From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Reply to Storga in re Trumped-up Case #3
Keywords: abortion, adoption, children, fetuses
Date: 30 Dec 92 00:16:52 GMT
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"

<nyikos.724953470@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>Back before my netserver went deaf, I thought I'd posted this long-awaited
>response, but apparently my netserver had gone mute without my knowing it.
...
>> <nyikos.719522367@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> >A while back, I challenged Gordon Storga to produce evidence of 
>> >Suzanne Forgach's "hatefulness" and other unappealing personal 
>> >characteristics and behavior with which she has been charged 
>> >repeatedly on talk.abortion.
>> 
>> Not quite,  you said:
>> "People keep telling me of all kinds of horrible things Suzanne has
>>  posted in the past.  I haven't seen any that would even remotely
>>  justify the above statements, and I am calling your bluff: if you have
>>  any evidence Suzanne said these things, please produce them."
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> You specifically asked for "any evidence" that Suzanne said or inferred
>> the posted statements.  
>
>The posted statements had to do with putting to death people who did not
>live up to her quality of life, among other things.  See my next paragraph
>marked  > >   below.

I saw it.

>> I supplied several of her posts which supported my
>> statements.  The very fact that you use the term "demurer" means that you
>> accept them as valid evidence. 
>
>No, Gordon, by using the word "demurrer", I am also implying that the
>charges which I treat in this way do not support your earlier 
>denunciations of Suzanne.

In your opinion.  But then you have some sort of agenda with Suzanne, so it
explains your need to defend someone who has asked you not to defend her.

>In particular, I maintain that Case #3, the one under
>discussion, does not bear on "the above statements," hence is not 
>valid evidence for them.  If you dispute what I am saying here, and do
>not like my fragmentary account in the first  > > paragraph below,
>kindly do us all the courtesy of duplicating
>"the above statements" here.  After all, you were the one who made them,
>and besides I've already re-posted them, so now it's your turn.
... 
>> >Last month, he produced a long string of excerpts from past posts
>> >of Suzanne.  By far the most damaging charge was that she wishes to 
>> >establish a theocracy in America.  This ugly charge was, IMO, taken
>> >care of by Kevin Darcy and Suzanne herself on the
>> >THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS thread, and what remained was a motley crew of 
>> >passages which certainly do not support charges of "hypocrisy", "lying,"
>> >and asserting that "those people who don't live a certain [religious]
>> >"quality" of life will be *rightfully* killed."  
>> 
>> And that statement by me was logically deduced by understanding the
>> history of the actions taken by theocratic governments,
>
>You have not divulged the steps in this "logical deduction".  If you 
>want us to take these charges seriously, you should tell us just how
>Suzanne's past statements logically lead to a charge of wanting to 
>establish a theocracy.  Otherwise, the actions taken by theocratic
>governments are irrelevant, and inadmissible as evidence.

Nice try, you deleted the rest of my comment which does point one in the
right direction.  Reposted:
%And that statement by me was logically deduced by understanding the
%history of the actions taken by theocratic governments, and Suzanne's own
%posted opinions of people with clashing lifestyles.  Specifically, we
%have historical evidence of Catholic theocratic treatment of its subjects
%"for their own good".

Do you deny the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Witch Trials, the
burning of books, all done by the Catholic Church or at it's insistance?
Do you deny the oppression and downright horror perpetrated on people by
theocratic governments even today? Look at the Middle-East for example, or
some South American countries.  Look at the link between the Church and
organized crime in America.  Examine the role of the church in the
slaughter of the 'heathen' Native American and the destruction of much of
their religious beliefs.

Now look at Suzanne's personal opinions of people who don't share her
religious convitions:  'Condoms are the tools of prostitution' - where
does the Church stand on prostitution?  Weren't prostitues stoned to death
not that long ago?  Aren't they mutilated along with adulterers in many
theocratic governments even today?  Suzanne also believes that abortion is
murder in the sense of immoral killing.  Gee, I wonder what's going to
happen to women who get an abortion in her Catholic Reich?

I'm now going to repost another SEF gem in it's entirety just for you.  In
it you'll see that Suzanne considers people who have what she considers
"non-lifetime commitment sex" to be beneath her standards.  Her standards,
if she is a good little Catholic better coincide with her churches.
Therefore it is easy to conclude that these people who have casual sex 
would be considered some sort of pervert or criminal in her theocratic
society.

&&& new repost
&
&From gordons Mon Jun 17 21:26:33 PDT 1991
&Newsgroups: talk.abortion
&Subject: Suzanne admits CONDITIONAL love (was Re: These are questions 
&Summary: 
&Expires: 
&References: <1991Jun8.130529.3550@cs.yale.edu>
&<1991Jun10.213027.18238@noao.edu>
&Sender: 
&Followup-To: 
&Distribution: 
&Organization: Ashton-Tate, Inc.
&Keywords: 
&
&<1991Jun10.213027.18238@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
&>by rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla):
&>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
&>>>by gordons@dbase.A-T.COM (Gordon Storga):
&>>>> It is
&>>>> only fair to ask if you loved your husband from the moment you met him.
&>>>> It seems like marriage would be the logical step, for _unconditional_
&>>>> love.
&>>>
&>>>Yup.  From _before_ I ever met him I only wanted good to come to him.
&>>>Certainly bringing him an STD, some other man's child to raise, or a surgery
&>>>scarred uterus to try and carry his _own_ children in, wouldn't have been
&>>>very nice.
&>>
&>> Wait a minute, Suzy, if NFP works so well, you don't have to worry about
&>> anything but STDs, and you can protect yourself. Why does this 
&>> reasoning seem bogus?
&>
&>No Eric.  I don't trust my life to a measily piece of rubber.    If I don't
&>trust my life's _decisions_, such as to when to have a child, to a measily
&>piece of rubber, why would I trust my _life_ to it??
&
&You trust your life to a lot of things, unless you never leave the bomb
&shelter.  You even risk your children's lives everytime you drive them
&somewhere.  You risk that you or another driver will lose control and kill
&or injure them, or yourself.  You risk that your tires (measely pieces of
&rubber that they are) won't stop you in time when those children run out
&into the street in front of you.
&
&Go ahead.  Tell us again how you don't trust your life to mere objects.
&
&>> So, you still haven't explained WHY it is so important that you both
&>> be virgins.
&>
&>Didn't realize you asked!
&>
&>1) I want to be the mother of _all_ his children, and not force him to
&>   spread that privelege over several women before or after me.
&
&"Force?"  Does he have an uncontrollable urge to make babies?  Poor man.
&
&>
&Likewise,
&>   I want to make my children the gift of all having the same father!
&
&So you were just posturing when you said you wanted ALL THE UNWANTED
&CHILDREN.  You want to keep your little litter _clean_.  None of them
&"lower class" gang children mixin' with your lily white ones.
&
&>2) Diseases.  (I've stated many times I don't believe condoms stop STDs.)
&
&Yes.  You also believe that water evaporates because your god wants it to.
&
&>3) MY PREFERENCE.  I'm very jealous.   Do you have a problem with my sexual
&>   preference that we both start out as virgins?
&
&So, there ARE conditions on your love.  Why didn't you just say so?
&
&>4) Standards.  I do have them you know.  People who use each other for
&>   physical pleasure without the accompanying life long commitment, are
&>   beneath mine.
&
&Such Christian love!  Makes you want to just run out and fire-bomb a
&cathedral, doesn't it.  (It really doesn't, I just thought I'd see if I
&could be as absurd as Suzanne.)
&
&
&Gordon
&
&&& end new repost

>[...]
>> >Today I handle a charge which appears to have been improperly stated.
>> 
>> Talk to Suzanne then.
>
>You were the one who made the charge.  She is powerless to change the
>way it is stated.  Only you have that power.

Uh, I restated it Peter.  You even left in the part where I clarified it.
 
>> >The charge literally seems to read, "begging for unwanted children," which 
>> >appears to be best handled by demurrer: What exactly is wrong with 
>> >begging for unwanted children? It seems like quite a laudable thing to do.
>> 
>> Nothing, you idiot. 
>
>Gordon, be reasonable.  You *did* use those words below. (You even had the
>decency to leave them in, so that now readers can see that you indeed used
>them.)  I *did* say I believed the wording was improper.  I *did* try to
>re-word the charge so that it would at least be properly worded.  I *did*
>ask readers (and I did not exclude you! on the contrary, I welcome your
>input) to suggest ways the charge should be re-worded.  What more do you
>want?  It's bad enough that Dean [his name, not (perish the thought!) his
>title] Kaflowitz acts as though I should avail myself of extrasensory
>perception, without you getting into the act.
>
>> The "charge" was hypocrisy and posturing:

>You should have worded it that way, then.  If this is the way you want
>it worded, I decline to enter a demurrer, and instead enter a plea of 
>Not Guilty.

Look Peter, if you want to play dense that's fine with me.  Just don't
expect me to waste my time, OK?  It should have been obvious to anyone
capable of reading and typing on this newsgroup that the "charge" was
hypocrisy - she begged for unwanted children and then did nothing to
obtain them.  As for Not Guilty, I suggest you look at the evidence and
talk to some witnesses.

>>  "Oh please,
>> please, send me *ALL* the unwanted unloved children so I can give them
>> love and care!!!
>
>This is not what she said, at least not in the fragmentary evidence you have
>entered so far.  

I didn't mean to confuse you.  It's apparently very easy to do.  I was
paraphrasing her, exagerating her comments only slightly so that even you
can see the posturing behind them.

>                 Not only that, but this interpretation makes no sense at 
>all.  Do you really think Suzanne is such a simpleton that she would volunteer
>to take care of all the unwanted unloved children in the USA?  I know you
>have a low opinion of her, but this is ridiculous.

She begged for all unwanted children.  She then didn't follow up on even
one.

>> >I will now reproduce the relevant part of Gordon's post, asking the
>> >reader to help me decide what the proper wording should be, and then
>> >give my own idea as to what it should be.
>> 
>> >>** wrt begging for unwanted children:
>> >>><1991Jan9.205231.10000@noao.edu> (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> >>>><1991Jan8.214829.10977@athena.mit.edu>, (James R. Purdon III):
>> >>>>> <1991Jan8.175625.1579@noao.edu> (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> >>>>>>Please do!  Send them all to me!!   I will love them like you are
>> >>>>>> obviously incapable of!
>> >
>> >>>>> Please send me your address and I will forward it to a social worker who
>> >>>>> works with gang members in Roxbury and Jamacia Plains.  She will be more
>> >>>>> than happy, I'm sure, to send a few your way.  
>> >
>> >>>>Now this is a prime example of anti-child, elitist bigotry.  You are 
>> >>>>assuming that just because a child is an orphan, he/she will necessarily
>> >>>>grow up to be an undesirable, tough, knife toting, tattooed, bad
>> >>>>attitude, gang member.
>> >>>>You're the one with the attitude problem, Purdon.
>> >
>> >>**Do you see anywhere that she says "give me the social workers address"?
>> >
>> >There are a couple of ways the charge could be rephrased in the light
>> >of Gordon's final line, but the one that seems closest to the original
>> >charge appears to be: "Failing to fall for a bait-and-switch scam."
>> >
>> >Knowing Gordon's propensity for selective deletions (Note that we have
>> >no idea what "them all" refers to in Suzanne's first line, nor even whom 
>> >she is talking to) I would guess that the original context was more closely
>> >related to abortion than the teen-age toughs Gordon would have Suzanne 
>> >adopt.
>
>Actually I was reading too much into the post.  It mentions gang members
>but says nothing about how old they are.

We were discussing children.  BTW, do you see anywhere where Suzanne asks
for their ages?

>BTW Gordon supplied his original follow-up to Suzanne's post, from which
>the above seems to be reconstructed, and I agree that he has not made 
>any selective deletions from that follow-up.  It does seem as though he 
>and/or this JRP III character did make selective deletions, to obliterate
>all clues as to what "them all" actually referred to.

Ask some others here who might have all the original posts.  Me, I'm
satisfied with the evidence presented.  What did you think we were
discussing, kittens?

>> > I would guess that "them all" are either babies not yet born, and 
>> >Suzanne is anticipating their births, and thinks they are in danger of
>> >being aborted; or else babies recently born.
>> 
>> Nope, wrongo.  The conversation was about *children*.  Neither born nor
>> "unborn" were specified. 
>
>Post her words that prove it, then.  She seems to be CONTRASTING "a child"
>with the gang member that the child is allegedly going to "grow up" to be.

I have enough evidence, thank you.  Try posting evidence to the contrary.

>I see no other use of the word "child" above, so your "children" must refer
>to some words of Suzanne that do not appear above.

Certainly.   Very good Peter.

>> > it should really be
>> >incumbent upon Gordon to provide the background since it is he that is
>> >pressing the charges, and it is up to him to provide evidence that 
>> >this was NOT the context.
>> 
>> Nope.  I provided evidence which supports my position.  If you don't have
>> evidence to the contrary that's your problem.  Since you delight in using
>> legal jargon to describe the debating forum:  Would you expect a
>> prosecuting attorney to do research for the defending attorney?
>
>I would expect a prosecuting attorney to provide unambiguous evidence of
>hypocrisy.  You have not done so.  Your case would be laughed out of any
>normal court.

Good thing we aren't in a court, much less a normal one.

>> my original response to Suzanne *********************************************
>> [...] 
>> Look in the mirror.  Let's say that a fellow pro-lifer offered you the
>> same chance with the same children in Roxbury.  Would you still accuse
>> _them_ of ANTI-CHILD BIGOTRY?  Pretend it was a fellow pro-lifer, for the
>> children's sake.						    ^^^^^^^
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 
>> Gordon
>> end repost *********************************************
>
>Gordon, if you are so concerned about these "children", as you call them,
>why don't you offer to adopt one or more of them?

Because I'm not that concerned.  Suzanne's the one who's concerned.  Tell
her to adopt some of them.

>                                                   I think their present
>personalities are much more compatible with yours than Suzanne's.

Now, now, Suzanne will get you for implying naughty things about those
kids.  BTW, she shouldn't hurry.  If those were children of gang members
then some of them are probably dead by now.

>                                                                   One 
>suggestion, though: I do not recommend that you address them as "you
>children."  As Frank O'Dwyer might put it, some of them may want to 
>punch your lights out for getting so fresh with them.

It would be their last act.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion