From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:22:12 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD


In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>Look, folks! Ronald Bense cools down his full-scale attack, here, and
>steers things towards a more calm situation.

Hee hee. Chaney, I haven't even started flaming yet. I might have thrown
an insult or two, but flaming? Sorry. Ask Franklin about my flaming.
It took him 3 weeks to figure out that I was laughing at him and poking
fun at him rather than laughing with him. Major difference, and a truly
fun flamefest. Then again, he deserved it for some of the half-baked
crap he was peddling at the time.

>So I'll oblige.

Very nice, I've been keeping it quite civil, for the most part, as endless
name-calling bores me.

>In article <23554@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri
>tes:
>>In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>In article <Bsuyt7.B9M@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (You know who) writes:

[about first e-mail, chaney's recent remarks accidently deleted, but
claims that he doesn't send e-mail to pro-choicers unless he receives
e-mail firt...]

Umm, I still have your first one. I'll have to check to see whether
it was a response to e-mail or something I posted to you. Get back to
you on this in the next round.

>>and waste of bandwidth. You basically said that you would quit posting
>>that fdrivel if someone posted a reply to it and didn't dodge it. I
>>guess now that I should have saved my reply to your 3rd or 4th posting
>>of this trash. At least you have the honesty to admit that you provoked
>>this *nagging* e-mail.

>Actually, I'm not reprinting, it because there have been challenges
>at last and I am, as you can read all around, meeting those challenges
>head-on.

I seem to have missed those, but it's nice to know that you've stopped.

>And while you were e-mailing it to me, you never did challenge it. You
>just e-mailed it to me, which looked suspiciously like you weren't
>_able_ to address the content of the article.

I addressed in the first two days that you sent it, the third at most.
After the first response, I stopped adding anything to it, as I went
through 4-5 of these things before I mailed them back to you.

>Of course, that's assuming I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt
>that they accidentally missed both articles. Which is quite easy to do.

These received good response time because I had time. I don't read everything
here, and lately, only responses to my posts, and that's it. If I have
extra time, then I read others, and respond if I feel like it.

>>Now all you have to do is explain what you mean by nagging, as all I
>>did was raise some points and express my views about what you said tied
>>into the way you respond on the net. There were no flames in this, just
>>observations.

>Agreed. Mailing me an article and then a letter saying "You're stupid,
>blah blah blah" in 2 lines or less, is what I consider nagging. Your
>views? I didn't get anything besides, "You're senseless, you're
>stupid, you're this and that." Oh, and one faint challenge concerning
>"You're senseless" following 20 lines of "Ha-haaaaah!" to which I
>responded in like fashion, suffixed by a "don't e-mail me with this
>crap anymore."

Actually, I have all of those e-mail messages stored, at the moment.
Knowing you, I decided that I should, at least until this thread wears
out. There was, if I recall, a good deal more than just a two line you're
stupid message. Then again, I haven't looked at them.

>How's your response to the single mother article? The one that says
>"pro-lifers can't stand single mothers" or at least insinuated it.
>It's all a part of the Bad Chaney propaganda. You can tell, RE: the single
>mother post I wrote, that this is true, because that article absolutely
>had no way of being turned into some Whacko Steve Hall Dennis Chaney
>Propeller Headed Raving Lunatic propaganda. So they didn't respond to
>it.

I probably didn't even read it. The only reason this one started is
because I had the time to read whatever post it was that started this
whole series. Unlike some, I don't conglomerate all the various posts
you write and point out inconsistencies between them. My posting software
doesn't allow me to do that, although I can, with a few hoops, do the
same.

>My responses on this net, when they get nasty, are because we have a
>few bloodthirsty folks - I call them the Pat Ira Roby Gang, that
>includes Regard, Garvin, Novak, Kaufman, Humphrey, and a bunch of
>others, who have hit the pro-lifers with a combo of pranks, posting of
>private e-mail, rabid insults, threats, more rabid insults, and more
>abuse per Kilobyte than a hate speech from the KKK.
>You can't possibly blame me for not letting up on these people.

*********<this is for my personal marking>

I've got some real eye-opening news for you. There is no such thing
as private e-mail. It can be read at any number of points in the net
by those with high enough levels of access. How do I know this? Because
I've had some mail intercepted by a third party at an intermediate portion
of the path and printed. The intended receiver of this e-mail has seen
the printed copy thereof, and, as a matter of fact, caused them much
trouble, as it turned out that although the company had USENET access,
the employees were not allowed to send and receive e-mail or read news
groups or use 'talk' or 'phone'. Yes, they even had printed transcripts
of real time 'talk/phone' sessions. Something you'd think was really
private and hard to do.

>And with the Pat Ira Roby Gang going after you with their brand of
>cutthroat intensity, you don't _EVER_ let up. This is the same group,
>along with Dan King, Leo Mauler (of times past), Susan Garvin,
>Adrienne Regard, and heaven knows who else, that has caused many a
>pro-lifer to get sick and leave the newsgroup.

Personally I thought they got sick because the ran out of semi-logical
answer to questions about why they hold as truth things that have no
basis in science and are willing to place these 'truths' in law.

[stuff about chaney's 'enemies' and Siren deleted]

>You see, I and the other pro-lifers treated her [Siren] and other logical
>people (of which there are few, but you're clearly invited to be
>counted as one), with respect. Siren got more respect from the
>pro-life side than her own side, in the end.

I didn't foolw it, although I saw it. I have no idea what happened,
although there was some sort of spiff. No comment.

[...]

>I spend more words per K refuting allegations against me than anyone
>on this newsgroup, even Kevin Darcy. Yup, believe it, even Kevin
>Darcy.

That's probably because you post the longest diatribes, disregarding
Schweikert, that I've seen. You also have a tendency not to delete anything.

As for refuting allegations, I've seen hundreds of lines of bile spill
forth from you. This post is the longest that I've seen from you wherein
you did not constantly try to nuke someone. (Although you couldn't leave
out the jabs at patrick Humphrey and co, could you?)

[...]

[about family and descriptions deleted...]

>Don't worry, after a while, you'll learn really fast that the ultimatum
>is, either we have Patrick Humphrey and his net.friends, or we have
>peaceful dialogue between sides, but we cannot have both.

I seem to not have any problems at all. How could that be? And, I don't
have problems with pro-lifers like Frau F (Forgach) either, or Franklin,
at least not after the initial spiff.

>BTW, I have refuted those things you said about my family. If you
>didn't see it, I'll say it again:

Not in this form, although I think I just responded to it 30 min ago.

>1) My parents are not dictators. Their opinion is not God in the
>   house.
>2) My parents do not tolerate constant bad-lipping and whining and
>   complaining about simple house work and being with the family.
>   My brother did that all the time. (Heck, so do I, but not as
>   badly.) They would never let Bart Simpson live here. That's a
>   figure of speech, Pat Roby/Humphrey; don't take it as "We think
>   Bart Simpson is for real," or some other prank you like to
>   pull.
>3) My folks are fairly nice folks, with far less of the temper that
>   Humphrey, much less Kaufman, display. Yet they would wear my ass
>   out raw if they knew I supported President Bush, or that I still
>   check out some Rush Limbaugh stuff on the radio.

Rush Limbaugh is a good joke, or would be, if not so many actually took
him seriously. As for the temper, what you wrote before did not indicate
this. Hence, you should be more careful in what you say, especially
word choice, as they can convey entirely different meanings to those
reading them than you intended to put there.

>4) They are firm believers that no African American person (of which
>   we are 5 persons - 2 parents, now another aunt who's moved in, and
>   a grandmother - and me) on Earth, can be Republican and have their
>   head firmly screwed on enough to eat at the Chaney household.
>   (I believe they may have found the elusive 11th Commandment and
>   are just hiding it from the world, the way they hold to this
>   particular belief.) So, to keep from getting in more trouble than
>   it could ever be worth, I make sure I receive Democratic ballot
>   books during the primaries.

Personally, a question. Why receive any ballot books at all? I don't
believe that because someone is a member of either party that that makes
him/her automatically qualified to run for a particular office, as some
dem. firmly are pro-life, and some rep. are pro-choice. Vote your conscience
and be independent. Following a party smacks far too much of Communism,
even if you have a choice (sort of) of two. Maybe even vote a Libertarian
or Independent once in a while. :)

>5) No one in our family, save my brother, is a failure. I'm further in
>   my education than he is, and he's years older than me.

It's sad that your brother turned out that way. I've known several people
who I grew up with that have fallen by the wayside, so to speak, and
will never amount to much of anything, in other terms, a failure.

>Now, where can you read 'dysfunctional'? Ours seems like a pretty
>normal family. If not the Cosby's or the Daddy Knows Best family that

Father Knows Best was an attrocity in that people (some) still think
that families ought to be that way. In the DC area, this type of family
unit is very rare (father is breadwinner, mom stays home and cooks,
kids all like school, etc) as the more common norm for 2-parent families
is that both are working, so that there will be money left over for
food at the end of the bill paying cycle.

>TV portrayed in the past, we're a lot better off than the majority,
>not that I'm satisfied with the situations of the majority. (No, Pat
[...]

Personally, after seeing how much some of the majority cares about their
own welfare, they can worry about it themselves. Others, however, do
care, and those I would try to help.

As for discussions about the 'gang', leave them out, as all you wish
to do, apparently, is flame them.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion