NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53573

Text File | 1992-12-30 | 7.4 KB | 171 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!opusc!usceast!nyikos
From: [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Proposed definitions for FAQ (Was: Reconciling OT/NT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: 30 Dec 92 19:43:25 GMT
Lines: 159

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>#In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>##In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Larry Margolis) writes:
>>>##
>>>#
>>>#[Riiiip]
>>>#
>>>##Susan Garvin is at least a candidate for the title "pro-abortionist,"
>>>##along with everyone else who sneers at every report of wrongdoing
>>>##by LEGAL abortionists while choosing to blind themselves to evidence
>>>##that certain illegal abortions never took place.

Mark, get your attributions right.  Larry Margolis did not say the above.
I did.

Now, it is true that I made the same mistake you did by not deleting
Margolis's attribution despite the lack of >>>### in the text, but that
was in following up to you.  I am applying the same standards here that
Adrienne did in following up to me: see "Apology to Susan...Adrienne."

>>>#We have yet to see any evidence of wrongdoing by legal abortionists.
>>
>>Who's "we", white man?  [Adrienne can fill you in on the rest of the joke.]
>>
>White man? How could you possibly have any idea of my race? Or are you
>simply building up to announce your acceptance into your lcoal KKK
>chapter?

As I point out in an earlier follow-up, which I moved to another thread
about "Documenting things for Mark Cochran," or some such title, you
went off half-cocked here without getting the joke.  And Adrienne could
have filled you in on it, too, as could Keith or Susan.

The medical stuff you brought up next is dealt with in that previous
follow up.

[Lots of deletions.]
>>Susan sure can dish out the jokes:
>>
>>>Shhh.  PHoney thinks that charging money for a service constitutes
>>>malpractice.  I wish that he'd speak to my oncologists...
>>
>>But she sure can't take them:

______________________________From an earlier post____________________
>>## Susan
>># Peter
>>Susan
>Mark, added material

>>##I'll add that there's plenty of material already available - these
>>##guys can have fun even if PHoney runs for cover, er, his rewsreader
>>##breaks down again.
>>#
>>#What's a rewsreader, Susan?
>>
>>It's a typo, moron.  What were your SAT scores again?
>>

>Seems to me she handled it quite well. What *were* your SAT scores
>again?

Mark can dish out the jokes, too.  Or could it be that he has no idea
what the word "joke" means?  His treatment of my "white man" punch line
certainly clouds this issue.

>>#But seriously, folks, since Susan was never known to give a sucker
>>#an even break, why should she spare a clueless newbie who can't even
>>#reboot his newsreader all by himself?

Here it is again, that clouded issue.  Note the lack of smileys:

>At least here you *do* admit that you are completely clueless.

[Clue for Mark: when a comedian says, "But seriously, folks," one should
NOT expect a completely serious message.  If he's really serious, he'll
say something like: "All kidding aside," or "If we could get serious here
for just a minute,"...]

>>_______________________________________End of excerpt__________________
>>
>>>I do sneer at PHoney's reports.  I also laugh at them.
>>
>>As I remarked in another post, "Thou shalt not be laughed at" appears
>>to be one of the ten commandments of Susan's private religion [with "Thou
>>shalt not bear false witness agains thy neighbor" conspicuously absent]
>>but there is nothing in her religion to keep her from laughing at others.

[.......]

>>>PHoney certainly has some odd notions about what is standard
>>>medical procedure.  I wonder if he thinks that a patient's SO
>>>should be allowed in the operating room for all surgery.  I wonder
>>>if he knows why they are not.  (Never mind - he is chock full
>>>of ideas that would make surgery less safe.)
>>
>>No, just for the other way of terminating pregnancy, ie birth.  However, I do
>>believe that SO's *are* allowed to view lots of surgery from a distance
>>and I see no reason why they could not be allowed to view any surgery
>>on their SO's they would like to.  If Mark can give reasons, I'll be glad
>>to listen.
>>
>Your belief is incorrect. SO's are *rarely* allowed into the OR. They
>are permitted in *sometimes* for C-Sections, but are restricted to an
>area above the mothers head, screened off from the surgical area.
>There's a very good reason for this. It's a real pain to have to stop
>surgery to treat the cracked and lacerated skulls of the SO's after
>they faint.

Well, assuming you are telling the truth here, things are different at
hospitals in Germany, where my brother saw all the gory details of
the C-section on his wife and removal of triplets.  I believe this may
have been a US Army hospital: I can check with him if you trade me a reference
to what you've just said here.

BTW my brother teaches arts and crafts and never took a course in
medicine.  His knowledge of things medical is considerably inferior
to mine.

>>But that is neither here nor there: I'd like to know why Mark thinks
>>SO's should NOT be allowed to view abortions if they wish (and, of course,
>>the woman wants it too).  What do abortionists have to hide, Mark?
>>
>You've changed this from your original posting PHoney... NOW you've
>added the qualifier "if the woman wants it". It would depend on the
>type of abortion. For most types, I can see no reason to not allow a
>SO in the room, as long as the patient wishes the company.

My statement stands, with or without the qualifier.  I want to know
why abortionists do not allow SO's in, and how much resistance a bill
to ALLOW them in, given the consent of the woman, is apt to meet
from the ACLU, NOW, NARAL, PP, etc.

I'm not indulging in innuendo.  I'd like a reasonable estimate, to
see how hard to try to convince pro-life legislators to introduce
such a bill.  I think pro-choice legislators are a lost cause on this.
If you think otherwise, I'd love to hear about it, because I think
the bill would stand a MUCH better chance if it were introduced by
a pro-choicer.

>What makes you think aboritonists have anything to hide PHoney? Other
>then your very apparent paranoia, that is. Is this more of your
>"conspiracy of silence" trash?

Calling it names won't make it go away.  As to the "paranoia" bit,
the two Columbia abortionists I know anything about have plenty to hide,
as I have documented here in talk.abortion [Ask Keith why I call
him Sledovatel Cochran: it was in re a case of an incomplete
abortion.] and between them they do about half of the 5000+ abortions
here in the Columbia area in those years when Elguindi isn't suspended
for some reason or other.

Peter Nyikos