John Yamamoto-Wilson wrote:

> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>
> > What you yourself say: you lead a sheltered existence.
>
> I can't believe that you are taking seriously a comment I made two years ago
> *tongue in cheek*.

Neither could I believe you digging this thread up about what Ernest said two
years ago. Why don't you ask him?

> Eric, I have done my fair share of drinking in Shibuya and Kabuki-cho, I
> have been on the last train home more times than some have had hot dinners -
> sometimes I have missed it, and been out on the tiles all night! - and I
> have seen just how wild it gets (rather tame compared with my life on the
> streets of Granada and other European cities, and very tame compared with
> more recent experiences in Seoul and Bangkok, but that's Japan, I guess). I
> have also spent more time on those crowded commuter trains (where most of
> the chikan activity takes place) than I care to remember, though these days
> I make the effort and get up early to beat the rush.
>
> When I said
>
> >>  Perhaps I live a sheltered life, but pray tell me about this Japan
> >>  in which "chikan is the rule"
>
> I assumed you'd be intelligent enough to work out that I was not actually
> saying I live in an ivory tower, but casting doubt on this Japan where
> "chikan is the rule". I'm amazed that you took me literally.

I usually assume people mean what they are saying or telling the truth, you
see.

Huh.

> > And I don't care what YOU believe about the males YOU
> > know and how decent they are.
>
> Fine. Neither do I care that you think that for them as for other Japanese
> males molesting women is "the rule". Take your silly prejudices and drown in
> them.

Who believes that?

> > I will repeat: I am not commenting on Ernest's statement, I am commenting
> on
> > your disbelief.
>
> Doesn't make sense, Eric. I don't believe Ernest's statement, and I have
> shown you exactly why; even if it were true that three-quarters of Japanese
> women had been molested on trains it would still not make it "the rule" for
> Japanese men to molest women. However, since there are many millions of
> women who do not use the trains regularly and many millions more who do not
> use them during the rush hour, I do have difficulty believing that
> three-quarters of women have been affected, though a figure of "at least
> 17%" (and perhaps as many as twice that) does seem to me to be a not
> unreasonable estimate.

Because that small and flawed survey agrees with what you believe, yet you
ignore your other figure.

> If you have a problem with that, fine. I've said all I need to.

Indeed.