From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 03:58:15 GMT

<nyikos.722021566@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
><1992Nov10.062205.11523@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>I see Peter got his system working again.  Coincidently, I'm sure, my
>>responses to his last flood of posts has probably expired.  If you wish to
>>me to repost them just let me know.
>
>Thanks.  I saved your reply to "Trumped-up....4, 5, and 6" but your reply
>to Case #3 expired before I could get to it.  Other posts we can deal with
>as time permits, but I would appreciate a re-posting of your reply in re
>Case #3.

Reposted specially for you.  I left the header info in this repost to show
you when I responded.  You can delete it for brevity in your response.


From gordons Mon Oct 26 23:10:57 PST 1992
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Trumped-up charges against Suzanne: Case #3
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Keywords: adoption, scam

Peter continues to use the terms "Mendacity" to refer to me and my posts,
and "demurer" to refer to his "refutations" or lack thereof.

<nyikos.719522367@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>A while back, I challenged Gordon Storga to produce evidence of 
>Suzanne Forgach's "hatefulness" and other unappealing personal 
>characteristics and behavior with which she has been charged 
>repeatedly on talk.abortion.

Not quite,  you said:
"People keep telling me of all kinds of horrible things Suzanne has
 posted in the past.  I haven't seen any that would even remotely
 justify the above statements, and I am calling your bluff: if you have
 any evidence Suzanne said these things, please produce them."
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You specifically asked for "any evidence" that Suzanne said or inferred
the posted statements.  I supplied several of her posts which supported my
statements.  The very fact that you use the term "demurer" means that you
accept them as valid evidence.  Therefore, under the conditions of your
wimp challenge, you owe me an apology.  You called my bluff, but I was
holding a Royal Flush.

>Last month, he produced a long string of excerpts from past posts
>of Suzanne.  By far the most damaging charge was that she wishes to 
>establish a theocracy in America.  This ugly charge was, IMO, taken
>care of by Kevin Darcy and Suzanne herself on the
>THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS thread, and what remained was a motley crew of 
>passages which certainly do not support charges of "hypocrisy", "lying,"
>and asserting that "those people who don't live a certain [religious]
>"quality" of life will be *rightfully* killed."  

And that statement by me was logically deduced by understanding the
history of the actions taken by theocratic governments, and Suzanne's own
posted opinions of people with clashing lifestyles.  Specifically, we
have historical evidence of Catholic theocratic treatment of its subjects
"for their own good".

>Some of the charges are best handled by demurrer, others by pleading
>not guilty, and still others by frank admission of present or past
>[in one case, as far back as the eighth grade] shortcomings.
>After all, who among us is perfect?

Certianly not you.  You asked for "any evidence" that she said those
things.  You now say you handle the posted statements by demurer.
"Demurer" means that you accept the truth of her posts.  I have
therefore fulfilled the challenge.  Care to own up like a big boy?

>I have been handling a second charge, the charge that she is not 
>familiar with the most up-to-date Biblical translations, in Demurrer #1
>in this series.  As the word "demurrer" implies, the main thrust of my
>defense here was to minimize the seriousness of the charge rather than
>call its correctness into question.

Very good.  Now, please apologize for "calling my bluff" and implying that
I could not back up my statements with evidence that Suzanne said these
things.

>Today I handle a charge which appears to have been improperly stated.

Talk to Suzanne then.

>The charge literally seems to read, "begging for unwanted children," which 
>appears to be best handled by demurrer: What exactly is wrong with 
>begging for unwanted children? It seems like quite a laudable thing to do.

Nothing, you idiot.  The "charge" was hypocrisy and posturing:  "Oh please,
please, send me *ALL* the unwanted unloved children so I can give them
love and care!!! <Information given about gang member's children that need
help>  "What?  You bigot you!  Referring to those poor children as gang
members, well I never... <ramble> <ramble> <walks off in a huff apparently
neglecting to ask for an address or supply any method by which she could
acquire any of these needy children."  I'm sure <wink><wink> she just
forgot <wink><wink>.

>I will now reproduce the relevant part of Gordon's post, asking the
>reader to help me decide what the proper wording should be, and then
>give my own idea as to what it should be.

Why the revisionism?  What's the purpose?  Her *own words* are here for
all to read: She begged for unwanted, unloved children.  She got a
response that would put her in touch with needy children.  She ignored the
children and attacked the person for bigotry.  In a later post, which I
didn't originally repost I personally asked her to set aside her
differences with Purdon and respond for the children's sake.  I got no
response either public or private from her.

>>** wrt begging for unwanted children:
>>><1991Jan9.205231.10000@noao.edu> (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>><1991Jan8.214829.10977@athena.mit.edu>, (James R. Purdon III):
>>>>> <1991Jan8.175625.1579@noao.edu> (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>>>>Please do!  Send them all to me!!   I will love them like you are
>>>>>> obviously incapable of!
>
>>>>> Please send me your address and I will forward it to a social worker who
>>>>> works with gang members in Roxbury and Jamacia Plains.  She will be more
>>>>> than happy, I'm sure, to send a few your way.  
>
>>>>Now this is a prime example of anti-child, elitist bigotry.  You are 
>>>>assuming that just because a child is an orphan, he/she will necessarily
>>>>grow up to be an undesirable, tough, knife toting, tattooed, bad
>>>>attitude, gang member.
>>>>You're the one with the attitude problem, Purdon.
>
>>**Do you see anywhere that she says "give me the social workers address"?
>
>There are a couple of ways the charge could be rephrased in the light
>of Gordon's final line, but the one that seems closest to the original
>charge appears to be: "Failing to fall for a bait-and-switch scam."
>
>Knowing Gordon's propensity for selective deletions (Note that we have
>no idea what "them all" refers to in Suzanne's first line, nor even whom 
>she is talking to) I would guess that the original context was more closely
>related to abortion than the teen-age toughs Gordon would have Suzanne 
>adopt.  I would guess that "them all" are either babies not yet born, and 
>Suzanne is anticipating their births, and thinks they are in danger of
>being aborted; or else babies recently born.

Nope, wrongo.  The conversation was about *children*.  Neither born nor
"unborn" were specified.  Your attempt at defending Suzanne is pitiful.
You have *nothing* to base your speculations on, I have her own words to
base my statements on.

>At least, this seems to be Suzanne's understanding of the situation, and I
>suppose I could contact Suzanne to verify this, but it should really be
>incumbent upon Gordon to provide the background since it is he that is
>pressing the charges, and it is up to him to provide evidence that 
>this was NOT the context.

Nope.  I provided evidence which supports my position.  If you don't have
evidence to the contrary that's your problem.  Since you delight in using
legal jargon to describe the debating forum:  Would you expect a
prosecuting attorney to do research for the defending attorney?

>Gordon should also let us know, if possible, whom it is that Suzanne is
>talking to.  If it is this same JRP III character, and I am correct in
>what I am guessing two paragraphs before this one, then the proper charge
>really is "Failing to fall for a bait-and-switch scam," and the proper
>way to handle it is by demurrer.

Since you were not present for *any* of the discussion what evidence do
you provide that would lead anyone to believe this was a "bait-and-switch
scam"?  Why do you believe it is?  Actually, I do not remember the person
to whom she originally responded.  I believe it was one of the women on
the net though.  Perhaps Adrienne or Susan, but I'm not sure.

my original response to Suzanne *********************************************
Subject: Re: Legal issues of banning abortion
Status: R
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Summary: 
Expires: 
<1991Jan9.205231.10000@noao.edu>
Reply-To: gordons@dbase.UUCP (Gordon Storga)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: na
Organization: Ashton-Tate
Keywords: 

In <1991Jan9.205231.10000@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
writes:
>From <1991Jan8.214829.10977@athena.mit.edu>, by purdon@athena.mit.edu
(James R. Purdon III):
>> In <1991Jan8.175625.1579@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
writes:
>>>Please do!  Send them all to me!!   I will love them like you are
obviously
>>>incapable of!

>> Please send me your address and I will forward it to a social worker
who
>> works with gang members in Roxbury and Jamacia Plains.  She will be
more
>> than happy, I'm sure, to send a few your way.  

>Now this is a prime example of anti-child, elitist bigotry.  You are
assuming
>that just because a child is an orphan, he/she will necessarily grow up
to be
>an undesirable, tough, knife toting, tattooed, bad attitude, gang member.

You're dodging the responsibility you wanted in your statement.  You said
you wanted them all (children), and to send them to you.  James just asked
for your address to pass onto a social worker who works in an environment
that you should be glad to get children out of.  Instead of focusing on
the "gift/reward" of children that James offered you, you instead chose to
ignore those children by accusing James of bigotry.

>You're the one with the attitude problem, Purdon.

Look in the mirror.  Let's say that a fellow pro-lifer offered you the
same chance with the same children in Roxbury.  Would you still accuse
_them_ of ANTI-CHILD BIGOTRY?  Pretend it was a fellow pro-lifer, for the
children's sake.


Gordon
end repost *********************************************

Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.

#########  END MAJOR REPOST FOR PETER #######
-- 
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,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality