From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Gay Pride .sig of Steve Chaney
Keywords: Bogus 
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:58:19 GMT


Even though Susan Garvin has no evidence to support her "Dennis" claim
- no evidence that shows I wrote like Dennis or any documentation
beyond Scott Roby's claims.. she continues to go on with that lie.
Oh, well.

In article <Bw6EH0.FBB.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Bogus) writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <1992Oct15.041216.8433@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>#In article <7155@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>#Okay, let's refute your claims here, Bogus: 
>#FACT #1: Which attribution lines, Bogus?  
>
>Nice refutation, Dennis.  (Free clue - "Facts" are not generally
>expressed as questions.)
>
>I guess that it's hard for you to remember all of the ridiculous
>challenges that you post.  
>
>You got mad at Mr. Woodyatt for posting that you'd confused
>yourself with Larry Margolis.  Here's the relevant article:
>
>In article <1992Sep29.155656.17489@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Sep23.160756.8470@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (Cranius Sphinctus) writes:
>
>##I'm speechless, actually.  I'm stuck in 7:00-A.M.-no-stimulants-
>##in-the-bloodstream hamster wheel over this statement:
>##
>##Message-ID: <1992Sep23.014327.29219@csus.edu>
>#### Oh, I love it when my liberal approach makes me look pro-choice.
>##
>##He wrote that in a followup to a post by barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet which}i
>##presumed that *Larry Margolis* was pro-choice.  I was left with the
>##impression that Mr. Chaney was confused about his identity and thought
>##he was Larry Margolis for a moment.
>#
>#No, you stupid shit - it was a response to ME. It was my attribution
>#directly before his words.
>#
>#You've got some major stepping to do, Cranius Sphinctus, to make this lie
>#of yours stick. For instance, re-posting that article to show evidence.
>
>Of course, you were wrong, as usual.  Here's the article with your
>attribution lines.  Larry made the comment that "barnejd" was
>replying to.
>
>In article <1992Sep23.014327.29219@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>#In article <1992Sep22.123959.2529@wkuvx1.bitnet> barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>##In article <1992Sep22.052211.14940@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>####
>####            For heaven's sake, Dan, it's only a TELEVISION SHOW...
>#### 
>### Going to war with a fictional character is certainly bizarre.
>##
>##Yes, but criticizing the unrealistic depiction of liberals as "good"
>##and conservatives as "evil" is not.  Would you criticize a TV show for
>##a strong pro-life message?  If you're pro-choice (I assume you are), I'd
>##bet you would.  So back off - Danny was right in his criticisms of the
>##show _and_ the character.
>#
>#Oh, I love it when my liberal approach makes me look pro-choice. 
>
>So, Dennis, I guess you do have trouble keeping track just what
>pseudonym you're using at any given time.

Sounds like you fudged the file, Bogus. This was not the article I
responded to. I think it's time to contact your administrators. This
has ceased to be funny, Bogus. 


>#FACT #2: Jesse Jackson said "WELCOME TO HYMIETOWN." He said it in
>#	 Brooklyn, NY. FACT. I am right and you are wrong.
>
>No, POC, you're wrong.  Rev. Jackson refered to the city
>that way.  You said something completely different:
>
>In article <1992Sep24.211644.29471@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu 
>(Stephen A Chaney) writes: 
>
>#Like when he called the Jews of New York "Hymietown" ? 
>
>"The Jews of New York" and New York City are not synonymous.

What ELSE do you think I was talking about? "New York, New York" -
have you ever heard of that? And YES, millions of times a year, New
York City is referred to as New York, and we know they're talking
about the city.  

Are you really THIS desperate that you're grabbing for anything minor,
to blow up into a disgrace campaign? 


>#FACT #3: I have posted SEVERAL polls showing that Americans support
>#	 legal abortions for rape & incest only. NOT "Americans 
>#	 support rape & incest." FACT! You are wrong and I am right.
>
>No, you're wrong.  You did say that Americans support rape and
>incest.
>
>
>In article <1992Oct5.181714.12006@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>#I'll come back with poll stats showing that the majority of Americans
>#do support rape & incest, and you'll bring the poll data showing that
>#when asked about these issues, Americans support all of it. 
>
>It was a stupid thing to say, wasn't it?

It was a STUPID thing to leave out the CLARIFIER above, Bogus. Next
time, include the whole thing, especially where I defined "rape and
incest" as "rape and incest abortions." It's in there, Bogus. 

This is getting to become a major pattern, Bogus - you're eliminating
parts of my post so that you can blow things out of proportion. Either
that or you are enormously anal-retentive. 

Why don't you take it out on your kids or something and leave us
intelligent human beings alone?


>#FACT #4: Rush Limbaugh's book is the fastest selling NONFICTION 
>#	 book in history according to Simon & Schuster & the NY Times.
>#	 Where did I say anything about the BIBLE? FACT! I am right
>#	 again and you are wrong. 
>
>Oh, Dennis, you're changing your claim again.  You said:
>
>In article <1992Oct8.004510.22586@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>#
>#Rush Limbaugh is the MOST listened to on the radio 
>#and the MOST read in the non-fiction books section... In history.
>
>I did give you the benefit of the doubt here - I assumed that
>you meant that Limbaugh's *book* was the "MOST read in the non-fiction 
>books section... In history.," not Limbaugh himself.  
>
>The Bible is classed as non-fiction in most book stores.
>Your personal opinions about its veracity aren't relevant.

Okay, if I'm wrong, Bogus, so is the NY Times and Simon & Schuster,
because that's where I got that from. 

Go tell THEM, don't bug me.


>#If you have ANY PROOF of anything you have said in this entire
>#article, please post it. 
>
>You said please, so I did.

It only proves you are even more immature and unnecessarily nitpicking
than you have ever been before, and that people are better advised to
get a lawyer and a scholar to rewrite their articles before they get
attacked by Anal Retentus, AKA Susan Garvin. 

Maybe you should become a teacher. Not that you'd keep that job long,
anyway. 


=============================================================================
          And NOW for something theocratical from Susan Garvin itself: 
=============================================================================
>##       "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

>##   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>##     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion