From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Trumped-up charges against Suzanne.  Demurrer #1.
Summary: Peter Mason for the Defense
Keywords: kill, murder, translation, homicide
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 06:42:01 GMT

<nyikos.717631317@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
...
>Recently, I challenged Gordon Storga to produce evidence of Suzanne Forgach's
>"hatefulness" and other unappealing personal characteristics and
>behavior with which she has been charged repeatedly on talk.abortion.
>
>A few days ago he produced a long string of excerpts from past posts
>of Suzanne.  Now that the rumor that she wishes to establish a theocracy
>in America has been scotched by Kevin Darcy and Suzanne herself on the

It has?  Where?  Oh, I've seen Suzanne try to laugh it off, but I haven't
seen her actually deny it.  I've seen Darcy *try* to come to her rescue
(*why* I don't know), but I haven't really seen anyone deny she said it.

>THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS thread, what remains is a motley crew of 
>passages which certainly do not support charges of "hypocrisy", "lying,"
>and asserting that "those people who don't live a certain [religious]
>"quality" of life will be *rightfully* killed."  

Suzanne would certainly like to see a Catholic theocracy established.  THe
last time a Catholic theocracy got going there were a number of
persecutions being performed that involved a number of deaths.  The recent
Vatican pronouncement that it is "the duty of Catholics" to discriminate 
and persecute homosexuals is an example.  One need only look to the Middle
East and Catholicism's own history for an example of the type of
persecution that would be performed.

...
>Some of the passages are best handled by demurrer, others by pleading
>not guilty, and still others by frank admission of present or past
>[in one case, as far back as the eighth grade] shortcomings.

In other words, you can't refute one of them.  BTW, how much is Suzanne
paying you to be her defense lawyer?  I notice she hasn't posted one word
in her defense, yet you and Darcy seem to be falling all over yourselves
in an effort to impress her.

>Today I begin with a charge that is best handled by demurrer.  It is the
>charge of not being *au fait* with the latest biblical translations.

Latest?  The OT was written in Hebrew and has been translated pretty much
the exact same way for many many years.

>True the charge may be, but hardly something on which to hang a serious
>accusation of hypocrisy, or whatever, on Suzanne.

She's been reminded of the correct translation many times over the last
few years.  She continues to ignore it and fall back on her regurgitated
dogma.  She's also been told that Jesus commanded his followers to not
call others names, yet she does this with an alarming frequency here.

...
>** An example of her not understanding the bible's basic commandments:
><1991Jun25.203208.26036@noao.edu> (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>><1991Jun25.163655.27284@ssd.kodak.com>, (Dan Bredy (x37360)):
>>> <1991Jun25.130241.4087@infonode.ingr.com> (Keith Drake) writes:
>...
>>God _did_ say "Thou Shalt Not Kill".  So little Freeman should take it upon
>>himself to say "Well OK, you can kill now" ???
>
>** the bible actually says "Thou shalt not commit murder".
>
>>                                                  Sure even though God said
>>"Thou Shalt Not Kill", Hitler chose to kill anyway.   
>
>** She repeats it - obviously not a typo.
>
>COMMENTS:
>1. For centuries, English translations of the bible (almost?) invariably
>had "Thou shalt not kill."  It is only in the last decade or two that
>translations have appeared putting "commit murder" in place of "kill."

Strange how I found out the actual translation 20 years ago when engaged
in bible study for a few years, yet Suzanne (who has based her entire life
and the lives of her children on the teachings of the bible) hasn't
learned the proper translation and commandments.

>2. The latest translations are themselves ephemeral.  The job of 
>updating the translation is far from complete: one would expect a 
>really modern translation to get rid of the archaism "Thou shalt".
>Simply substituting "you shall" will not do, since it makes the
>commandment sound like a prediction rather than the proscription
>that it is obviously meant to be.

Obfuscation.  The point is, Suzanne is not familiar with the book she
supposedly basis her life upon.  But she quotes it, incorrectly, to people
here on the net to support her arguments.

>	Therefore, Suzanne may be excused for not wishing to keep
>up with the latest fad in translations.

She can be excused by you.  Not by me and others here.

>3. Did the ancient Hebrew expression now translated "commit murder"
>really have the same meaning as the modern phrase does?  Think of
>how vastly different that society was from ours, and how much the
....

More obfuscation.  If we continue down this line of reasoning you can
invalidate the entire Judaic-Islamic-Christian religion.  Apparently their
society was vastly different as god seemed to show up every other day and
either kill everyone, order everyone to be killed, or just demand some
sacrifice.  If the bible and it's commandments doesn't hold true in 
today's time then you have some explaining to do to Suzanne.

>Analogy: the bible, a few lines later, says "Thou Shalt not Steal"
>[Or does the new translation read, "Thou Shalt not Commit Grand 
>Larceny?"] 

Your remark mocks Judaism.

>           and the punishments for transgressions were and are in
>a greatly sliding scale.  It can be the same for abortion, depending
>on the stage of development of the fetus.  I would seriously 
>consider calling the aborting of a viable fetus murder, but the 
>aborting of a six-week fetus could best be treated as a felony of
>lesser import (say, carrying a maximum penalty of 6 years and $6,000).

Unless it was Suzanne's daughter, then you'd just throw the book at the
abortionist, right?  I can hardly wait for the rest of your "apologies"
for Suzanne.  The fact remains, and was pathetically defended by you, that
Suzanne quotes scriptures to support her legal views yet she is vastly
ignorant of her bible and the accurate translation of it.  In fact, she
violates Jesus teachings with alarming regularity.  Note her recent denial
of saying that gay men hate women when two seperate posts of hers contain
that exact phrase almost verbatim.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion