Please explain. . ./Canon for the Snape being abusive argument

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 144237

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Unfortunately, the circular argument is all the "Snape is a      
> > child abuser" supporters seem to have.  Very little, if any,     
> > canon is ever brought forth in these arguments.  And what canon 
> > *is* brought forth is taken far outside the WW standards of     
> > behavior. 
 
> >>Alla:
> I am sorry, Betsy, but your claim here is simply not true. Canon   
> to support "Snape is an abuser" argument was brought up many,     
> many, many times.
> <snip> 
> Here are some posts for you. I selected those with quotes. If you 
> would like more quotes, just let me know and I will be happy to 
> provide them.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
These posts are great (though I think the link for Vmonte's is off - 
it should be: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122172 )   
because they do actually provide canon to be discussed.  However, 
and this is where I think people get a bit frustrated, they don't 
actually show Snape commiting "child abuse".  He's mean, petty, 
cruel, and even abuses his power as a teacher.  But nothing rises to 
the level of "child abuse", especially within the WW standard of 
behavior. [I'm putting child abuse in quotations because I fear the 
term itself is being abused.  Sarcasm, while sometimes cruel, is 
generally not a good example of out and out child abuse.]

And when you have posters speaking of Snape's history of child abuse 
as one would speak of his being Head of Slytherin or the Potions 
professor (IOW, a fact so totally supported by canon as to be beyond 
contention) it becomes not a little bit frustrating.  Especially 
when someone genuinely asks, how do you get that Snape is a "child 
abuser" and the answer is, because he abuses children, especially 
good ones that I like.

Snape is a bit of a lightening rod character (I understate <g>).  
And the discussions often get a bit heated.  So while I'm sure 
there's a feeling that canon is used time and time again, IMO, it 
can never be used too often.  

Betsy Hp