From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: "OR, on the rocks, with a twist"
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 15:49:05 CST
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:

[a large amount of ridiculous tripe deleted...]

>
>      Actually, I didn't call you a slanderer. That would have been an ad
>      hominem. I characterized a few of your statements as slander and libel.
>      The one where you said that Terry was a racketeer, and the one where
>      you said that his tactics are no better than the boss of an organized
>      crime family, are both libelous. There is neither justification nor
>      substance to back them up. They are simply unfavorable impressions of
>      yours.

Nothing like walking a fine line on this one.  You 'characterize' my words as
slander, you call me a slanderer.  It's as simple as that.  Randall Terry
founded a group that organizes criminal activities.  That is fact.  You don't
see it that way, fine, but the fact remains that OR protests result in
violations of the law, both non-violent civil disobedience actions and violent
assaults on those defending the clinics.  A mob boss organizes a group for
criminal purposes.  The comparison is legitimate.  You yourself admitted that
Terry is a criminal.  The organization is criminal in its intent (until such
time as abortion is made illegal).  These are facts, not 'unfavorable
impressions.'

But, as always, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.  You're
entitled to your opinion on OR, but you are not entitled to call mine libel and
slander.


>
>      I first started posting on this thread to point out the twist that you
>      were throwing in your articles. I have seen you indict the whole of
>      Operation Rescue by referring to the actions of one Assemblies of God
>      minister; you have given credit to OR to the Santa-suited ones, when
>      there was no specific mention of what group they belonged to. You have
>      characterized a whole group of people as violent by referring to one
>      man's acts of violence. When I saw this, it didn't sound like the OR
>      that I know, but rather the perception that the borts try to use.

What is a 'bort'?  Seems like you're lapsing into ad hominem again.

If you had been following my articles in this group, you would have seen
references not only to the Santa attack in Baton Rouge, but the other protests
last summer, held in Baton Rouge, Buffalo, and Houston.  With the exception of
the December attack on the Baton Rouge clinic, all three of the others were
offically sponsored by OR.  If the violence documented during those protests is
'not the OR that you know,' perhaps your time would be well spent changing the
attitudes of those who commit acts of violence in the course of their protests.

>
>      The characterization that I saw here didn't reflect the whole of OR,
>      but rather sought to defame OR. I don't know the reason that you have
>      for this, but I still expect an honest and level presentation.
>

Stating facts is not defamatory.  If you expect honesty, you ought to start
with your own language.  You have used the words 'defame,' 'slander,' and
'libel' over and over again.  You refer to those who disagree with your
position in quite derogatory terms.  An 'honest and level presentation' might
be possible, even in your eyes, if you would permit one.






|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|