NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/48137

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-17 | 12.6 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48137 soc.men:19401 soc.women:19711 alt.politics.homosexuality:7290
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!hubcap!opusc!usceast!nyikos
From: [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:26:23 GMT
Lines: 258

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

>[A little history here for the new readers who may not have seen this
>before.  Peter came barging into talk.abortion with the standard "but
>pregnancy is only nine months of inconvience" (not an exact quote),
>line.

Damn straight :-) it's not an exact quote.  I never said anything like it.
Especially not when I joined talk.abortion.  It was Keith Cochran who
barged into an exchange between me and Sarah McCabe:

> At this point I gave Peter my standard response, which is to
>let me fist him for nine months to give him just a small understanding
>of what an "inconvience" some portions of pregnancy can be like.  Peter
>has since been claiming that I've been sexually harassing him.  As we
>join our story, PeteyHoney has been talking about how he and his
>buddies used to call each other "gay" in a joking sense, that was
>never taken seriously...]

Whoa there!  I said I never joined in accusing anyone of being gay. As an
adult,  I also have consistently reprimanded people who did the same thing,
especially since they invariably had no proof that the person they were
attacking (usually with
derogatory terms which I'd rather not repeat here) was gay.

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>>In <UetODD_00YUoM=[e-mail]> "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <[e-mail]> writes:
>>
>>>[Peter pines away for the Good Old Days When Men Were Men, Women Were Women,
>>>and Small Furry Creatures From Alpha Centuri Were Small Furry Creatures
>>>From Alpha Centuri]
>>
>>And Keith Cochran had not yet made his offer to be "doer" to my body,
>>with hints of fisting me.

>It wasn't a hint, PeterHoney.  It was an offer.  I make it to everybody
>who trivializes pregnancy.  Ask Kevin C. Welch.  Ask McVey.

When did I trivialize pregnancy?  I was merely setting Sarah McCabe
straight as to what her description was.

>>
>>>September 11, 1992.  Three gay men and a straight women harassed in a western
>>>slope town when a truck with three men in it drove by and yelled anti-gay
>>>remarks at them.  A few minutes later the men in the truck returned and
>>>attacked the group with baseball bats.
>>
>>>September 19, 1992.  A hetrosexual man was murdered by two men at a 7-11
>>>convience store.  The two perpeturators called the man "gay", "faggot",
>>>and "queer" before he was stabbed.  Police were notified.
>>
>>>Welcome to the real world, Peter.
>>
>>I've been in it for a long time, Cochran.  It's about time you took
>>cognizance of something I said to you back in September.

>November 5, 1992.  The Tattered Cover Bookstore is evacuated after a
>caller claimed that a bomb had been planted because "you have gays working
>there".

>November 6, 1992.  The night manager at Racine's (a popular restuarant
>here in Denver, CO) gets an anonymous call.  The electronically muffled
>voice says, "You know it's time for you fags to die, don't you?"

>>
>>I told you I considered your offer to be sexual harassment, prefacing
>>it by saying that if Clarence Thomas had admitted to having
>> made that offer to Anita Hill, he would have a hard time finding a
>>job as a judge anywhere.

>Good thing I'm not trying to get a job on the Supreme Court, isn't it?

>November 9, 19??.  Nazi party members begin looting and burning Jewish
>businesses and homes in what has become known as "The Crystal Night".

>I'll bet you're just thrilled that #2 passed in Colorado, Peter.

I'm too busy thinking about abortion to concern myself with the details.
If you have specific things you are especially concerned about, I'll
try to allot time for them, within reason.

>>
>>Then I said that I had been ignoring people calling me "Petey Honey"
>>in the hopes it would go away, but now I say, enough is enough.

>How many woman have to die of illegal abortions before you say
>"enough is enough", Peter?

Right now, all the deaths I know of are due to legal abortions.  I haven't
heard of an authenticated case of death due to illegal abortion in years,
and I never read specifics about any of them.  Nor of a woman permanently
scarred by illegal abortion.  I'll be glad to listen to specifics if you
have any.  I do know of women scarred by legal abortion, as you know very
well, Sledovatel Cochran.

>How many people have to lose their lives to the gay-bashers before
>you say "enough is enough", Peter?

I was hoping not to get into this at all because it is such an open-ended
topic.  Just what is it you want of me?  I can only devote myself to so
many causes at once.

I avoided getting involved in the abortion issue before 1989 because I
knew I could not go into it halfway and I knew it would eat up a great
deal of my time.  As it has.

>How many children have to grow up malnourished in below-poverty-level
>homes before you say "enough is enough", Peter?

Tomorrow I will post, "Why can't we work together?"  I can't spare the
time today.

>How many people have to die during the winter because they have no
>houses to live in, and no place to stay before you say "enough is
>enough", Peter?

And what about you, Keith, what have you done lately to make this a
better world to live in?

>According to federal statistics, 50% of all homeless teenagers are
>homosexual, thrown out by their own parents because of their sexual
>orientation.  How many more have to hit the streets before you say
>"enough is enough", Peter?

It's an abomination, but gay rights now has the ear of President-elect
Clinton.  Too bad the people who want protection of the unborn do not.

>According to the CDC (March, 1992) the highest rate of new HIV infection
>is among WHITE MALES, AGES 18-22.  How many more have to become seropositive
>before you say "enough is enough", Peter?  Oh, let me clarify that.  The
>highest rate of new HIV infections is among white HETROSEXUAL males, ages
>18-22.

Is that so?  And are you comparing the respective population bases?
Are we talking absolute numbers or per capita rates?

How much of this could be avoided if people refrained from anal
intercourse?  In Australia they are not so squeamish about this as
they are here, and so you will hear the words "anal intercourse" on
Sunday morning TV, though there will be a warning to parents that the
material may not be suitable for youngsters.

>Let me tell you something else, Peter.  I've had people putting me down
>all my life.  I've had people who don't even know me hate me for the
>simple fact that I like to dance with other men.  I've had people who
>don't know the first thing about me scream that they are going to burn
>me on the stake, hang me, and tell me that I'm going to be the first one
>to go when they start up the ovens at Treblinka again.  Well, I've
>decided that "enough is enough".

And I feel for you, Keith, only that does not give you *carte blanche* to
make offers to people that they find harassing.

>  TheReligiousRight was given a sound
>defeat in the national elections, OCA9 was defeated, and about the
>only "victory" TheReligousRight got was to get amendment #2 passed in
>Colorado.  If it's not struck down as unconstutional by the SC, it'll
>be reversed by the State, or President Clinton will sign one of the two
>bills in congress adding sexual orientation into the Federal Civil Rights
>Act.

So, why should I get interested in it one way or another?  BTW you are not
quite right: the euthanasia initiative in California got defeated.  As a
pro-lifer in the broad sense, I am glad.  And I'm glad it was not just
the religious right defeating it.

>Any way you slice it, Peter, you've lost.  On the abortion ground, on
>the sexual choice ground, on the mind control ground, on the anti-
>woman ground.

Who is "you"?  I never said anything one way or the other about the two
"middle" grounds you mention, and I am pro-woman.  Have you forgotten
about the Black woman you wanted to give a bum steer, Sledovatel
Cochran?

>>
>>I have seen only one response from you to about ten posts in which
>>I mention this action of yours, in five of which I tell you to stop
>>playing dumb.  You haven't even come close to apologizing for making
>>the offer.

>Why should I apologize, PeteyHoney?  You made a statement trivializing
>pregnancy and childbirth.

Show me the statement of which you speak.

> I made an offer to give you a small awareness
>of just what some women go through during some parts of pregnancy.  You've
>declined.  I certainly shouldn't have to apologize for that.

>Or are you going to start threatening me with the net.censors again?  Maybe
>you'd better threaten me with your "de facto" killfile again...

I never threatened you with the net.censors.  You are lying, and you know
it, because in my reply to your "Are you trying to threaten
me, little man?" post I said "Threaten? who? me? not on your life.  If any
pressure is going to come, it sure isn't going to be from me."  And you
followed up to the post in which I said it.

I don't recall threatening anyone with the de facto killfile except
Lyman and Margolis, and they view it the way Brer Rabbit viewed being
thrown into the briar patch, and I think you would too, only you are
pretending otherwise in order to score debating points.

>>
>>That last sentence is a statement of fact, not a request.  I live in
>>the real world, where Keith Cochran likes to pretend he is an innocent
>>man.  To apologize for his offer would involve more self-scrutiny
>>than I believe he is capable of.

>Peter, please take a visit to your local coming out/being out group.  Please
>take a visit to your local AIDS hospice.  Bring some flowers.  These last
>three sentences of yours speaks volumes about how small your "real world"
>is.

No, your response reveals how impervious you are to self-scrutiny.

In my real world there is a nurse whose son got killed because he would
not acquiesce to gay kidnappers.  In my real world is a man who was
kidnapped and sodomized and made to commit fellatio at gunpoint by a
known homosexual, who said in no uncertain terms that he, the victim,
would be killed by him, the kidnapper, regardless of how often he did
the fellatio or submitted to sodomy.  The kidnapper is free now after
serving 1 1/2 years in prison, and the victim is alive, and wants to
stay that way, so neither you, Sledovatel Cochran, nor anyone else in
this newsgroup will be able to drag any more information about these
two incidents from me.

As the sole male member of the Campus Sexual Assault Task force's
subcommittee on Survivors, it fell upon me to look at programs and
services for male victims of sexual battery.  I am learning a lot,
part of which is that men are extremely reluctant to talk about being
victimized by homosexual battery.  For if they do, and they are not
gay, they feel obligated to say something negative about the sexual
orientation of their assailants, lest it be thought that "they asked
for it" or they "enjoyed it".  And if they do that, they risk being
branded as "homophobic" by the Politically Correct Thought Police,
of whom there are likely a lot of plainclotheswomen and plainclothesmen in
talk.abortion, and I wouldn't put it past you to be one of them, Keith.

And when all is said and done, you've just insulted me over and over
as a way of avoiding the need to scrutinize yourself.  There is zero
self-scrutiny in the post to which I am following up, Keith, and
I am not surprised.

I must admit, though, I am glad you are beginning to face this sexual
harassment issue squarely, even though the way you are doing it is
not to my liking.

>=[e-mail] | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
>=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.

And your fist.  Looks like it's here to stay, and that's a shame.

Peter Nyikos