From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:55:28 GMT

In <7188@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu  
   (Susan Garvin) writes: >
In article <1992Oct9.135348.12154@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >#
In <1asimvINNj53@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com 
   (C.J. Silverio) writes: >##
In article <1992Oct5.190140.19923@acd4.acd.com>, 
   wdo@TEFS1.acd.com writes:  >###
In <unknown id>
   (Susan Garvin) writes: >####

>#### What purpose is served by repeating vile, unsubstantiated rumor 
>#### about a dead young woman?  
>## 
>### Perhaps it has something to do with her parents malicious anti-RTL 
>### crusade.  
>##
>## Malicious?  You're despicable.  
>#
>#Malicious.  I had the opportunity to see them first hand at ISU
>#last year.  Malicious.  Waging a campaign of hostility and bit-
>#terness against pro-lifers because of existing parental consent
>#laws is sadly misguided.  And these people were malicious.
>
> Who supports parental involvement laws, Overpeck?  Who lobbies 
> their legislators to introduce them and vote for them?  Who spreads 
> misinformation about the legality of piercing a minor's ears and 
> draws analogies to abortion in an attempt to sway public opinion?

What do these questions have to do with my observation?

> The Bells are trying to prevent the passage of such laws
> in states that don't already have them.  People like you
> are trying to put more young women at risk.

Don't tell me what I'm "trying to" do; you obviously don't 
really know.   Does people have to share your values in order 
to avoid being denigrated?

> Who is malicious, Overpeck?

I've already indicated that.

>## This family lost their daughter because of a parental consent 
>## law.  
>#
>#Right.  And when my son was nearly killed by an automobile at 
>#age 7, it was those awful traffic laws that did it.  It had
>#nothing to do with the fact that we should have been watching
>#him more closely.
>
> You're not just despicable, you're stupid.

Deep.

> The two cases are not remotely comparable.  

Ok.  Based on your incisive analysis, it probably wasn't a good 
analogy.  How about this:  When a drug user buys and ingests a
substance cut with rat poison and subsequently dies, are the
anti-drug laws to blame? 

>## They were devastated, and they don't want other parents to 
>## suffer the way they did.  They campaign against the law that 
>## killed their daughter, and you call them malicious.  You dis-
>## agree, so you dismiss their work as "political expediency".  
>#
>#Sorry, CJ.  I was there.  I heard them.  There were (perhaps)
>#five pro-lifers in a room of ~200, sitting quietly in the back.  
>#We made no noise, we made no rude gestures, we made no faces.  
>#We just sat there listening.  But someone apparently identified 
>#us to Karen Bell who, for at least five minutes, treated us to 
>#a hateful discourse that blamed *us* for her daughter's death.
>
> I don't think that you know what "mailicious" means.

You're right.  I don't.  What does "mailicious" mean?

> I blame you for their daughter's death.  I blame you for
> the deaths of every woman in this country who dies trying
> to self-abort or through the offices of a butcher.

I am wounded to the soul.  (BTW, I also kidnapped the Lindburgh 
baby).

>## You know no compassion.
>#
>#And apparently you know no Bells.  But I know malice when I 
>#see it.
>
> I have met Bill and Karen Bell.  I know grief and anger when
> I see it.  

I saw those emotions in them, as well.

>## Fuck off & die, Overpeck.
>#
>#Hmm.  I guess your objections to needless deaths don't extend
>#to men, huh?
> 
> I see a remark made to one man, not to all men, Overpeck.  You
> overestimate your importance.  

Perhaps, you think everyone who disagrees with your agenda should 
die?  

> I agree with CJ.

What a surprise.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion