From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:13:48 GMT

In <5lxzykp@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu 
   (rocker) writes: >
wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes: >>>
wdo@TEFS1.acd.com writes: >>>>
(Susan Garvin) writes: >>>>>

>>>>> What purpose is served by repeating vile, unsubstantiated rumor 
>>>>> about a dead young woman?  
> 
>>>> Perhaps it has something to do with her parents malicious anti-RTL 
>>>> crusade.  
>
>>> Malicious?  You're despicable.  
>
>>Malicious.  I had the opportunity to see them first hand at ISU
>>last year.  Malicious.  Waging a campaign of hostility and bit-
>>terness against pro-lifers because of existing parental consent
>>laws is sadly misguided.  And these people were malicious.
>
>How fascinating.  Do you make similar diagnoses of groups such as
>Mothers Against Drunk Driving?  

Do you know what a "diagnosis" is (or isn't)?  Like most people, 
I'm capable of interpreting directed hostility.

>I mean, just LOOK at how nasty 
>they get about people who have a beer or seven and then want to
>drive home.  Why, the vast majority of drunk drivers have never
>killed _anyone_!  Many of them have never even had an accident!
>Who are those evil, malicious MADD women persecuting them like
>that??????

Well, *that* sure does justify the Bell's malice.  (???)

>Maybe, just maybe, they want to keep someone _else_'s child from
>dying for the same reason that _their_ child did.

Maybe they do!  And maybe the FFM is using the Bells to further
its political agenda.  But either way, they're doing it with a
hefty dose of *malice*.  I didn't kill their daughter, but pro-
lifers in general sure make a good scapegoat, don't they?  I
simply don't accept the blame.

>>> This family lost their daughter because of a parental consent 
>>> law.  
>
>>Right.  And when my son was nearly killed by an automobile at 
>>age 7, it was those awful traffic laws that did it.  It had
>>nothing to do with the fact that we should have been watching
>>him more closely.
>
>But of course if the driver had been drunk, you'd NEVER do anything
>malicious like those nasty MADD people, would you?  After all, it
>was _your_ fault that your kid was in a dangerous situation, 
>whether or not the driver was drunk had NOTHING to do with it!
>Right?  Right?

And if the driver had been a drunk space alien I'd have had a 
lot of trouble finding a jurisdiction in which to litigate with
him, wouldn't I?  Sheesh.

>>> They were devastated, and they don't want other parents to 
>>> suffer the way they did.  They campaign against the law that 
>>> killed their daughter, and you call them malicious.  You dis-
>>> agree, so you dismiss their work as "political expediency".  
>
>>Sorry, CJ.  I was there.  I heard them.  There were (perhaps)
>>five pro-lifers in a room of ~200, sitting quietly in the back.  
>>We made no noise, we made no rude gestures, we made no faces.  
>>We just sat there listening.  But someone apparently identified 
>>us to Karen Bell who, for at least five minutes, treated us to 
>>a hateful discourse that blamed *us* for her daughter's death.
>
>And just LISTEN to how those nasty women that started MADD
>treat people convicted of drunk driving, _whether_or_not_ they
>ever killed _anyone_.  Why, there oughtta be a LAW!

This is nonsense.  There are laws against driving drunk.  Pro-
lifers who support notification or consent laws have broken no 
law.

>>> You know no compassion.
>
>>And apparently you know no Bells.  But I know malice when I 
>>see it.
>
>This, of course, comes from your well-known ability to judge 
>the motivations and attitudes of people who you've met only
>briefly, if at all.

They weren't exactly trying to *hide* their feelings, Cathi.
Were you there?

>Let's all just shut up now, and bow to Mr. Bill's superior
>psychiatric judgement.

Has nothing to do with psychiatry.  If someone is shouting
hateful accusations at you for five minutes, you might infer
some malice yourself.  Maybe not, but I think you'd meet the
challenge.
 
>>> Fuck off & die, Overpeck.
>
>>Hmm.  I guess your objections to needless deaths don't extend
>>to men, huh?
>
>Perhaps Ms. Silverio wouldn't consider your death needless.

Good point.

>In any event, I find it incredibly amusing whenever you get on
>your high horse around here.  Apparently, the right to be angry
>or condescending is a right you reserve solely for yourself.

Oh yes, I'm the most antagonistic poster around here.  

> Heaven forfend a mere woman should criticize Mr. Bill.

Gee, Cathi, maybe I'm overreacting here, but "Fuck off & die" 
seems like a bit more than simple "criticism", don't you think?  

Bill