From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: In defense of Peter against "Lady" Adrienne
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  9 Nov 92 21:54:53 GMT

In <Bx5F0H.KCw.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <1992Nov2.194257.859@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>#In <Bx1wJv.MnH.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
>#   (Susan Garvin) writes: 
>[all the old stuff deleted]

Jim Keegan has asked me to document how Susan Garvin is doing
her intentional best to piss pro-lifers off.  Susan has been 
good ;-) enough to provide a bit of documentation.

>You are entitled to your opinion even though you do not
					      ^^^^^^^^^^
>believe that others are entitled to theirs.  
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>##The double standard to which I referred is your willingness
>##to criticize anyone who supports legal abortion while ignoring
>##the behavior of those who oppose it.  
>#
>#I typically don't read the posts of other pro-lifers.  But 
>#I've not been unwilling to criticize pro-lifers in the past, 
>#including Suzanne, DJR, et al.  

>This makes me wonder why you chose to attack Keegan for his remarks
>to Holtsinger - if you don't read the lying nonsense that Holtsinger
		   	^^^^^	   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>spews on a regular basis, it seems odd that you would leap to
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>his defense.  (Unless, of course, you just wanted an excuse to
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>flame Keegan.  

Of course, what would have seemed odd is if Bill *did* read what
Holtsinger says, and (assuming, for the sake of argument,that
it is lying nonsense) *still* leap to his defense.

But logic never deterred Susan from labeling pro-lifers odd.

>#Um, the original insult was directed at me from Linda.  Text
>#included above.  She, I believe, was the provocateur.

>I deleted the included text, but I'm sure that you can find it.
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Other talk.abortion readers may not be so lucky.
>#There is probably some truth to what you say.  I think
>#Keegan's behavior is as inappropriate as Chaney's, though.
>#He's just a tad more sophisticated about it.  He used to
>#be a reasonable guy.  That has changed, for whatever reason.
>#He seems to do nothing but attack the character of people,
>#rather than argue substantively.  My "thousands" of lines
>#were primarily directed to him (to which he responded in
>#kind, line by line).  However, you are discussing my be-
>#havior, not his.  So I'll stop (for the second time) my 
>#exchanges with him.  

>I think that Jim is a reasonable man. 

Neither you nor Jim has documented this statement to my satisfaction.

> I think that comparing
               ^^^^^^^^^
>him to Chaney shows just how twisted you have become regarding
	       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>him.  I doubt that it did much for your credibility here,>either.
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  I don't much care if you look like a hypocrite or not.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
       
>(Am I to believe that you find Holtsinger's repeated lies
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  
>and forgeries to be acceptable?)
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And after he said he seldom reads what other pro-lifers post, too!

>#Nope, you're right, though I think "double standard" is
>#a bit too strong.  I will try to be more consistent.
			
>Whatever.  You're the one who has to live with yourself.
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"
I was reminded of this by Susan's "Whatever," and her calling
me and Steve Kellemeyer "ghouls".  ;-)

Newsgroups: talk.abortion