NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/52596

Text File | 1992-12-22 | 9.9 KB | 216 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!opusc!usceast!nyikos
From: [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Reply to Storga in re Trumped-up Case #3
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: abortion, adoption, children
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Dec 92 15:57:50 GMT
Lines: 204

Back before my netserver went deaf, I thought I'd posted this long-awaited
response, but apparently my netserver had gone mute without my knowing it.

A related post, "Fictional Gordon-Suzanne Dialogue on Trumped up Case 3"
will be posted immediately after this one.

> Peter continues to use the terms "Mendacity" to refer to me and my posts,
> and "demurer" to refer to his "refutations" or lack thereof.

Actually, Gordon, the level of your mendacity has declined somewhat in
the last few rounds of our correspondence, so I am inclined to let the
word die a natural death where you are concerned.  On the other hand, I
plan to post "The Mendacity of Susan Garvin" soon.

> <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> >A while back, I challenged Gordon Storga to produce evidence of
> >Suzanne Forgach's "hatefulness" and other unappealing personal
> >characteristics and behavior with which she has been charged
> >repeatedly on talk.abortion.
>
> Not quite,  you said:
> "People keep telling me of all kinds of horrible things Suzanne has
>  posted in the past.  I haven't seen any that would even remotely
>  justify the above statements, and I am calling your bluff: if you have
>  any evidence Suzanne said these things, please produce them."
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> You specifically asked for "any evidence" that Suzanne said or inferred
> the posted statements.

The posted statements had to do with putting to death people who did not
live up to her quality of life, among other things.  See my next paragraph
marked  > >   below.

> I supplied several of her posts which supported my
> statements.  The very fact that you use the term "demurer" means that you
> accept them as valid evidence.

No, Gordon, by using the word "demurrer", I am also implying that the
charges which I treat in this way do not support your earlier
denunciations of Suzanne.

In particular, I maintain that Case #3, the one under
discussion, does not bear on "the above statements," hence is not
valid evidence for them.  If you dispute what I am saying here, and do
not like my fragmentary account in the first  > > paragraph below,
kindly do us all the courtesy of duplicating
"the above statements" here.  After all, you were the one who made them,
and besides I've already re-posted them, so now it's your turn.

>  You called my bluff, but I was
> holding a Royal Flush.

Take another look at your hand, Gordon.  I think you are betting on
Nothing, and although "Nothing is sometimes a pretty cool hand," as
Paul Newman, alias Cool Hand Luke, put it, it ceases to be cool if your
bluff is called.

> >Last month, he produced a long string of excerpts from past posts
> >of Suzanne.  By far the most damaging charge was that she wishes to
> >establish a theocracy in America.  This ugly charge was, IMO, taken
> >care of by Kevin Darcy and Suzanne herself on the
> >THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS thread, and what remained was a motley crew of
> >passages which certainly do not support charges of "hypocrisy", "lying,"
> >and asserting that "those people who don't live a certain [religious]
> >"quality" of life will be *rightfully* killed."
>
> And that statement by me was logically deduced by understanding the
> history of the actions taken by theocratic governments,

You have not divulged the steps in this "logical deduction".  If you
want us to take these charges seriously, you should tell us just how
Suzanne's past statements logically lead to a charge of wanting to
establish a theocracy.  Otherwise, the actions taken by theocratic
governments are irrelevant, and inadmissible as evidence.

[...]

> >Today I handle a charge which appears to have been improperly stated.
>
> Talk to Suzanne then.

You were the one who made the charge.  She is powerless to change the
way it is stated.  Only you have that power.

> >The charge literally seems to read, "begging for unwanted children," which
> >appears to be best handled by demurrer: What exactly is wrong with
> >begging for unwanted children? It seems like quite a laudable thing to do.
>
> Nothing, you idiot.

Gordon, be reasonable.  You *did* use those words below. (You even had the
decency to leave them in, so that now readers can see that you indeed used
them.)  I *did* say I believed the wording was improper.  I *did* try to
re-word the charge so that it would at least be properly worded.  I *did*
ask readers (and I did not exclude you! on the contrary, I welcome your
input) to suggest ways the charge should be re-worded.  What more do you
want?  It's bad enough that Dean [his name, not (perish the thought!) his
title] Kaflowitz acts as though I should avail myself of extrasensory
perception, without you getting into the act.

> The "charge" was hypocrisy and posturing:

You should have worded it that way, then.  If this is the way you want
it worded, I decline to enter a demurrer, and instead enter a plea of
Not Guilty.

>  "Oh please,
> please, send me *ALL* the unwanted unloved children so I can give them
> love and care!!!

This is not what she said, at least not in the fragmentary evidence you have
entered so far.  Not only that, but this interpretation makes no sense at
all.  Do you really think Suzanne is such a simpleton that she would volunteer
to take care of all the unwanted unloved children in the USA?  I know you
have a low opinion of her, but this is ridiculous.

> >I will now reproduce the relevant part of Gordon's post, asking the
> >reader to help me decide what the proper wording should be, and then
> >give my own idea as to what it should be.
>
> >>** wrt begging for unwanted children:
> >>><[e-mail]> (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> >>>><[e-mail]>, (James R. Purdon III):
> >>>>> <[e-mail]> (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> >>>>>>Please do!  Send them all to me!!   I will love them like you are
> >>>>>> obviously incapable of!
> >
> >>>>> Please send me your address and I will forward it to a social worker who
> >>>>> works with gang members in Roxbury and Jamacia Plains.  She will be more
> >>>>> than happy, I'm sure, to send a few your way.
> >
> >>>>Now this is a prime example of anti-child, elitist bigotry.  You are
> >>>>assuming that just because a child is an orphan, he/she will necessarily
> >>>>grow up to be an undesirable, tough, knife toting, tattooed, bad
> >>>>attitude, gang member.
> >>>>You're the one with the attitude problem, Purdon.
> >
> >>**Do you see anywhere that she says "give me the social workers address"?
> >
> >There are a couple of ways the charge could be rephrased in the light
> >of Gordon's final line, but the one that seems closest to the original
> >charge appears to be: "Failing to fall for a bait-and-switch scam."
> >
> >Knowing Gordon's propensity for selective deletions (Note that we have
> >no idea what "them all" refers to in Suzanne's first line, nor even whom
> >she is talking to) I would guess that the original context was more closely
> >related to abortion than the teen-age toughs Gordon would have Suzanne
> >adopt.

Actually I was reading too much into the post.  It mentions gang members
but says nothing about how old they are.

BTW Gordon supplied his original follow-up to Suzanne's post, from which
the above seems to be reconstructed, and I agree that he has not made
any selective deletions from that follow-up.  It does seem as though he
and/or this JRP III character did make selective deletions, to obliterate
all clues as to what "them all" actually referred to.

> > I would guess that "them all" are either babies not yet born, and
> >Suzanne is anticipating their births, and thinks they are in danger of
> >being aborted; or else babies recently born.
>
> Nope, wrongo.  The conversation was about *children*.  Neither born nor
> "unborn" were specified.

Post her words that prove it, then.  She seems to be CONTRASTING "a child"
with the gang member that the child is allegedly going to "grow up" to be.
I see no other use of the word "child" above, so your "children" must refer
to some words of Suzanne that do not appear above.

> > it should really be
> >incumbent upon Gordon to provide the background since it is he that is
> >pressing the charges, and it is up to him to provide evidence that
> >this was NOT the context.
>
> Nope.  I provided evidence which supports my position.  If you don't have
> evidence to the contrary that's your problem.  Since you delight in using
> legal jargon to describe the debating forum:  Would you expect a
> prosecuting attorney to do research for the defending attorney?

I would expect a prosecuting attorney to provide unambiguous evidence of
hypocrisy.  You have not done so.  Your case would be laughed out of any
normal court.

> my original response to Suzanne *********************************************
> [...]
> Look in the mirror.  Let's say that a fellow pro-lifer offered you the
> same chance with the same children in Roxbury.  Would you still accuse
> _them_ of ANTI-CHILD BIGOTRY?  Pretend it was a fellow pro-lifer, for the
> children's sake.                            ^^^^^^^
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Gordon
> end repost *********************************************

Gordon, if you are so concerned about these "children", as you call them,
why don't you offer to adopt one or more of them?  I think their present
personalities are much more compatible with yours than Suzanne's.  One
suggestion, though: I do not recommend that you address them as "you
children."  As Frank O'Dwyer might put it, some of them may want to
punch your lights out for getting so fresh with them.