Alice

"Such is life, it's the proverbial ass"

Perhaps, but one needs more "faith" than I can muster to consider the alternatives "improvements". Best, M.

I don't think you understood my post. But such, again, is life.

Aparently not.

maybe i should try it again - I was 15 at the time and it was a set book - i really did hate it - normally i can read a huge range of styles and subject matters but it was absolute torture to get through! Now 1984, which we were reading at the same time i enjoyed.

Have you ever read Dorothy Dunnet's books? I think you would enjoy them as they are incredibly rich, tightly written, with incredible pithy descriptions, use of poetry, a fantastic breadth of knowledge of politics/manners and morals of an era through all the social classe, across Europe and the Mediterranean to the east and Russia from Scotland and England (the Game of Kings series)

Hmmm - I have one in the long queue awaiting my attention....

great! I hope you'll let me know what you think of it?

Certainly - but it is a VERY long queue - I don't think I have even seen the Dunnett for a year!

Thanks Craven, due to some other interactions that we are involved in I am beginning to understand why you don't like "Alice"

You and Alice combined is an oddity to me, aka.

That is, your interpretation of Alice seems very odd to me.

aka, just because I disagree with you when you call forcible rape "harmless" and "pleasurable"?

Sorry aka, the criteria for enjoying these books has nothing to do with sharing your sexual perversions. You can try to seek validation for such perverted positions in this book, such is your prerogative.

But you do not understand why I dislike this book so far. You simply are trying to characterize your support for serial rapist of children as a matter of learning and understanding.

The sooner you "learn" that my disagreement with your assertion that forcible rape is "harmless pleasurable activity" is not going to change the sooner you will stop trying to get me to share your perverted opinion.

I read Alice as commentary on many things.

Amongst them is that legal terms do not necessarily mean what the general population thinks them to mean.

The "rape" of the boys was statuary. It's only Wilso's claim that there was penile insertion involved. He wasn't there, nor was he in the court, nor does he or I claim to have read the minutes of the court. Therefore neither he nor I nor you KNOW if actual physical harm took place.
According to "The Week" magazine (Jan 9 04) Most pediophelia does not involve force or violence. Therefore I find his claim unsupported. There is a very good chance that the boys were not physically penetrated or damaged.

When Wilso wished to accuse me of pederastity I considered the source and was amused.

Should you wish to accuse me of prevarication-----???

Seems your world view is far too narrow and blinkered to be able to manage to grasp the concept of psychological, developmental and emotional damage, aka.

While I find it extremely odd, I can see that there seems to be no way to enlighten you. This is especially odd, since even those blind from birth seem able to manage to grasp some sort of concept of sight and those who live in equatorial regions to manage to at least understand that a thing called cold exists - so it seems that most humans can imagine things that they are not able to understand directly.

I do not intend to comment further on this matter, since it is about as useful as throwing myself against a pyramid, and your attitude insults the thousands upon thousands of people hurt very seriously by sexual abuse, without bearing any physical scars.

aka,

No I have not accused you of being a pedophile, only of defending pedophilia.

Note that when I speak of pedophilia I do not speak of statutory rape, but the forcible violent rape that you alternate between calling harmless and pleasurable or denying that the courts were competent enough to assert that it occured.

But like dlowan, I see little benefit of discussing your deviations from societal norms. You'll have to espouse the ideals of forcible rape to someone else.

But as an aside, do you think you can stop entering unrelated threads to keep voicing your support for pedophilia?

You've hijacked several threads now with your repetitive support for sexual abuse. It's getting old.

Sorry Craven, I was using little used threads to avoid the hijacking charges on "irks".

You are right, "it's getting old".

"OFF WITH HER HEAD!"

It got interesting with the Queen's croquet game.

Yep, I like that part!

And the Duchess' very pointy chin. For some reason that made a big impression on me when I was a kid.

"The queen only had one way of settling difficulties, great or small..."

"They are dreadfully fond of beheading people here. The great wonder is that there's anyone alive!"

'Twas a great chapter.

Not taken with the damn flamingo and hedgehog croquet?

I liked it when the apparatus kept wandering off....

Yeah that was funny too, I liked the part about the flamengo looking up at her with a puzzled look. That captured what I'd long though was what the spirit of teh book was supposed to be.

But dialogue is what I like best, some of it was very funny in this chapter.

"The kings argument was that anything that had a head could be beheaded, and that you wern't to talk nonsense."

Which, indeed, you aren't.

Ruthless logic, in its own narrow way....