Then what was he? He looked like he was having

a hard time taking his eyes off the young lass. And that (along with the word convict used in the title) made me think that he might in fact have been a rapist or molestor. Minstrel is calling me an anti (and a piece of shit), I suppose, because of my interpretation and how it might be seen as in line with how our anti friends might interpret the work. But I stepped back (conscious of any inner tendency to hastily see it this or that way), when reading it, to make sure I was being totally objective. Can you deny that it appears like I've seen it? Just so you know: I interpreted it without reading any article that was originally attached to it (like in the magazine you mentioned). I only saw the picture.