From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Nyikos Goes Under (WAS Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 12:14:04 GMT

In article <nyikos.715883539@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Sep04.162824.32187@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
> 
> >(Note that you're responding to yourself here.)  Dean wasn't referring
> >to the anti-choicer's utopia presented in A Handmaid's Tale;
> 
> As I recall, he was giving us all a tall tale about ultra-right-wing Christians
> artificially inseminating women and forcing them to bear children.
> Since I have never heard of an ultra-right-wing Christian doing the
> first, and the second is just the spin he puts on laws against
> abortionists, I figured the Handmaid's Tale might be where his fantasy
> came from about what Christians are like.

Sorry, sonny, but again your fantasies are far-fetched.  Never
read the book "Handmaid's Tale" and never saw the movie.  I was
just doing what you do.  That is, I was engaging in speculation
in the absence of any real information that what I said ever took
place.

I have never heard that ultra-right-wing Christians didn't behave
as described.  Therefore, just as you speculate about that which
you know nothing about, I was speculating about it too.  Perfectly
fair, under the circumstances.

You know, I have no evidence that you, Peter, haven't been
engaging in carnal knowledge of barnyard animals.  I find that
very curious and suggestive, don't you?

Oh, and please go on misinterpreting what I say and dragging
in irrelevant references.  It makes you look so brilliant.

> > he was
> >referring to the example of baseless speculation that you've shown
> >with just about everything you've posted.
> 
> When I quote from newspaper articles, magazines, books, is that baseless
> speculation?  As Holtsinger told me, you don't demand unbiased sources,
> you merely label our sources "speculation."  Sorry, the distinction's 
> been lost on me so far, but I'll try to keep it in mind.

When you claim that because it is possible for clinic staff to
have planted bombs in their own clinics when they have never been
accused of doing so and there is no evidence that they ever have, and
when you speculate that abortion providers have failed in their
legal duties to report suspected cases of incest when you have
yourself admitted that you have no information on the matter at
all, that is baseless speculation.  Your red herring above is just
that.  You never posted any "sources" for your nonsense about the
clinic bombings or about incest.  In fact, you admitted to having
no information upon which to base your statements and tried to
weasel away from the word "speculation" by claiming that you were
just describing possibilities.  Well, if that's how you play,
then it is possible that you rape little girls.  I have no reason
to think that you do, but I have no reason to think that you
don't.  I don't accuse you of it, mind you, I am just saying that
it is entirely possible.

Hey, this game is really fun.  Why, when you have no information
about someone's behavior you can really speculate about all
kinds of things.

Can't you, Peter?

Try slipping away from the words you posted again, and you will
simply be reminded again of what you said.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion