Re: Women don't lie about rape.

Rich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message:
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 

> Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... 

<snipping where i have little to add or disagree with>

>> This context contradicts the absolute 'never' impression, 
> 
> Clearly, but this is what's there. And I daresay that if you read
> the literature at any such orginization, it will say pretty much the
> same thing.
> 
>> hence the need to minimise it, but more importantly it contradicts a 
>> previous claim of mine in discussion with you about absolute
>> statements (at least, i think it does.  i can't remember what i
>> said).  i probably owe you an apology, although i personally think
>> that the wording of these organisations is (deliberately) sloppy.
> 
> Perhaps it's like lumping all sort of non-violent things in with
> the DV stats to inflate the DV numbers? It's like lumping rape and
> attempted rape together and implying that your figures are for rape.

i suppose a similar mentality lies behind both.

Wrt your comments on DV stats, yes, it's wrong to do it, although non-
physical abuse ought to still be recognised as abuse (and no less serious 
for that), albeit (statistically) perhaps under a different category.

As an aside, should the punishment for attempted rape (or attempted 
anything else) be less than that for (completed) rape (etc)?  i think 
that it tends to be, which has always struck me as odd.

[...]

> Rich
> 
> 
> Erratum: I finally recovered the data I had thought lost on the
>          computer I fixed a bit ago. I was afraid to boot it up
>          lest I overwrite the data. Perhaps I'll respond again to
>          JJ's email. I recall reading of someone who sent a postcard
>          and email every day for a year as a test. Every postcard
>          arrived, but quite a few emails did not.

Clearly he wasn't sending his postcards from either the UK or SE Asia.  
;-)

-- 
Neil