From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: So let's all do the DarcyShuffle!
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:49:00 GMT

In article <5363@sumax.seattleu.edu> khamer@sumax.seattleu.edu (Little Kenny Hamer) writes:
>In article <0fxz+=n@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>Keith posted:
>>>->circumstance, I feel it would be justifiable to force the woman to
>>>->continue the pregnancy" (Not an exact quote.  Anybody this one archived?)
>>
>>legislation wasn't the issue. force was. see?
>
>Well, if you want the issue to be force, than the issue is force, I guess.

It wasn't originally, but Keegan is trying to make it that. Let's do a
quick review of the discussion so far:


<1992Oct7.044732.12964@rotag.mi.org>: 

Darcy> I DO *NOT* SUPPORT ANY RESTRICTIVE ABORTION LEGISLATION!!!!

<1992Oct7.233313.9526@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>:

Cochran> Is this the same Kevin Darcy who once wrote something about "...in 
Cochran> this circumstance, I feel it would be justifiable to force the woman 
Cochran> to continue the pregnancy" (Not an exact quote.  Anybody this one 
Cochran> archived?)

<altz+pr@rpi.edu>:

Keegan> sure. i have it archived. i just emailed it to you.
Keegan> when you receive it you can post and show that he lied,
Keegan> again.                                         ^^^^^^^

NOTA BENE: Keegan explicitly calls my statement about restrictive abortion 
"lying", therefore by simple implication he has asserted that I support
restrictive abortion legislation, which is a falsehood.

<1992Oct10.164522.3384@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>:

Cochran> Subject: here is your kebbie quote
Cochran>
Cochran>        "I would not force a woman to have an abortion, if by
Cochran>        "force" you mean legally. But if a woman is not willing
Cochran>        or able to pay the 100% of financial support she (in my
Cochran>        opinion) will owe the child, when going against the man's
Cochran>        wishes, I would question the wisdom of her keeping the
Cochran>        child. And I would not feel bad about "forcing" her
Cochran>        financially to give up the child, since it's probably
Cochran>        best for her, the child, and possibly the man as well."
Cochran>                <1990Jul12.012842.23584@cfctech.cfc.com>
                         ^^^^^^^^^

NOTA BENE: the stale, moldy date of this quote. My views have been greatly
refined since this time. If folks want to know what my CURRENT views are,
they can just ask me. There's no particular reason to believe that this old, 
out-of-context snippet quoted by my avowed nemeses is an accurate reflection
of my present views on the subject.

<5360@sumax.seattleu.edu>:

Hamer> The poster clearly states that he has no interest in LEGISLATION TO 
Hamer> FORCE a woman to have an abortion, although he does have an interest 
Hamer> in forcing, apparently through non-legislative means, adoption of the 
Hamer> child.
Hamer> 
Hamer> Nowhere in this article did he say he supported abortion legislation of
Hamer> any kind.  
Hamer>
Hamer> Regardless of whatever prior sins this poster may have committed, The
Hamer> person who thinks that those statements show the poster is in favor of
Hamer> forcing women to continue their pregnancy in in need of a brain.  The
Hamer> allegation that Kevin Darcy lied in this case is STILL unproven, and 
Hamer> with "proof" of this caliber it will remain unproven for the forseeable 
Hamer> future.

<0fxz+=n@rpi.edu>:

Keegan> legislation wasn't the issue. force was. see?

NOTA BENE: attempted misdirection here. Above, Keegan calls my statement
about *legislation* "lying", now he insists the issue is *force*. Dance. 
Shimmy. Shuffle.

>On that note, the exact issue was:  Did or did not Kevin Darcy say
>somthing to the effect of "it would be justifiable to force the woman to
>continue the pregnancy."  And in that wonderful excerpt from these huge
>archives you apparently have, there was no mention of forcing a woman to
>continue the pregnancy.
>
>Only two types of force were mentioned in Keith's excerpt:
>
>Legislative force to force an abortion, and financial force to give up the
>child.  
>
>But no mention of forcing a woman to continue her pregnancy.
>
>So again, where is your proof?
>
>It seems that we still have a problem with that, don't we?
>
>Or mabye I'm the only one who thinks accusations ought to be backed up by
>facts.

Don't hold your breath, Kenny. When Keegan & co. are caught in a lie, they
usually just move onto other, safer topics. I don't expect this time to be an 
exception.

Oh, and as far as those "previous sins" of mine are concerned, I think you'd
find that they're all like this -- miscommunications, mere differences of
opinion or interpretation, misdirections, obfuscations, smear tactics, etc. 
Keegan has never fully documented a single "lie" of mine. In fact, I once 
challenged him to produce the "most provable" Darcy lie, and all he did was 
back down amidst multiple evasions, smoke and mirrors. Apparently, he can't 
even prove a single one. Not bad, eh, for someone who has posted megabytes
of articles to talk.abortion and alt.flame, to have _never_ slipped in a weak
moment, and played fast-and-loose with the truth? I think Keegan's glaring
lack of proof completely vindicates my character and integrity.

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41377 talk.religion.misc:17865 alt.atheism:18622