[continued from previous message]   
      
   about the poem; and precisely what we're discussing. You actually   
   claimed that I broke into this house and tried to burn it down. Since I   
   don't "know" things that aren't true, I don't "know" that; only you   
   "know" it, simply because you said it previously.   
      
   > doesn't consider it   
   > abuse, he should take the opportunity to explain why.   
      
   Why should he? The speaker of the poem is not writing his   
   "autobiography" either; he's just remembering things, and sticking to   
   the facts.   
      
   >> It's deliberately left to the reader to decide if the speaker actually   
   >> had been abused by his father or not. I did structure it, for effect,   
   >> from the least to the most abusive-seeming experiences; from having to   
   >> use a back door and remove his shoes to enter the house, to doing   
   >> household chores, to doing garden work in the summertime, to not being   
   >> allowed to use some of the furniture, to having to stay inside alone at   
   >> night and be in bed early, to being subjected to corporal punishment.   
   >   
   > JFC! George.  There's no question that any of the above were forms of   
   > abuse.   
      
   No, HarryLiar: having to use a back door, and remove one's shoes; having   
   to wash dishes and do garden work; not being allowed on all the   
   furniture; having an early bedtime; and receiving corporal punishment   
   from one's father; are not all unquestionably abusive.   
      
   > That poor little boy had a bleak, loveless, existence filled with   
   > verbal, emotional, and physical abuses.   
      
   He may think he does, though that's not what he says. He's just relating   
   the facts as he remembers them. (Since he doesn't exist outside the   
   poem, there's no point in quibble over what he thinks; that's why I left   
   all that to the reader).   
      
   >> Adding them together like that, it's easy enough to conclude that the   
   >> father had been abusive; but I'll point out that all of those events   
   >> were things children commonly experienced 50-60 years ago, and that none   
   >> of them were commonly considered abusive.   
   >   
   > Um... I was a child 50-60 years ago, and my father was physically   
   > abusive (for a two year period after my mother's death) -- and I find   
   > your story to be horrifying.   
      
   > Normal children may occasionally have been physically punished for   
   > tracking dirt into the house, and such, but look at your poem... the   
   > other children are outside playing while Little George is stuck inside   
   > the house doing chores.   
      
   I'm sure many "normal children" had to do chores when they'd rather be   
   playing with their friends. That wasn't only my experience, but that of   
   most of my friends, and they all seemed "normal" enough to me.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)