From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: It's a bird, it's a plane, it's...
Summary: figured out that Jackson quote yet?
Keywords: Just Chaney making a fool of himself again
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:19:13 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Sep29.155656.17489@csus.edu>
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes
#In article <1992Sep23.160756.8470@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:


##I'm speechless, actually.  I'm stuck in 7:00-A.M.-no-stimulants-
##in-the-bloodstream hamster wheel over this statement:
##
##Message-ID: <1992Sep23.014327.29219@csus.edu#
### Oh, I love it when my liberal approach makes me look pro-choice.
##
##He wrote that in a followup to a post by barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet which
##presumed that *Larry Margolis* was pro-choice.  I was left with the
##impression that Mr. Chaney was confused about his identity and thought
##he was Larry Margolis for a moment.

#No, you stupid shit - it was a response to ME. It was my attribution
#directly before his words.

No, Dennis, it was a response to Larry Margolis.

#You've got some major stepping to do, Cranius Sphinctus, to make this lie
#of yours stick. For instance, re-posting that article to show evidence.

Oh, allow me.  POC really should have looked before he typed.

##It was all very bizarre.

#So is your stupidity, J H Woodyatt, Borg-designation Cranius Sphinctus.

This isn't bizarre, but it is funny.  Here's the original, Dennis.
My comments are in between /'s.

/begin included article/

From: barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Date: 22 Sep 92 17:39:59 GMT
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY


In article <1992Sep22.052211.14940@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> In  <1992Sep22.012523.25142@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space Systems writes:
>>
>> Dan Quayle said that he will "call a truce" with Murphy Brown and
>> watch the show tonight like a sportsman...
>>
>> To Dan Quayle:
>>
>> Murphy Brown is just a frigging TELEVISION SHOW.
>> Since when have we started going to war against a FICTIONAL character?
>> If you've got to declare a truce with a FICTIONAL character, what will
>> you end up doing against a REAL person? DON'T answer that: I can
>> hardly bear to hear it.
>>
>>            For heaven's sake, Dan, it's only a TELEVISION SHOW...
> 
> Going to war with a fictional character is certainly bizarre.

/note that Larry wrote this sentence/

Yes, but criticizing the unrealistic depiction of liberals as "good"
and conservatives as "evil" is not.  Would you criticize a TV show for
a strong pro-life message?  If you're pro-choice (I assume you are), I'd
bet you would.  So back off - Danny was right in his criticisms of the
show _and_ the character.
                                         -Jeff Barnes

/end included article/

Now, when Chanhalley replied to Barnes, he decided that Barnes must
have been speaking to him.

POC is too dense to have noticed that Barnes' "Yes, but" didn't
make sense in response to his ravings.

Here's how Dennis answered:

/begin included article/



From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Date: 23 Sep 92 01:43:27 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento


In article <1992Sep22.123959.2529@wkuvx1.bitnet> barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>In article <1992Sep22.052211.14940@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>>>
>>>            For heaven's sake, Dan, it's only a TELEVISION SHOW...
>> 
>> Going to war with a fictional character is certainly bizarre.
>
>Yes, but criticizing the unrealistic depiction of liberals as "good"
>and conservatives as "evil" is not.  Would you criticize a TV show for
>a strong pro-life message?  If you're pro-choice (I assume you are), I'd
>bet you would.  So back off - Danny was right in his criticisms of the
>show _and_ the character.

Oh, I love it when my liberal approach makes me look pro-choice. It's
a (mostly) pleasant surprise to pro-lifers (and a bad one for
pro-aborts) that I am intensely anti-discrimination (read: right to
life activist). It comes from my year+ of intensive media research,
public relations, and general all-around "chameleon" ability (plus
some honest liberalist sincerity).  

And like I said, the way to battle Murphy Brown is to turn her off.
She is one of the few ultra-liberals we can zap out of existence at
will. 

Instead, I suggest we watch someone who is REAL: like Rush
Limbaugh. He does more damage than Murphy Brown ever could, and at
least Rush tells it like it is. Rush is a lot better at handling
liberalism (when it runs wild - not to associate anti-life liberalism
with the pro-life lib's who are even more Left than I could ever hope to be),
because he just slams the facts on the table. Quayle could use
pointers from Rush. 


I wouldn't dare hope to see anyone else but Dan Quayle make the VP in
1992 (and Bush make the Big P), if for nothing else but that a
stumbling fireman crew is far preferable to a skilled, mad bomber like
Clinton. 


=============================================================================
		 Another Democrat for George Bush. 
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

/end included article/

Thanks for another good laugh, Stedennveis.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion