From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:11:43 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

I'm trimming a lot out of this.  Everyone has seen it in it's entirity.

<1992Apr4.204545.15595@csusac.csus.edu> cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( ) said:
><1992Apr2.014941.7491@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>From: cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu - Dennis Hall. 
>>>Message-ID: <1992Mar30.225819.19499@csusac.csus.edu>

Some quotes are from Suzanne's mailing.

...

>>It's her choice to honor the human life growing in her own body.  That's
>>what choice is all about.
>
>Yes, it is her choice. But now, she wants all the other women in the
>world to respect sanctity of life and produce it with their bodies
>whether they want to carry it to term or not. 

I know she feels that way, but that's not what she was saying in her mail
to you.  Usually it's enough to remind these people that it is only their
opinion.

>                                              That's why, as I said,
>Suzanne Forgach is probably the only woman who thinks that way, on this
>net. I *still* don't see any other women agreeing with her. 

I don't recall them all, but there have been a few in the past.  She is
the most visible though.  Given the treatment pro-lifers get in this group
I can understand anyone not wanting to post here. (Hey, I'm not saying
that they don't sometimes deserve it.)

>>A medical doctor has stated on this baord that NFP *can't* be used by
>>every woman everywhere like Suzanne is so rabid in declaring.  I only hope
>>her attention to medical opinion is a little stronger where it concerns
>>her children.
>
> I know that. You know that. But she and her priest don't know that. 

She knows it, she just refuses to acknowledge it.  Stick around and you'll
see how often we remind her of this.  I've been here well over a year now
and it comes up every 6 weeks or so.

>>[regarding pro-choice people]
...
>>Well, Suzanne only sees what she wants to see.  We all know that about her.
>>I've had email conversations with Suzanne before.  They were entertaining
>>to say the least.  But I saw no reason to post them.
>
> I meant to show that if I was wrong about there being no anti-abortion
>women on this net, 

Simply stating so, and pointing out that Suzanne had responded to you,
would have been enough.  If Suzanne publically denied it then you could
have posted the mail to prove your point.  As it is, her mail to you
didn't state anything privately that she is unwilling to admit publically.
While that means it didn't do her any damage, it wasn't necessary to prove
your point.

>                   it's because those that show up, are most likely
>Christian-influenced. Suzanne proved that beyond a reasonable doubt. And
>also, she's a homophobe, anti-semite, and so on. 

We all know that already.

>                                                 I dunno if all the
>other anti-abortion women she claims to exist in the professional world
>(which I have used UNIX to represent as an example), see things that
>way, but I'd bet that the majority of them do. 

Perhaps they do, but I wouldn't attempt to extract too much from a single
poll on UNIX.  It is hardly indicative of all professional women.

>                                               Cure them of that and you
>get a high number who realize the value of *choice.*  

Please realize that, while I would prefer that more people stopped letting
old celibate men in dresses do their thinking for them, I do not want 
to "cure" people of their opinions.  I would like to change their minds 
with reasoned logic, but "cure" sounds dangerously close to what the radical
right wants to do to all us heathens, like we're "sick" or something for
holding differing opinions.

...

>>Blech!  I'm afraid you haven't been here very long else you would be
>>familiar with Suzanne's bizarre religious experiences and beliefs.  She's
>>sort of our token 'Witch Burner'.
>
> I think I may have skipped it when I was reading this with my friends.
>Now that I have my own account, I'll need what I understand is a
>KILLfile, but I still want some of Suzanne's more hilarious stuff, to
>keep as a joke. 

The only person I ever had in my killfile was dreuix for a short while
(sorry dreuix but your alternating uppercase-lowercase style gives me a
headache, and I have to admit your "humor" leaves me less than entertained
- nothing personal though ;-) ).  I generally don't like killfiling people
with opposing opinions because you never learn anything when you do that.  
You also lose valuable opportunities to educate those lurkers on the net who
might actually believe some of the tripe posted here.

...

> Unlike Dan King's idea that I am someone else in disguise, I'm trying
>to get us back on track here as to informing the public of what we're
>dealing with: mostly male, and if not, highly Christian dominated. Force
>them outside of that, and they have a lot less leg to stand on. Just
>consider: is it their side or ours that keeps coming up with the Bible
>discussion?  

Definately the majority of bible-thumpers here are overwhelmingly
pro-life.  But they always give themselves enough rope to hang themselves
(with enough left over to reach from here to the Vatican).

>>Uh, silence in this case, does not mean support for your theory.  Some
>>women may have just not bothered with your posting.  I know I never saw
>>it.
>
> I know that. I also know that if they come out, there are other traps
>for them to fall into, that I've set. I was hoping for you guys to
>capitalize on it... 

You apparently didn't know that we've set and sprung ever trap there is to
set and spring.  If you've got a new one let us know. :-)

>>Post a GIF file for us.
>
>What and break the net? 

I'd still like to see a GIF of Chaney.  After dinner, of course.

...

> But, okay, I'm sorry, Suzanne. I apologize publicly for posting your
>private e-mail. I'll be a big boy and own up. 

I know you will get several mailings and see other postings before
everyone sees your apology.  I'm willing to let it go at this, everyone
makes mistakes and you haven't been here long enough for it to be a trend.
Suzanne is the one who really counts here though.  You *might* want to put
the apology in a shorter article.  A lot of people don't read long posts
and she might miss it.

I respect your ability to own up and publically apologize *directly*.  A
lot of people kinda-sorta-apologize in a back-hand way that really nevers
admits that they made a mistake.  I don't respect that.

BTW, I have publically apologized to Suzanne before, but she never
believed me to be sincere.  I don't expect you'll get any better treatment
so just chalk it up to sticking to your own morals.

>>Gordon
>>Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
>
>- Pro-abortion? Uh, that should be pro-choice.. Did I miss something here?

Nope - I'm pro-abortion.  You have missed something.  If you like I can
explain it to you.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

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