From: scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Subject: Re: Chaney's sig
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<BuAoD7.FM4.2@cs.cmu.edu> <1992Sep10.004317.17482@csus.edu>
	<1992Sep10.121732.22743@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:12:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.121732.22743@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
   In article <1992Sep10.004317.17482@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

   > Okay, Susan Garvin, I'll challenge you directly and show you once and
   > for all how 100% WRONG you are. 
   > 
   > Of course it's always been well known that I could beat you in a
   > debate hands-down, but seeing as that you want to press it, I'll show
   > the newbies again.  
   Uh, yeah, right.  If that's the case, why do you go on to
   completely fail in your attempt?

To amuse the net?

   > >##       "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,

   > >##   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
   > >##     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
   Note that nowhere in Ms Feldt's statement is there any indication
   that she would make her personal religious viewpoint the law
   of the land.

Dean, why would Chaney want to do that?  Then he couldn't fantasize
about his "manlihood" and how much better he is than anyone else.

   > Okay, Susan Garvin: Point out the anti-semitism in my .sig. 
   The anti-Semitism is inherent in criticizing her religious
   beliefs, especially as she nowhere seeks to impose them on
   anyone else via legislation.

Also, no where does she say she is Jewish.  The only thing Jewish is
her name.  I think Chaney is being anti-(religion different than his
own). 

   > 2) Is there or is there not religious freedom in the First Amendment?
   No, there is not.  There is a prohibition on Congress from
   making any law establishing religion.  I am not sure what your
   strange and garbled sentence is supposed to mean.  "Religous
   freedom in the First Amendment?"  There are words in the first
   amendment.
Also Congress cannot restrict the free excercise of religion, unless
you aren't Christian then they can (like smoking Peyote in a
religious ceremony)

   [Dean's explaination of Chaney's "thoughts" deleted for brevity]

Dean, you are showing the patience of a true hero.  Susan must be very
proud of the way you try to explain to Chaney why he is an idiot.  But
I bet he doesn't understand you.

   Congratulations.  Please follow up your foolishness by declaring
   victory.

Don't worry, he will.

   > Class over. 
   > This is how you put a complete and total end to a complete and total
   > asshole like Susan Garvin. 

   Never one to disappoint, after managing to fail completely,
   Chahallney declares victory.

   By the way, for those who don't know Susan Garvin, she's a
   terrific person.

Well, she's OK, except she has this bad habit of painting my mother's
dog. (yes, I know this statement is ambiguous.  I mean she applies
paint to the dog.)

Anyone want a gif of Susan :-)

Scott


Newsgroups: talk.abortion