> > I stick to what I said before. The most successful
> > (or, if you prefer, the most professional) pickpockets work in
> > pairs.
>
> Now, I'm going to ask you why.

I told you the logical reasons; basically, it's the most efficient unit.
I've been holding back on the experiential ones, but as a younger man I
frequently had recourse to gaining my bread as a street musican, and the
fact that pickpockets generally work in twos was a matter of common
knowledge and simple observation.

> > most of the women I know have
> > been abused and (presumably) most of the men I know are guilty of
inflicting
> > such abuse. And it's all happening on trains I travel on every day and
yet I
> > don't even see it.
>
> I didn't say any of those things, and realize your above statements were
not
> serious. This is just more of your sarcasm and denial.

No, Eric. It's not. I realised you might think so, but if what you and
Ernest are saying is correct then that is the corollary. Perhaps you *are*
right, and my general tendency to see the world through positive eyes and
think the best of people has blinded me to the truth. I'm just going through
the implications of what that would entail.

> I don't know how you talk to people about it, but I suggest it done in
private,
> or among small groups of people who trust each other. Not, for example, in
the
> college classroom. You may understand that sex crime victims do not want
to be
> recognized or identified.

It would be quite inappropriate for me to discuss this online, but when I
say soul-baring discussion I do mean it. I've had a larger than usual share
of exposure to distressed people and the causes of their distress and while,
as I say, this issue has come up, it has nothing like the kind of prevalence
it ought to have if you and Ernest *were* right. Which is why I'm still not
prepared to subscribe fully to your view.


--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com