From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Attention!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:47:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.183142.19906@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Sep10.171407.4378@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> >> I don't know if she's attempting to make her religious beliefs
> >> into the law of the land, because I don't know whether or not she 
> >> supports the Freedom of Choice Act.  But I think it's likely that 
> >> she does support passage of the FOCA, as do most other pro-choicers. 
> > Huh?  So are you trying to tell us that the FOCA is a religion-
> > based piece of legislation?  If not, then Ms Feldt's religious
> > views are irrelevant.  If yes, then I would myself oppose
> > the establishment of a solely religious law.
> You claimed that Gloria Feldt is not seeking to make her personal
> religious views the law of the land.  Whether the FOCA is based
> upon on religious beliefs is not relevant to that claim. 

Your remarks imply that the FOCA tails entirely with Ms Feldt's
religious views and is entirely based on religious principles.
If it is not a religously-based piece of legislation, then whether
or not it tails with Ms Feldt's religious perspective is
irrelevant.  Furthermore, you only assume she supports the FOCA
without knowing the answer.  Perhaps a reasonable assumption,
perhaps she has her own quarrels with it.  The fact is that
you have no evidence whatsoever that she is trying to make her
personal religious views the law of the land, and are simply
indulging in Nyikos-style speculation.  Certainly the quotes
provided do not indicate that she is seeking to have legislation
enacted that is based solely on her religious perspective.  In
fact, once you had posted the full quotation, we find that she
brings more than just her religion to the view she espouses.
> 
> > Also, I am glad you admit that you have no information about
> > whether Ms Feldt is attempting to establish her religious
> > beliefs as law.  I rather doubt that she is.
> 
> I said that I don't know if she's attempting to make her religious 
> beliefs into the law of the land, because I don't know whether or 
> not she supports the Freedom of Choice Act.  I think it would be
> extremely illogical for a pro-choicer such as Ms. Feldt to oppose 
> the passage of the FOCA, but I'm hesitant to assume that she does
> support the FOCA.

Again, her support for the FOCA is irrelevant.  I am glad you
admit that you don't know.  I take it then that you are disagreeing
with Chahallney's reading of Ms Feldt's remarks.  Good.  That's
a healthy admission.
> 
> >>> Also, note that the earlier quote of yours, now that you provide
> >>> more of the quote, demonstrates nicely how you take quotes
> >>> out of context and change their meaning.  
> 
> >> I think a person would have to be rather naive to assume that
> >> Ms. Feldt's views towards abortion could be based solely on 
> >> religion, given that she's a Planned Parenthood executive. 
> 
> > Clearly, and counter to your deceptive claim, anyone reading the
> > statement below could easily be deceived into thinking that
> > Ms Feldt was saying her logic was based solely on a religious
> > perspective.
> 
> I seriously doubt that Gloria Feldt became a Planned Parenthood 
> executive solely on the basis of her religious views towards 
> abortion.  But that's not even relevant to your original claim.
> Let's not stray off the topic, shall we?  

Oh, I'll stray whither I please, thank you very much.  The fact is
that when you introduced further material from Ms Feldt that
enlarged the context you changed the subject yourself.  And in so
doing it i sentirely fair for me to point out the deceptive
practice in which you engaged by quoting only a small
portion of Ms Feldt's remarks.

As for Ms Feldt's reasons for becoming a Planned Parenthood
executive, they are not relevant either.  What is relevant is
that you produce a quote out of context and use it to give
a wrong impression of someone's reasoning.  Only by being
skeptical of your motives and methods does one escape the
trap you set.  And it is necessary then for me to point out
what a sleazy tactic you regularly employ if others are
to bring that proper skeptical and disbelieving attitude to
the material you post.

> Doug Holtsinger
> 
>       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>  we want to be precise)..."
>    -- Gloria Feldt,
>       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona
And you have no problem continuing to quote her out of context.
I see also that you also deleted the material you had added.
Were you embarrassed to catch yourself red-handed?


Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion