From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 05:50:52 GMT

<nyikos.718390796@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
><1992Oct2.085720.25866@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><nyikos.717897446@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>><usglkrx.717686544@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman) :
>>>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>>><1992Sep25.211600.23804@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) :
>>>>>><1992Sep18.233054.14674@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
>>>>>>>From article by iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski):
>>>>>>>> In article mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>>>>>>>> >In nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
....
>>>I've already followed up to this post, but since then I realized that
>>>there are many layers of deception that I haven't addressed before.
>
>>Starting with Suzanne and yourself.
>
>I'm not even handing you any rope, yet you seem determined to hang
>yourself.

I would prefer that *you* didn't refer to me as being hung.

>>>1. The original statement of M. Price, which Storga cunningly deleted,
>
>>I would prefer to be called a cunning linguist that a cunning deletist.
>>If you don't get the joke I suggest you grab a dictionary and start
>>looking just before 'cunning'.
>
>I get it, and it all fits in with what I have learned about you.

Yes, it does fit - I do care about my partners pleasure.

>>If I did delete a portion of Price's post it was not with any malice or
>>misrepresentation intended.
>
>If you believe that, you are an even sicker man than I thought.

You should talk - you're defending Suzanne.

>>  I don't recall seeing any portion having to
>>do with 'hot flashes of Jesus' (was he experiencing menopause?).
>
>Sorry, it was rages:

We all make mistakes.  This is probably why I don't remember it.

[the whol epost deleted for brevity]
>>Really, a very poor joke on her part, and one we know offended at least
>>one Christian.
>
>So please reveal for us who this Christian is, and don't say it was 
>Lori's aunt, because she did not see the context, which was missing
>from what she saw:

I assumed M. Price was the Christian who took offense, since he was the
one who complained about it.  Since then Lori has mentioned her aunt being
offended by it as well.  Now, I don't pretend to know if Price's religious
affiliation is *really* Christian or not.  I have no reason to investigate
each and every person before I respond to them on this net.

[more deletions]
>>[note: I'm deleting portions of this post because Peter tends to ramble on
>>about things that have little to do with the topic at hand]
>
>Unfortunately, some of your other deletions do not have this innocence.

Really?  Care to provide proof of an ulterior motive?  Why do all
pro-lifers seem to believe they are capable of mind-reading?  It seems to
be a hidden requirement or something.

>>...
>>>3. This same Gordon Storga has brought trumped-up charges to bear on
>>>Suzanne which I have begun to address in posts.  
>
>>And you've done a piss poor job of it too.  Strange how Suzanne isn't even
>>commenting on these things that get your knickers riding so high.
>
>You just keep feeding yourself that rope, don't you Gordon?  It will
>take a while, but in the end your mendacity will become obvious to
>even the most dense person following what is going on.  Of course,
>I don't expect more than a few pro-choicers on talk.abortion to
>publicly ADMIT to seeing it.  

Well, the last few posts I've seen (and e-mail I've received) has all been
encouraging.  I've yet to see anyone other than you and Darcy bitch and
moan at all.

>>-------- portion of Peter's post rebuking my statements about Suzanne ---
>>>People keep telling me of all kinds of horrible things Suzanne has
>>>posted in the past.  I haven't seen any that would even remotely
>>>justify the above statements, and I am calling your bluff: if you have
>>>any evidence Suzanne said these things, please produce them.
>>------ end portion ----
>
>>I posted evidence, Peter.  That you don't find the evidence compelling is
>>*your* problem, not mine.
>
>True to form, you deleted "the above statements":

Oooh!  More unsubstantiated accusations.  You're moving up quickly on
Chaney.

>|>>>> Suzanne
>|> Storga
>|>>>> Beware lest somebody come along and second guess the "quality" of _your_
>|>>>> lifestyle, Brian, and hence whether _your_ life is "worth living".
>
>|>You've alreadyt done this to a degree.  You've already decided that 
>|>anyone living without your religious views is not living a "quality" life.
>|>You'd even like to legislate things so they have to live your views.  In
>|>fact, your entire religious viewpoint is that those people who don't live
>|>a certain "quality" of life will be *rightfully* killed.
>
>The evidence was a totally ambiguous exchange between Eric Marsh and
>Suzanne, which Suzanne (with Darcy's help) clarified.  All the other
>200 or so lines you posted had nothing to do with it.

I stand by my statements.  You've not given me reason to re-evaluate them.
I've been in this group reading Suzanne's claptrap for far longer than
you.  I have a broader base of experience to base my conclusions on than
just the posts I've archived.  I don't have enough disk space to archive
all of Suzanne's innanities.

>>----- more of Peter's post -----
>>>And if you can't produce anything, then as far as I'm concerned about
>>>your further charge of hypocrisy:
>>>
>>>Storga : velcro : : Forgach : teflon
>>------ end portion ----
>
>>Note the mature closing argument ("Neiner, neiner!").  But I've produced
>>a dozen or so statements by Suzanne that support my previous posts.
>>Peter has apparently changed his demand from "produce anything" to
>>"produce something that I can't possibly twist so that Suzanne comes
>>off looking like she was just kidding".
>
>I don't think you realize how much velcro you are wearing.
>(Metaphorically speaking, of course.)

I don't like velcro - it itches.

>>>More about velcro, Storga, and hypocrisy in the next three lines:
>
>>Ok...
>
>>[I, Gordon, wrote this for those of you who aren't keeping score]:
>>>>>>Suzanne seems to ignore the castigation of other Christians who take her
>>>>>>to task for trivializing their god's contributions.  I notice she doesn't
>>>>>>apologize for it.
>
>>I don't see any mention of velcro in these lines.  I see that I mention
>>Suzanne apparently ignoring other Christians concerns about her
>>use of certain terms.  This in itself seems rather un-Christian of her,
>>and it's compounded by her apparent refusal to apologize to those she
>>might have offended.  In fact, someone did post that Suzanne's comments
>>offended her aunt.  I still haven't seen any explaination or apology from
>>Suzanne.
>
>More rope.  This guy is absolutely incredible!

Some people have claimed I'm incredible.  Actually, I'm very credible.
Unlike others on this net.

Where's my apology, Peter?  I provided "any evidence" of Suzanne's
statements.  You owe me an apology.  (For those of you keeping score - I
do not actually believe I'll ever get an apology from Peter.  I've seen no
evidence that the man has scruples or integrity.  I've admitted my
mistakes in the past and even apologized publically to Suzanne on
occassion.  Peter seems unable to see around his ego to note that no one
who's been here for any length of time is buying what he's shoveling.)


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
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