From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world  
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 22:47:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.020001.26522@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
><< Cue up `Ride of the Valkyries' >>
>
>-------- Key -------
># chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
># > bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
>
>-----
>
># You don't suppose the Kaufman household would be showering that
># unfortunate kid with 30 or so variations of the word "pro-force"
># daily? I would.
>
>I don't suppose anything about the Kaufman household. *I* don't live
>there. Neither do you. I think you should shut the hell up about the
>Kaufman household and everything else you can't possibly know about.

You suppose you'll make me shut up? I'll go on about the Kaufman
household as long as I want to, until Mark Cough Man gets up the
_BALLS_ to respond to my posts. 

Unfortunately, it seems I have him squarely figured out, and when he
is forced to deal with my posts about him, I'll fry his hide and hold 
a general USENET.barbecue. 

>Besides, even if he did -- this is abuse? Kee-righst, you *are* naive.
>Arguing politics with your teenage offspring is *not* abuse. It might
>actually be good for them. Beating them up, starving them, chaining
>them to the radiator -- *that's* abuse. (Emotional abuse is harder to
>qualify in a five syllable sound bite, but telling your anti-abortion
>activist kid that s/he's promoting slavery, is *not* abuse.)

The latter of your descriptions, which you categorize as abuse (and
rightly so), is what I'd expect to see in the Kaufman household. I
don't have any beef with parents talking to their kids about it, even
in a rather raised voice. 

But my point is, if Kaufman does at home what he does here, and his
kids became pro-life or even Christian, they would not live long. That
is not a joke or an overexaggeration. 

># >Have you asked the `NOW crowd' for their opinions regarding testicular
># >potency? My fiancee is a member of NOW. I know several other members.
># >Believe me. You misunderstand the feminist mindset. Oh, boy, do you
># >have it all wrong.
># 
># I was right in the middle of it, (name-calling deleted). 
>
>Oh, go on Chaney, call me names. I've got a thick skin. I haven't torn
>into you about your overuse of the misnomer `pro-abort' because I
>don't care to quibble over lexicon, but if you want to try your hand
>at calling me some really good names, go right on ahead. Call me
>names.

Aw, now you want to cry over "pro-abort?" The pro-aborts and the media
refuse to call us pro-life all the time, even though that is the name
of our movement. "Anti-abortion" and "anti-choice" are said a hundred
times a day on USENET. 

And you want to waaagh and babble about someone calling you 
"pro-abortion"?

># These are the same folks who cry about women jokes made by sexist men
># about women (AKA "Blonde jokes, etc."), and then who make up buttons
># like "The more I know men, the more I like my cat" and the
># Congressional circulation that's going around to women on the Hill,
># like "Why do they need female astronauts? In case the rest get
># lost..." and other nice stuff. 
># 
># Do we hear the NOW talking about _that_ kind of sexism as much as they
># do about male sexism? The NOW doesn't, never has, and never will. They,
># if not quite as man-hating as I say they are, are grossly hypocritical
># if they try to say they're for "equal rights."  
>
>You just don't get it, do you? Feminism isn't about equal rights to be
>the butt of dumb jokes. And no, I'm not going to explain what it *is*
>about at the third grade level in talk.abortion, just so you might
>have an opportunity to clue in.

Then why aren't they saying anything about jokes against men? 
Feminists make uproars any time something is said badly about women,
but when it's said about men, it's usually coming from _them_. 

Feminists except for the class that Ron Graham's contingent comes
from, of course. :) 

># >Is this something that absolutely requires direct action?
># 
># It would if you got a good enough ribbing from your friends.
>
>I am not going to disown my children because my friends rib me about
>them.

Direct action does not mean just kicking out or disowning kids. 

># >Am I to understand that if you were to produce offspring and visiting
># >friends observed that your offspring were not an identical
># >reproduction of you, that you would feel the need to take direct
># >action explicitly to remedy such a situation?
># 
># No, you wouldn't come to that understanding if you were smart, and I
># would be disappointed if you proved to be stupid. (It indicates an
># overestimation on my part.) You would come to the understanding that
># to some pro-aborts, being pro-life is to them what being Neo-Nazi is
># to most American families, and if their actions here indicate
># anything, it would indicate that their tolerance for pro-life views
># ranges from negative to nil. 
>
>Okay. Let me reiterate: Rational and sane people do not emotionally or
>physically abuse their children over political disagreements. Unless
>you disagree with that statement, your saying that *some* pro-choice
>people are not rational and sane.

Yes, I am saying that at least 2 on USENET are not highly rational or
sane: Humphrey and Kaufman. 

Ask yourself this: how different is one's attitude around here, from
their attitude at home? Not highly, on the average. 

>Here, I'll spare you one so you can save bandwidth:
>
>	------------
>	| Chaney's |
>	|  Disk    |
>	|   Block  |
>	------------
>[1]

Yours: 
----
|  | 
---- 
(Magnified 100,000 times) 

># abuse or face-slapping going on, but these parents like to "HOW IN THE
># HELL CAN YOU STAND SUCH BULLSHIT GET OUTA MY FACE AND DON'T EVER SAY
># THAT AGAIN..."
>
>You get my award for Most Confusing Infinitive Verb Clause. I simply
>can't parse that sentence.

It was intentional. It reflects exactly the kind of attitude some
parents have taken towards some pro-life kids who are present members of
our Students for Life, who prefer to give their $$$, advice and
support, in anonymity. 

>As near as I can tell, what's got you all ruffled is that some of your
>friends have parents who don't approve of the things you're rightfully
>doing, and what's pissing you right the hell off, is that they have
>the nerve to express that disapproval to their teenage childrens'
>faces by shouting.

Shouting? How's about not being allowed to eat with the rest of the
family, or being talked about like shit in front of other family
members because of one's views? It's not exactly rare for these people
to tell their kids that they're not worth shit, etc.
What's got me ruffled is that parents with much nicer attitudes than
those on this net, will not stand for having pro-life views in their
house, and yet people on this net who are the meanest I've seen all
over, are "claiming" that they wouldn't do that. 

Now, _that_ doesn't parse.  

>``Next on Geraldo: Teens Whose Parents Shout At Them''

Gee, I thought the liberal crowd opposed that along with spankings,
thanks to Dr. Spock's books. :) 

># NOT the kind of thing I'd ever do to my kids, even _if_ they had a
># different opinion than I did.  
>
>Oh, no. You'd *never* shout at your kids. Ever.

I may shout, but I sure hope I never become a Mark Kaufman with my
kids. They might not be found alive again if I had Kaufman's attitude
and I had pro-choice kids. 

>STOP PROJECTING. SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, AND YOURSELF ONLY.

AW, GET LOST! You people project about us all the time! 

># I mean, come on, man, just go to a clinic and LOOK.
>
>I volunteer three hours a week for the Bay Area Coalition for
>Reproductive Rights defending a women's health clinic in Redwood City.
>You're not going to snow me about what happens at these clinics.
>
>#                                                      See the peaceful
># people just handing out pamphlets and fliers? See the escorts jeering
># at them and throwing stuff and elbowing pro-lifers?
>
>I have never seen elbowing and throwing of `stuff' from the clinic
>defense types. I *have* been involved in a few scuffles where pro-life
>types have rushed the clinic. I have seen a pro-choice man picked up
>and his head banged against a wall by an irate pro-lifer for no
>readily discernable reason.

That's what they constantly claim. 

Right here in Sacto, pro-lifers who aren't doing any of that, and who
are just standing there, handing out fliers, are being bothered (and
they have the attacks against them on videotape), and being pursued
with attempts to ban them from the area. That and this year, their
signs were taken from them by cops who have had to review that policy
as being in violation of the First Amendment. 

As for the manure-throwing, they got that squarely on tape and it was
a court exhibit which the judge did not want to see.  

>The people who come out to the clinics on the pro-life side are not
>run of the mill abortion foes -- they're four-star, grade A, U.S.
>Government Certified lunatics. (To be fair, the pro-choice types who
>come out to defend them, do not seem to be run of the mill abortion
>rights supporters. My fiancee, for instance, won't defend the clinic,
>even though she's pro-choice.)

Projecting is one thing, as you accuse me of, but in this case,
generalizing for the whole group of abortion protestors as being all
lunatics, is even worse. 

Some are lunatics, but not the majority of them. Operation Rescue
might be lunatics, but certainly not the pro-lifers in at least
Sacramento, who have yet to be arrested for rushing a clinic or even
charged with it. 

>Would I treat my kid like that? Any kid of mine that got as messed up
>as these people have to get before I'll start serving up the verbal
>abuse will have had a hard time living in my household anyway, what
>with all the fornication, pornography, obscene books, discs, Satanic
>music, blasphemy and other general sinfulness in my house. Such a kid
>will have `disowned' me, long before I warm up the flamethrower.

I never said anything about kids who also rushed clinics. You won't
get a chance to get your hands on that kid; the cops will have 'im in
jail for rushing a clinic. 

And nowadays, it seems that it is also illegal in more and more
places, to even stand around and protest outside of a clinic, in
peaceful manner. 

>#                                                     See the camcorders
># recording this stuff and not being allowed as evidence in court (such
># as the case here in Sacramento in a court injunction case at the
># Feminist Women's Health Center)?
>
>Heh. Never works for us, either. That's why the police have been
>sending around their own videocamera.

It never works for you? Try Bray vs. Alexandra (or is it Alexander) -
tape recorders oughta be playing one hell of a relevant issue there.
Except, only the tapes shown by pro-aborts will be allowed as
evidence.

Perhaps that Supreme Court case was decided 4-4, and Clarence is the
tie breaker. 

Then all we'll have to worry about is treating pro-life clinic-rushers
the same way as they treat peace protestors. 

Does anyone wonder how it is that peace protestors, who burned cars in
San Francisco during the Gulf War, get better treatment (none of them
were ever arrested) than clinic protestors who don't do half the
damage one does by burning cars in the middle of the street?  

I bet this'll be a dodge'em question seeing as pro-aborts can't ever
bring themselves to admit that peace protestors are as violent as
pro-lifers. Either that or it is irrelevant; politically correct
property damage must be immune to prosecution, in their eyes... 

>#                                 You think these pro-choicers would be
># nice on pro-life kids after lying to judges to get protestors put in
># jail or barred from their first amendment rights to peaceful protest? 
># Do you think those pro-aborts who beat the living crap out of the
># Minnesota pro-life Democrats at the DNC in NY, who were going to cast
># their vote for Governor Casey, would contort themselves into
># "tolerance" at home for dissenting opinions? 
>
>Nice `guilt by association' trick there, but you're still not a
>master. Walk on. 

Well, we pro-lifers have been made to address Operation Rescue issues
for years and years now. Your people have done everything but make us
guilty by association.  

Now you want to scream foul because we're returning the favor? 

>I'm growing bored with this thread, Mr. Chaney. You've pretty much
>backed down from the ferocious, screaming mutant weirdness that
>started this, so I don't intend to respond to any followups.

Translation: I can no longer be remotely categorized the way you want
me to be, so your most effective image attacks against me are
incapacitated. So it's useless to continue on. 

>-- 
>J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
>Space Systems/Loral
 
===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion