From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:29:39 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento


Look, folks! Ronald Bense cools down his full-scale attack, here, and
steers things towards a more calm situation. 

So I'll oblige. 

[Paste flames here. Worry not; I'll respond.] 

In article <23554@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>In article <Bsuyt7.B9M@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (You know who) writes:
>
>[much drivel deleted...]
>
>>Besides, aside from Jay Stein (possibly), I didn't jump on anyone
>>without provocation. Ever. I didn't get all that nagging e-mail from
>>Ronald Bense, and a half dozen others, without provocation: I was
>
>Nagging e-mail? I do believe you sent me e-mail first, at least e-mail

I don't think so. It's not my practice to e-mail pro-choicers. The
rule of non-communication with a hostile enemy, especially over
e-mail, dominates my conduct, be that rule right or wrong.  

>that said something, and wasn't a repeat of a post. The only *nagging*
>e-mail I can think of that I sent was a single copy of "Dodge This..."
>every time you posted it to display my displeasure at your posting tactics,
>and waste of bandwidth. You basically said that you would quit posting
>that fdrivel if someone posted a reply to it and didn't dodge it. I
>guess now that I should have saved my reply to your 3rd or 4th posting
>of this trash. At least you have the honesty to admit that you provoked
>this *nagging* e-mail. 

Actually, I'm not reprinting, it because there have been challenges 
at last and I am, as you can read all around, meeting those challenges
head-on. 

And while you were e-mailing it to me, you never did challenge it. You
just e-mailed it to me, which looked suspiciously like you weren't
_able_ to address the content of the article. 

But now, I have two other articles, one to Mark Kaufman and one regarding
pro-lifers & single mothers, that are being dodged, however. At least,
while these articles generate a 30 minute response time, those other
two articles have not been responded to in 2 days. I've reprinted one
and will reprint the next one, so if anyone did a "mark whole
newsgroup as read" (as I do at times) to get un-cluttered, they'll see
it again.  

Of course, that's assuming I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt 
that they accidentally missed both articles. Which is quite easy to do. 

>Now all you have to do is explain what you mean by nagging, as all I 
>did was raise some points and express my views about what you said tied 
>into the way you respond on the net. There were no flames in this, just
>observations.

Agreed. Mailing me an article and then a letter saying "You're stupid,
blah blah blah" in 2 lines or less, is what I consider nagging. Your
views? I didn't get anything besides, "You're senseless, you're
stupid, you're this and that." Oh, and one faint challenge concerning
"You're senseless" following 20 lines of "Ha-haaaaah!" to which I
responded in like fashion, suffixed by a "don't e-mail me with this
crap anymore."  

How's your response to the single mother article? The one that says
"pro-lifers can't stand single mothers" or at least insinuated it. 
It's all a part of the Bad Chaney propaganda. You can tell, RE: the single 
mother post I wrote, that this is true, because that article absolutely 
had no way of being turned into some Whacko Steve Hall Dennis Chaney
Propeller Headed Raving Lunatic propaganda. So they didn't respond to
it.  

My responses on this net, when they get nasty, are because we have a
few bloodthirsty folks - I call them the Pat Ira Roby Gang, that
includes Regard, Garvin, Novak, Kaufman, Humphrey, and a bunch of
others, who have hit the pro-lifers with a combo of pranks, posting of
private e-mail, rabid insults, threats, more rabid insults, and more
abuse per Kilobyte than a hate speech from the KKK. 
You can't possibly blame me for not letting up on these people. 

And with the Pat Ira Roby Gang going after you with their brand of
cutthroat intensity, you don't _EVER_ let up. This is the same group,
along with Dan King, Leo Mauler (of times past), Susan Garvin,
Adrienne Regard, and heaven knows who else, that has caused many a
pro-lifer to get sick and leave the newsgroup. 
But that's not all. You would be greatly inclined, if you saw my
credibility through the eyes of Humphrey (whose credibility is nil as
it is), not to believe me until this point... BUT, there was the plea
by Siren, for peace. Siren, in case you missed them (there were
three users under that name, posting as one, I believe), or her, as
I'll refer to boyiny@mit.edu, she, probably because I was highlighting
Kaufman like crazy, asked Kaufman to cut down on the bile he spews
onto this net, and advised me to do the same. She also asked people in
general, to be more courteous. 
But what Siren didn't learn in her stay here, was that few others want
to abandon the flame war for some calm, logical discussion. She didn't
go the way the Pat Ira Roby Gang wanted to go, so they treated her
like she was their enemy. Her last article said something to the order
of, "And you won't have me to pick on anymore," which she was aiming
not at pro-lifers, but her own pro-choice comrades. 

You see, I and the other pro-lifers treated her and other logical
people (of which there are few, but you're clearly invited to be
counted as one), with respect. Siren got more respect from the
pro-life side than her own side, in the end.  

>>involved in a flame war, and people began going after me.
>
>Um, going after you? How about refuting what was seen as moronic dribbling?

I spend more words per K refuting allegations against me than anyone
on this newsgroup, even Kevin Darcy. Yup, believe it, even Kevin
Darcy.

If I was allowed to spend half that much bandwidth on logical
discussion, which will not happen as long as we have the Pat Ira Roby
Gang, you wouldn't be writing that.  

>>But in your language, it's called "dysfunctional." The rest of America
>>knows it as normal. Y'know, 50 million French can't be wrong and you
>>be right. Or, in this case, 250 million Americans.
>
>Maybe you should be more careful in how you describe things and not
>do so in the confrontational tone you generally fall into. The way it
>was stated, with the words used, indicate to a majority of those reading
>that this was a seriously dysfunctional family. I also noted that you
>never refuted any of the things I said about the habits of your family,
>which tend to indicate that 1) they are true, 2) you don't consider
>them important enough to refute. 2) might almost be more disturbing
>than 1), because if 2) is true, then it is very likely (although this
>can be deduced from your posts) that you will turn out to have the same
>type family that your parents had. And the cycle continues.....

Well, I wouldn't be so confrontational and nasty to folks if they
weren't being that way in the first place. Like I said, all attempts
made by myself and even Siren, to make peace here (and there were
others, too!), have been fiercely cut off by the Pat Ira Roby Gang.
Don't worry, after a while, you'll learn really fast that the ultimatum
is, either we have Patrick Humphrey and his net.friends, or we have
peaceful dialogue between sides, but we cannot have both.  
 
BTW, I have refuted those things you said about my family. If you
didn't see it, I'll say it again: 

1) My parents are not dictators. Their opinion is not God in the
   house.
2) My parents do not tolerate constant bad-lipping and whining and
   complaining about simple house work and being with the family.
   My brother did that all the time. (Heck, so do I, but not as
   badly.) They would never let Bart Simpson live here. That's a
   figure of speech, Pat Roby/Humphrey; don't take it as "We think 
   Bart Simpson is for real," or some other prank you like to
   pull. 
3) My folks are fairly nice folks, with far less of the temper that
   Humphrey, much less Kaufman, display. Yet they would wear my ass
   out raw if they knew I supported President Bush, or that I still
   check out some Rush Limbaugh stuff on the radio.
4) They are firm believers that no African American person (of which
   we are 5 persons - 2 parents, now another aunt who's moved in, and
   a grandmother - and me) on Earth, can be Republican and have their
   head firmly screwed on enough to eat at the Chaney household. 
   (I believe they may have found the elusive 11th Commandment and
   are just hiding it from the world, the way they hold to this
   particular belief.) So, to keep from getting in more trouble than
   it could ever be worth, I make sure I receive Democratic ballot
   books during the primaries.
5) No one in our family, save my brother, is a failure. I'm further in
   my education than he is, and he's years older than me. 

Now, where can you read 'dysfunctional'? Ours seems like a pretty
normal family. If not the Cosby's or the Daddy Knows Best family that
TV portrayed in the past, we're a lot better off than the majority,
not that I'm satisfied with the situations of the majority. (No, Pat
Roby/Humphrey, don't start in on this, either - I didn't say the
majority ought to stay where they are. I hope for something way
opposite that, but too bad for your agenda, my hopes don't include 
Planned Parenthood's survival.)  


===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion