Monty can’t answer for societys’ sake etc, however, from my standpoint, Andrea Yates situation is so very dramatically different than from others in general - she had a very, very long, documented history of serious mental illness. This is so very different from “Susan -oh yea, I forgot to tell people I was really depressed and all from being molested and that’s why I drowned my kids, it had nothing to do with the boyfriend who didn’t want kids -Smith”.
Yes, the jury has spoken, and there are those of us who disagree with the standard the jury had to use or that it was applied correctly. But, either way, this thread was about Russel, not Andrea.
I’ve no problem seeing that mothers sometime kill and should be held totally responsible.
And, frankly I resent the implication you’ve made once again, that that is the problem for me here. I’ve worked w/offenders for almost 25 years and have known several women who killed their kids (or were implicated/involved). And had no problem seeing that as a reasonable conclusion.
Where I do have a problem is when folks seem to see the kind of psychological history that Andrea Yates had (suicide attempts, suicide watchs, multiple in patient hospitalizations, diagnosis of Post Partum Psychosis, prescriptions for serious psychotropic drugs), and shrug it off as ‘so, she was depressed’.
You know what, wring. You just now read into the posting what was definitely not there. I specifically said “society in general.” That’s a fact. I did not say you. I did not imply you.
I specifically refrained from replying to your original attack in this thread, rude and abrasive as it was. I was also specifically polite to you in your thread about this case. AND I also specifically backed off in a pit thread about you, since it was possible that I was over-reacting to what you’d posted before. In this post, yet again, I was polite saying “I resented the implication.”
Why are you so quick to slap me back, hmm?
In my post I said ‘the implication’, because, after you casually mentioned ‘ok, so no one here has been saying all this stuff, it still bugs me that ‘society as a whole feels’ blah blah blah’. I’m part of society as a whole, thank you, and you were addressing those who had some sympathy for Andrea, and saw some culpability with Russell (both of which do apply to me). You don’t feel that you implied same, fine. But there was no reason to call me a martyr.
also, FWIW, and FTR, I did not see your last post (regarding the last paragraph of my prior post) before hitting submit. So, AFAIAC, we don’t have to continue this sniping.
I think we have different takes on the situtation. Glad to see that you do however, note a difference with some one with that dramatic of a pyshcological history.
My use of the word martyr was extreme. I apologize.
I wonder, though, how you manage to equate “society in general” with “society as a whole?” To me, that means “generally, a good number of people in society…”
As far as rude and abrasive goes, I wasn’t. That you consider what you THINK I implied as being rude and abrasive doesn’t meant that what I actually thought and said was.
As for pit threads: feel free. I don’t think I have anything to fear in that, especially since you, yourself, used the term “in general” just above. My guess is that you already know the difference between “in general” and “as a whole.”
