scenario, but applied back to all of us... even those of us who feel we are not broken or damaged now at ALL... it's just wrong.
Ted is right, and I don't get how such hysterics can even exist for any woman who has had an experience like mine. i.e. one that didn't ruin her forever. I refuse to be a martyr to this cause.
I am not a "victim". I am not a "survivor". What I am is pissed the hell off that so many will not rest until they force that label upon me simply because I had a bad day one day where a bad and nonconsenting sexual experience happened.
I DEFINE MY EXPERIENCE. So no, you and every other "well-meaning and concerned citizen" don't get to define me as some broken victim of rape to suit your agenda by conveniently lumping everything together and lumping my experience in with being beaten up and raped in an alley.
It's so dishonest and Sh*tty. Stop doing it.
Rape is so much about political agenda these days. And there are legal degrees to every crime. Look, if I steal a woman's lipstick and she has a mental breakdown over it, should I be charged with a higher crime than I'd be charged with if I stole a lipstick from someone who wasn't so emotionally reactive about the whole thing?
The law is meant to be reason free from passion. We have to have levels to crimes and not act like in something with such a WIDE definition that it's all equivalent. If I was the woman who had been beaten and raped at knife point in an alley, I would be even more traumatized by the fact that a woman who had had a MUCH lesser experience than mine was somehow able to claim the same level of damage and trauma as me. It just disrespects those who have suffered true horror in their lives.
Not all rape is created equal. Period. It's ALL wrong. None of it is OKAY. But not every situation is equally traumatizing. But all women are different. I'm sure there are some women who would have been far more traumatized by my experience than I was. But should the level of punishment for a crime or the level of seriousness of a degree of a crime be determined by how one individual feels about the crime happening to them? I really don't think that it should.
Because we DO live in a rape culture... but it's not the same rape culture the feminazis want us to believe we live in. We live in a rape culture that INSISTS everything is some evil and violent conspiracy against women and that women have this HUGE risk of being the victim of violent rape and that if they ARE in some way raped in this ever expanding definition, that even if it's a lesser form, they are wrong about their own emotional reactions and repressing and just don't want to "think of themselves as a victim" so they need therapy until they have a breakdown for something that wasn't THAT traumatic for them to begin with.
Seriously STOP.
If you REALLY care about women, and our feelings about anything at all, then just stop. Stop telling us how we are supposed to feel about the things that happen to us. Honestly the way my situation is talked about by people who act like they know and don't, is far worse than the original situation was to begin with.
Re: What a horrible approach to this discussion!
Date: 2012-10-30 10:51 am (UTC)As you said : "Silence is endorsement. Saying nothing is not ok."
And I don't agree with your position. Teo arguments are sound and even if I understand that because of your background, you might read it as a 'rape apology', I think you should step back and re-read the entire thread with a fresh mind. Nobody is saying that rape is ok, the debate is about scaring poeple using statistics to enforce silly and overly restrictive policies.
I for one feel very uneasy while attending FOSS conferences and never approach a women to make conversation. This is not because I don't know where are my limits or because I don't like to talk, but because I feel that everything I say could be misinterpreted by some black and white guy like you. In real life the large majority of my friends are women. In the FOSS community none. And this is not because they are not there, or they are not interesting. Just because I feel watched by these "policies" and make me very very uncomfortable.
If you want to create a gender diverse environment we should adopt the model or a coffee shop where everybody go to relax and discuss. And not of a workplace on the 5th Ave, where people work but do not socialize and they are not themselves. I love FOSS because is fun and overly restrictive policies don't make it fun AT ALL !
Re: What a horrible approach to this discussion!
Date: 2012-11-02 11:39 pm (UTC)I would be worried going to a conference where there have been incidents like this in the past and nobody has spoken up about them or the majority argued that they aren't a big deal.
To you rape is some theoretical thing, to me it's not. It's something I worry about every time I'm walking alone, even during the day if the street is sparsely populated.
Policies like this make you uncomfortable?
A lack of policies like this make me worry for my physical safety.
Apparently you think that your discomfort is more important, however.
Re: What a horrible approach to this discussion!
Date: 2012-11-04 05:16 pm (UTC)You feel that something is needed, and the lack of it "makes you worry". OK, that's your opinion. Now, if you want to convince someone else of it, you need some factual arguments beyond just stating this is how you feel.
If a lack of policies actually endangered your physical safety, that would be a different thing. But if it only makes you worry, that's not necessarily any worse than the worrying caused by such policies, and depending on design they can also cause practical harm. Policies should not be used as another form of "security theater" to keep people from worrying when they do not help against real threats.
Re: What a horrible approach to this discussion!
Date: 2012-12-09 10:14 pm (UTC)Your post is exactly why you should think more carefully about what Ted said. Why are you so scared? Have you been raped before? Or do you just have this horrible vague rape fear stuck in your head?
If it's the latter, why do you think that fear is there? Could it be... oh... I don't know... all the rape propaganda everywhere that insists you are likely to be a victim of violent assault while subtly implying it will be a stranger in a dark alley with a knife that smells of cheap whiskey and is riddled with STD's?
When you think or worry about rape are you worried about having confusing sex with a guy you're attracted to but miscommunicated with? Are you worried about getting a little tipsy and going with a guy you are attracted to to his room and then having sex that may or may not be 100% consensual based on your ability to give consent and your level of inebriation but that wasn't violent? Do you worry about a miscommunication with your spouse or boyfriend that results in an ugly event that you'll eventually move past?
Probably not. And yet... these super gray areas and confusing areas and emotionally painful but not world-destroying types of rape definitions and scenarios is what the bulk majority of all rape cases are. Most rape is not stranger rape. And most acquaintance rape involves some gray or miscommunication area. Or some fight between a long-term couple that goes terribly wrong.
Not stranger in a dark alley. And yet... isn't the latter what you are afraid of? Where the former would be bad... and you might even require some help coping and recovering... probably your world wouldn't end forever.
Do you approve of the way you are being emotionally manipulated and forced to live in fear for other people's agendas?
I'm one of those "unreported rape" statistics. Why? Because what happened to me was PERSONAL between me and someone I was intimately involved with and it was NOT the government's business or anybody else's business but ours.
Also, despite all the propaganda out there that tells me most acquaintance rape or relationship rape is far more traumatizing than stranger rape... I do not buy that at all. Maybe for some people that is the case depending on the acquaintance or relationship, but when the thing that happened to me happened, I KNEW who this man was. I KNEW his STD status. I KNEW he wasn't going to kill me. I KNEW that I would survive it both physically and emotionally... none of which are guarantees with a stranger.
And yet... women live in terror of the unlikely stranger rape, while being forcefed propaganda that it's ALL the same thing and they are supposed to think and feel about it all the same way.
Re: What a horrible approach to this discussion!
Date: 2012-12-09 10:29 pm (UTC)Re: What a horrible approach to this discussion!
Date: 2012-10-29 11:33 pm (UTC)Re: What a horrible approach to this discussion!
Date: 2012-10-30 12:07 am (UTC)Let's boil this dry. You have conferences and occasionally a small subset of offences occur. They're not good and should not be tolerated at all. I don't think many men would disagree with that.
The problem Ted, others and I have with the approach so far is people wade in with a random statistic that contains data that has no relation to life at a Linux event. At your last event did you get much prison rape? No? How about child rape? Do you regularly gang up on a prostitute? Is marital rape a popular one? How on earth do you expect to protect against that in a way that society doesn't already?
This is what I'm talking about. These are the numbers that Ted was distilling. To form a coherent policy you need to know the current situation. Find the crimes that are happening and you might be able to find out why they happen and what can be done to stop them…
But instead of having a sensible conversation about it, you made your own conclusion, put that in his mouth and have publicly crucified Ted for it. You're the problem here Matthew, not Ted.
And I do appreciate you not deleting my comments — I've had similar conversations with people in the past and they tend to get over-defensive when confronted. I'm glad we can talk about this.
Re: What a horrible approach to this discussion!
Date: 2012-10-30 01:10 am (UTC)