Mall wrote: "This started when you invited me to express my views, which you thought you could change."

Wrong. This started when you invited yourself to express your views somewhere else. Since I'm not signed up at the Derby List, I wanted you to express them here.

"the only substantive arguments I have heard from anyone all deal with how things looked from Ms Krone's perspective."

Wrong. I have been begging you to give me your lengthy condemnations of the other riders and trainers who have withheld information from owners, riders, and trainers. From the perspective of these owners, riders, and trainers, they deserve this, don't they?

"The fact that the sacrifice would have been a major one has not convinced me that it shouldn't have been made."

That JULIE'S sacrifice would have been a major one has not convinced you that JULIE shouldn't have made it. Thus spake Mall, prescribing sacrifices to Julie, and ignoring everyone else.

"your comments re Ms Barry illustrate the debating tactic I was using quite nicely, as what feminists mean by "passive" is very different than whatever it is you are imagining doing with Ms Barry."

Wrong. Laughably wrong. Wrong in two ways. 1: You have misjudged me. I consider 99 percent of identity politics to be BS that distracts attention from more important matters. Give me chivalry any day. 2: In feminist ideology, inactive or submissive roles apply to sex, too. Feminists have been known to complain mightily that men like women to be aggressive in one place and one place only.

"Allow me to illustrate with an example from everyday life. Suppose someone accused me of violating the Tower of Death ritual of Zoroastrianism. Is that person not holding himself out as an expert on the subject? And if it turns out that the person in question is not familiar with the principles contained in the Avesta, does that not reflect on the credibility of the charge in the 1st place?"

Wrong and silly, unless you would prefer an insane, Malladroit country in which cops make arrests, prosecute cases, issue verdicts, and issue sentences.

"As for Julie's acceptance speech, I did say & do believe it was disgraceful, but am not convinced that it is matter which can be debated."

This is what some people say before they go on to debate something. Please tell me you're not one of those people.

"What most people think she said is based on reports in the racing press, which did not include her bizarre disclosure of sexual fanatsies involving Steve Cauthen."

I guess you are. Anyway, I thought Cauthen was kind of cute once he adopted that English accent.

"One person did "defend" what she did on the ground that it was nothing more than Julie being Julie. Perhaps he has a point."

How do you know it was a he? That was an anonymous post. Are you assuming that since that person obviously knew a lot about racing, that person had to be a man? Le traçage, il s'épaissit (je badine seulement).

Here are two paragraphs about Julie that I read in an article in Salon:

"In 1982, Yves Turcotte smacked her horse with his whip during a race and, when the race was over, Krone shoved him off the weigh-out scales. Jockey Jake Nied wrestled with her after a match until others pulled them apart. In 1986, Miguel Rujano hit her in the ear with his whip and she punched him in the face. He pushed her into the jockeys' swimming pool and she hit him with a lawn chair. In 1989, she exchanged blows with jockey Joe Bravo and left him with fewer teeth."

"Previously, she had resisted any type of therapy. "I'm a jock," she has said. "I can do anything on my own. I thought it was humiliating to get help. Meanwhile, the only real relief I felt was planning my suicide. I saved sleeping pills, but I was going to drink alcohol, slit my wrists and maybe hang myself, too. I wanted to do one thing right."