From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: darcy labels opinions lies
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 17:13:02 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.125628.9690@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>-> keegan@calyx.crd.ge.com (james g keegan jr) writes:
>-> >if anyone wonders how darcy became the net.pariah, take a
>-> >peek at this. a few days ago, i replied to a darcy post with
>-> >this comment:
>-> >
>-> >        'i want to say that you calling yourself a
>-> >        pro-choicer ("we as pro-choicers") is the single most
>-> >        damaging statement i've seen written on the
>-> >        pro-choice philosophy.  you, kevin darcy, are, imo,
>-> >        the least pro-choice person i've seen post to this
>-> >        newsgroup.'
>-> >		<1992Apr13.174429.2292@crd.ge.com>
>-> >
>-> >kebbin replied with this!
>-> >
>-> >    'Please support this. *NOW*. Or forever bear the badge of
>-> >    "liar".'
>-> >		<1992Apr14.043728.4879@rotag.mi.org>
>-> >
>-> >so he's asking me to support an opinion clearly expressed as
>-> >such or else be labeled a "liar." 
>
>-> >exchanges like this are what earned darcy his net.reputation.
>
>-> "Pro-choice" is not a matter of "opinion" [sic], Keegan. It's
>-> a well-defined political label in common use. Either
>-> 
>-> 	a) support your statement that I am not "pro-choice", 
>
>see how kevin inserts a new lie here. note how he asks me to
>support a statement i never made. the statement i -did- make is
>included above.

If I'm "less pro-choice" than pro-lifers like Forgach, Kellmeyer, Welch, 
Franklin et al.  it logically follows that I'm not pro-choice at all, does
it not? Or do you consider those people "pro-choice"?

>-> 	b) forever wear the badge of "liar", 
>-> 
>-> 		or 
>-> 
>->      c) admit that this "opinion" of yours is so far divorced
>->      from reality that it qualifies as a delusion.
>
>now here's something interesting. kevin labels my opinion as that
>which would cause me to be called "liar" earlier. here he labels
>my opinion as opinion. 

In scare quotes, of course. I believe the clinical term would be "delusion".

>i suspect this is because kebbie would like to control opinions, 
>as well as women's bodies. 

On what factual basis, if any, do you base this suspicion?

>-> P.S. Why is it that "pro-choice" gets to be a _subjective_
>-> term for you, but you insist that I have to objectively PROVE
>-> that Sue Garvin is a "bitch"?  Isn't "bitchiness" AT LEAST as
>-> subjective as "pro-choice"? This wouldn't be Yet Another
>-> Double Standard, now would it?
>
>nice backpedal. it doesn't work, though. you've repeatedly called
>susan garvin a "lying bitch" without supporting the "lying"
>element or the "bitch" element. 

I documented the "'lying' element", as you call it. The "'bitch' element"
is mostly if not completely a matter of opinion.

>... my statements about you,
>like my calling you a liar all the time in different contexts,
>are statements of fact which are supported by evidence i provide
>when i make my claim. 

All you do is call me names, regurgitate stale quotes, and, occasionally, 
doctor my posts in an attempt to make them say what you WISHED they had said
(usually something embarrassing or damaging). So, let's get one thing clear:
your "support" is MEANINGLESS. It always has been. It probably always will be.

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion