From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In defense of Peter against "Lady" Adrienne
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:01:10 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <1992Nov4.182400.14587@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:

>In <Bx5F0H.KCw.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
>   (Susan Garvin) writes: >
>In article <1992Nov2.194257.859@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
>   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
>In <Bx1wJv.MnH.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
>   (Susan Garvin) writes: >>>

>>>What's the point?  I thought Linda's original comment
>>>was inappropriate and inaccurate, as well.  No one has
>>>demonstrated my alleged "misogyny", yet the tiresome
>>>mischaracterizations continue, e.g. (paraphrasing)  
>>>"Have you ever used the word [yawn, silly, etc.] when 
>>>responding to a *male* poster, Overpeck?"  This is so
>>>much nonsense. 
>>
>>You are entitled to your opinion even though you do not
>>believe that others are entitled to theirs.  

>Please do not characterize my beliefs for me.  You mis-
>represent me.  And aside from that, I can see no other
>reason for including the above sentence in your response.

I'd love to see the day when Susan starts accurately representing
the beliefs of pro-lifers.

Keegan, if you are reading this (you seem to have been following Bill
rather closely, so if you don't get to see this, it's probably because
my netserver is misbehaving again), the foregoing is another example
of Susan gratuitously trying to piss a pro-lifer off.

>>>>The double standard to which I referred is your willingness
>>>>to criticize anyone who supports legal abortion while ignoring
>>>>the behavior of those who oppose it.  
>>
>>>I typically don't read the posts of other pro-lifers.  But 
>>>I've not been unwilling to criticize pro-lifers in the past, 
>>>including Suzanne, DJR, et al.  
>>
>>This makes me wonder why you chose to attack Keegan for his remarks
>>to Holtsinger - if you don't read the lying nonsense that Holtsinger
>>spews on a regular basis, it seems odd that you would leap to
>>his defense.  (Unless, of course, you just wanted an excuse to
>>flame Keegan.  

Here's another such exhibit.  I have noticed, BTW, that Doug is no
less pro-choice than Elizabeth Bartley, possibly more since Keegan has
not noticed him come out in favor of punishing women who get illegal
(post-myelination for Elizabeth, post-viability for Doug) abortions.

Of course, that makes them both "anti-choice" in Keegan's book, and
I wonder why Susan keeps calling Doug a pro-lifer, but not Elizabeth
(at least, I haven't seen her say anything negative about Elizabeth, which
by Susan's own bizarre standards means I get to say what I did before
the parentheses started, even if I had not added this parenthetical 
comment).

>As you imply, I was less interested in defending Doug than
>addressing Keegan's incessant, one-line, ad hominem attacks 
>on whoever happens to be convenient.  Unfortunately, his 
>spiteful behavior has escalated, if anything.  

And don't forget that Bill sees Keegan's attacks more partly because
so many are directed at him.


>Again, she jumped into this thread by commenting to Dean about 
>my alleged disrespect for women.  My remarks to Linda were a 
>reference to her "disrespect" comment to me.  If you'll reread 
>that sequence of exchanges, you will probably see that.  You 
>are mischaracterizing my comments.

I'd love to see the day when Susan starts characterizing the sayings
of pro-lifers correctly.

>>>>I never used to wonder why you didn't
>>>>respond to the outrageous and often disgusting lies and
>>>>flames from anti-abortion people such as Chaney and Holtsinger 

Chaney is anti-abortion; Doug is morally opposed, like Brian McBean,
but not legally opposed any more than RvW was.  [Brian on the other
hand is not legally opposed any more than Keegan; which is to say,
not at all.  Ditto Frank O'Dwyer, who seems to be also backpedaling
from his earlier moral opposition to one of "If it is morally wrong
to you, don't do it."]

>>I think that Jim is a reasonable man.  I think that comparing
>>him to Chaney shows just how twisted you have become regarding
>>him.  

Susan probably thinks she is not twisted about anything.  People 
who so regularly insult others are usually the last to discover flaws 
in themselves.

>Kevin's response to this accurately describe Jim's behavior.  
>As for me, I was simply playing the same game with Jim that 
>he plays with any number of people on a daily basis.  I don't
>think he liked it.  

>>I don't care if you argue with Keegan or not.  I don't
>>much care if you look like a hypocrite or not.  I will
>>feel free to express my opinions, though.

>And I do not particularly care that your defense of Keegan
>makes you look like the very thing you criticize me for.
>He maligns and ridicules indiscriminantly, and you label
>him "reasonable".  I do the same thing to him for a while, 
>and you question my credibility.  The only difference is
>that 1) he never stops, and 2) he is pro-choice. 

>>(Am I to believe that you find Holtsinger's repeated lies
>>and forgeries to be acceptable?)

>This is a wife beating question.  I have not actually seen
>Doug do this because I do not normally read his posts.  I
>read posts by pro-choicers as it is they that I wish to
>correspond with. 

Same here, so it took me a long-time to discover that Doug *is* 
pro-choice by the standards of the big outside world.

>>Whatever.  You're the one who has to live with yourself.

>If you're implying that I may some difficulty in that
>regard, you are sadly mistaken.  The character flaws
>that have been assigned to me of late only reinforce
>my observation that this forum is more about character
>assassination than anything else.

Alas, I tend to agree with Bill here.

Peter
Newsgroups: talk.abortion