BiDanFan@103
You had to double down?

@99 you sought to portray others' writing in this thread as insultingly simplistically as
"Some of us are saying "and go right ahead and disrupt the funeral if you want""

Then here at @103 you are /again!/ "beyond ungenerous", as you conveniently hand picked bits of what I wrote that weren't qualified. Qualified by all the IFs I used upthread, qualified by all the times I pointed out that only the letter writer knows the status of those IFs.

Generous would have been, when you went back through all my comments, not to only hand pick the parts that out of context fit your simplistic characterization of opponents' positions.

You could instead have collected the numerous qualifications I made, and apologized for presenting an ungenerous caricature of the opposing point of view.

I could comb through all my posts to do that myself, but I really don't want to spend time in debates that don't contain some generosity, by which I mean acknowledging opposing points along with making one's own.

I fully admit that my qualifications weren't in my @2; I always have little time for my initial weekly posts. My justification for that is what I said @99 about presenting not the answer, but options for the only one with enough information to be the decision maker, who is the letter writer not us.

You, OTOH, are looking at what I'm calling IFs, as known:

BiDanFan@104
"This is not a situation where she's moved far away"

You do not know that. I choose not to construct a black and white scenario to defend in debate. That seems not the best value we can bring to a situation in which an important goal is stopping a real sexual predator who is in the real world, and who last we heard was still free to prey upon real children.

What I wanted was /not/ to assume a bunch of things that might solve this extremely serious problem /for/ us. I wanted FUNERAL to read my comments and maybe be inspired to expand the options she was considering (which, remember, go far beyond the bloody funeral; I knew she was disinclined to disrupt it, I could feel confident she would disregard that suggestion IF [as I wrote many times] our goal could be achieved by other means), after reading what this Internet rando "curious2" wrote. When we write to a LW, Isn't the LW our audience?

Curious @105, I was shocked to read your post as I certainly did not intend any rudeness or dismissiveness. In fact, I added the "if she wants" in order NOT to misstate your position, which, had I been looking to start a fight, that's how I would have done it. You have in fact always stated that it's up to her whether she wants to take this on; you have never gone as far as saying that if she does not do everything possible, including actions that could hurt her, she would be directly responsible for the abuse of more children. So, there is the generosity you were looking for -- do you see it now? I did not ignore the "ifs," and you're the one who is now being ungenerous and rude and doubling down.

Speaking of people who truncate comments to make someone look extreme: "This is not a situation where she's moved far away OR OTHERWISE COMPLETELY SEVERED TIES WITH THIS COMMUNITY," is what I wrote. This leaves open the possibility that she -has- moved away but not severed all ties. (If she had, how'd she get the funeral invite?) She called this person her "best friend," not her former best friend. There's a thing called the internet that lets people remain emotionally close even when they are geographically not.

I go back to my conclusion that you obviously can't discuss this rationally. Yes, the LW is my audience. My comments were addressed to her, in the event that she read these comments and thought your advice was in any way a good idea.

You're being belligerent for the sake of it and I have to tell myself that this topic must be touching a nerve with you, in order to forgive your attitude toward both the letter and me. See y'all tomorrow when the new column lands.

For an example of generous, I submit the sentence which BDF@96 was responding to, Fichu@95:

"All of us might be saying the same thing in different ways."

I like the way that that acknowledges that we have a goal in common, dealing best and most effectively with a sexual predator who is at large.

BDF@106
"people who truncate comments to make someone look extreme"

You're right, point very well-taken, I stupidly did exactly what I was complaining about. I didn't take time to think about what that "or" meant in your the sentence. I retract and apologize for that point, sorry. (I don't think you need to conclude that I "obviously can't discuss this rationally", I hope I may be allowed to make a few mistakes without such a conclusion.)

"...there is the generosity you were looking for -- do you see it now?"

Yes absolutely, thank you very much. But I always saw how

"if she wants"

acknowledged observations by people like Fichu and I that her course of action is optional.

HOWEVER my issue is that my qualifications were about far more than just her level of comfort and willingness, but also about her uniquely-informed (compared to our much less informed) assessment of what measures were available and warranted.

I've seen some people feeling available measures would be sufficient that I would not be confident enough would be effective. I simply see that as optimism I don't share. I accept that to them my point of view is unnecessarily vigorous.

Social dynamics are complicated. I noted upthread that I've found lids very difficult to blow. I can see how someone whose experience has been different would confidently feel differently. But since I know lids /can/ be very difficult to blow, I remain more concerned than some that the lid this sexual predator hides under might be one of those.

This is the difference in opinion, beyond that FUNERAL's actions are optional, that seemed to me not fully respected by "if she wants" @96.

I didn't see anything rude or ungenerous with BDF's statements @99. I read them as a simple (and simplified) summation of the two camps this week's commenters have largely fallen into re: FUNERAL. Our written word format leaves things wide open to misunderstandings, but I really didn't read any snark or rudeness into what BDF said. I don't mean any of this as a jab at anyone or their opinions, nor am I attempting to double down or contribute to an argument.

I am super looking forward to a new batch of letters today. This week's main topic of discussion has been a sensitive and painful one.

@107 p.s.
In other words, I would have been very happy if instead of writing @96

"Some of us are saying "and go right ahead and disrupt the funeral if you want"

BDF had written

'Some of us are saying "and go right ahead and disrupt the funeral IF YOU WITH THE KNOWLEDGE WE DO NOT HAVE OF THE AVAILABLE MEASURES, AND YOUR ASSESSMENT OF WHAT WILL BE EFFECTIVE, DETERMINE IT NECESSARY, AND if you want'

Correction for my @108, I meant BDF's comment @96.

Curious @109, your final paragraph is what I felt was implied in BDF's comment @96. Again, I'm amazed how much we all manage to stay more or less on the same page and stay overwhelmingly respectful of one another given that we communicate solely in writing (unable to pick up on tones, adding or omitting implied information, etc).

Fantastic@110
"your final paragraph is what I felt was implied in BDF's comment @96"

I guess you're probably right. I guess BDF was right @106 when she said that

"this topic must be touching a nerve with you".

I guess I'm doing exactly what I accused her of doing, looking it from the perspective of what * I * think the key disagreement is (which made me feel insulted that her characterization of the key disagreement didn't include what I wrote in the final paragraph @109).

I apologize, BDF, for being upset. I know I'd feel much more at peace if I wasn't concerned about what the sexual predator might be going to do tomorrow.

Fox@110
OK, so if that's implied, where BDF@96 wrote that
"others are saying "...address this in a different way...""

is what I'll add here also implied:

"others are saying "...address this in a different way REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE AVAILABLE MEASURES, AND YOUR (FUNERAL's) ASSESSMENT OF WHAT WILL BE EFFECTIVE..."

?

Because if those additions to the characterizations of both sides are implied, I'm perfectly happy with them.

Curious @107: "I always saw how
"if she wants"
acknowledged observations by people like Fichu and I that her course of action is optional."

Then what on earth got you so riled up about my summation of your position that you reacted by going on full blast against me??

Thanks, Mrs Fox @108, for reading me correctly and for your support.

And thanks, Curious @111, for your apology. Though it seems a bit hollow as you persist in having the gall to put words in my mouth that would make my comment acceptable only if it had been written by you [eye roll]. My whole point was to sum up the difference with as few words as possible, which is neither ungenerous nor rude, it is simply concise. I wrote what I wrote. You chose to take it the wrong way, AND to attack me over it, AND to accuse me of "doubling down" when I merely explained myself. If you rephrase my words so that you're happy, I don't actually care, because I'm far from happy about the way you've spoken to me here. Please don't do it again. If you'd like me to clarify any comment, just ask, don't attack.

@108 fantastic_mrs_fox: I agree. I'm looking forward to the next Savage Love installment for this week. May it come soon.

Oh my gosh, I just thought of an option so glaringly obvious that I'm almost embarrassed I didn't think of it earlier. FUNERAL should call up her state/county's Child Protection Services and report that she has concerns and reason to believe that this youth group leader (DO mention that he is a youth group leader) is sexually harassing children. CPS * will have to * investigate. It may not lead to finding anything "substantive," but it will be a deeply humiliating experience for the predator and could put the members of the community on alert.

And if she knows that he impregnated a developmentally disabled woman (if that's what LW meant in her letter, her word choice was a bit bizarre to me), absolutely report him to the state's adult protective services as well. Again, they will be * required * to investigate.

@115 fantastic_mrs_fox: What a brilliant suggestion for FUNERAL! I wish I had thought of that myself. :)

Who is ready for a new column being up? I know I am.

Not only deeply humiliating, but some questioning from CPS and/or adult protective services would let this predator know that there are eyes on him, that his victims aren't keeping quiet any longer. If nothing else, it's precisely the Sword of Damocles this shitbag deserves.

BDF@113
"Then what on earth got you so riled up"

I tried really hard to explain. But I know I'm not the clearest writer, so then I tried summarizing it (in a couple more comments) by editing a summary of what got me so riled up into your own position summaries...

"Mrs Fox @108...reading me correctly"

By which I guess you mean Fantastic's reading that what I edited into each characterization was implied.

So then what got me, was that what I edited in didn't seem implied to me. I didn't like that I thought that what I thought were our weighty considerations were boiled down to the letter writers' mere whim with "if you want" (yes, I was that touchy). I know now that you only acknowledged that we had said it was optional; and that our considerations needn't be stated, and could simply be assumed to be implied. My misunderstanding of that made me feel attacked. (Well, that and having gone crazy from 18 uninterrupted months in complete lockdown.)

"If you'd like me to clarify any comment, just ask, don't attack."

I do wish I had asked whether I was safe to assume that what I eventually edited into each characterization was implied. (Well I don't know how I could have asked it /that/ way, but surely there was a good, friendly, respectful way to put forward my point instead of the way I did respond because I felt I had been attacked. Which, also combined with how I'm feeling about the sexual predator, made me lose it.)

The way I did it instead very justifiably pissed you off. I sincerely apologize. I apologize for attacking you, and for embarrassing myself by doing so in the same ways I was accusing you of (including looking at it through the perspective of my position, and blindly taking something you wrote out of context).

Fox@115
Sweet CPS suggestion! I wish I knew FUNERAL were reading. I wish anyone in any batshit conservative church community were reading.

Mercifully, a new column is up.

If there are any teens reading SL and the comments section, I advise them to call CPS if they are sexually harassed or abused by an adult (especially if they are a teacher, youth group leader, camp counselor, therapist, ANY adult whose literal actual job it is to work with and protect children). Respective states' child abuse lines are easily google-able. Ditto if anyone knows of or suspects a person (child or adult) with developmental disabilities is being abused or exploited in any way (physically, emotionally, financially). States (sorry to keep defaulting to my 'Merican-ism, it's what I know but I'm sure other countries have similar systems) have specific developmental disability abuse hotlines. Any government body should help point you in the right direction and give you the appropriate phone number.

This isn't my area of expertise so I welcome correction, but from what I can tell, Child Protective Services has to investigate abuse reports, but an "investigation" might be as little as an inquiry like "what do you think of this?" yelled across a desk before deciding that no abuse is going on. A complaint to CPS where a creepy adult is reported without A PARTICULAR CHILD who is being abused is likely to get nowhere.

What we've got here:
-FUNERAL who is an adult. The creepy comments began when she was 17.
- A woman with a mental disability. No child there either unless the pregnancy resulted in a baby, but there's no allegation that that child is being abused.
- FUNERAL's best childhood friend who is presumably the same age as FUNERAL.

In other words, Child Protective Services has no child to protect. If FUNERAL wanted to name a particular child or children in the Batshit Youth Ministry Program, that would make some sense, but she'd need more evidence than she seems to have based on the letter she's written.

Fichu @121 - Regarding the woman with developmental disabilities: there are specific abuse hotlines for this population, whether they are adults or children. Evidence of pregnancy can be gleaned, even if the pregnancy didn't result in the birth of a child. Evidence of an abortion would be particularly damning. No, they may not be able to tie it definitely to this particular predator, but evidence of the pregnancy would be ipso facto sexual abuse depending on the nature/severity of this woman's disability. If predator's name is attached to the accusation, you bet there's going to be some digging by investigative authorities. If more than a few people know/suspect Predator Pastor, it's going to be that much harder to keep a lid on things.

As for CPS - yes, it would be ideal reporting-wise to name a specific child. But FUNERAL can share her story and say that she has reason to believe that other young people in this community are at risk of abuse (it's not like this guy's sexual desire for one barely post-pubescent girl is going to be viewed in isolation by CPS). Given the nature of his position working with children, CPS will certainly do more than "shout across a desk." If anything, some states are almost over-reactive to allegations. There has been a huge push in social services world to encourage the general public to report suspected child abuse; I can almost promise someone who reports what FUNERAL went through at the hands of someone who is still working directly with children will be investigated. I'm not saying it's going to result in a conviction or anything else equally just and satisfying, but it will scare the bejesus out the predator and let him know that people know and are not staying silent.

You kids stop your bickering or I’m gonna turn this car around an go home!