From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Item for Chaney's study of abortion-adult/child sex link.
Summary: From "clueless" to "buffoon", all in one article!
Organization: Just Patrick, as usual.  What more could you want?
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 10:33:03 GMT

In article <nyikos.715042405@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <Btn50M.19M@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>
>>In article <nyikos.714858926@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>In <BtJxEw.D6z@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jamcdani@zia.ucs.indiana.edu writes:
>
>>>>Here's my proposed response to the statutory rape problem. You can't
>>>>have an abortion until you can get pregnant (duh!),
>>>
>>>Alas, this is incorrect.  I can give you the name of at least one
>>>woman who "had an abortion" when not pregnant, and reports of lots more.
>
>>Now I *have* seen everything.  You can give us the name of a woman who "had
>>an abortion" -- and you put that phrase in quotes to indicate that it wasn't
>>actually an abortion she had -- but then you can seriously argue she *had*
>>an abortion even though she wasn't pregnant? 
>
>Her name is Nita Whitten, and she is a former worker at the Fairmount
>Center abortion clinic in Dallas, Texas.  You can read about her on 
>the post, " `Abortion' on a non-pregnant woman."  I'll post it as soon
>as I can after getting through the stack of messages I'm going through.

Well, I saw it -- and the nicest thing I can say is, I'm not impressed.  
Any article which is put out by an organization with such an obvious agenda
-- and with a sales pitch leading it off, to boot -- is going to be regarded
with more than a little suspicion by most literate folks.

>And I hereby put you on notice not to follow up to any more of my posts
>until you either apologize to Chaney for your (possibly virulently)

"(possibly virulently)"?!?!?!?  Son, "virulent" happens to be YOUR opinion
in this instance -- are you saying you don't know your own opinion?  That'll
at least get you a point for honesty.

>racist remark, or at least explain to him that you did not mean for
>your open-ended threat to be taken as predicting any assault, much less
>battery.

Or else what?  You'll stamp your little foot and hold your breath until you
turn blue?  Go for it!  You and Steve are the only two who bothered to take
it that way -- especially since I gave a pretty clear indication of what
*I'd* do about two weeks ago in another article...and only those who were
determined to cause trouble would take said indication as a threat.
(In any case, your ravings about it are completely irrelevant to me, because
it's none of your damned business in the first place.  It's Chaney's
responsibility to deal with -- not yours.)

>Of course I can't prevent you from following up to any of my posts, 
>but don't be surprised if I send you another "r" message in retaliation,
>a lot less diplomatic than the one I sent you earlier and for which you
>put me on notice not to "r" you again.

Keep in mind that you just said that in a public post -- and by your own
admission you acknowledge that I specifically told you to stay out of my
mailbox.  If you're dumb enough to disregard that, then you *will* be aware
that any mail I get from you will be mine to do with as I please -- and that
means, among other things, posting it, if I think it's warranted.  
(Even Chaney can manage to do *that* much right -- but if you want to play
net.cop, you'd best be advised to *think* before you do anything.  You will
definitely not win any converts if you go ahead with what you're
threatening.)

Have fun.  (and remember, I'm saving all this...)

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

                  All wiyht, rho sritched mg keg tops awound?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.rape