From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Trumped-up charges against Suzanne. Demurrer #1.
Summary: Peter Mason better file for appeal.
Keywords: kill, murder, translation, homicide
Date: 7 Oct 92 03:18:51 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

Since Peter objects to my editing of his posts I'll try to leave as much
in as I can.  But I warn you: It makes for a long post.

<nyikos.718380256@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
><1992Oct1.064201.767@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>
>><nyikos.717631317@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>...
>>>Recently, 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.
>>>
>>>A few days ago he produced a long string of excerpts from past posts
>>>of Suzanne.  Now that the rumor that she wishes to establish a theocracy
>>>in America has been scotched by Kevin Darcy and Suzanne herself on the
>
>>It has?  Where?  Oh, I've seen Suzanne try to laugh it off, but I haven't
>>seen her actually deny it.  I've seen Darcy *try* to come to her rescue
>>(*why* I don't know), but I haven't really seen anyone deny she said it.
>
>How exactly DO you interpret her "Yup, it sure does" below?
>
>:>>=<1991Jul10.234449.29514@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) 
>:>>=<writes:
>:>>=>From article by emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh):
>:>>=>>
>:>>=>> How long will it be before America becomes a
>:>>=>> theocracy?
>:>>=>
>:>>=>Heh heh heh.  As long as it takes.
>:>>----------------------------------------------------
>:> 
>:> This is supposedly the infamous quote where Suzanne endorses theocracy? 
>:>It's 
>:> pretty lame, Gordon. I mean, "as long as it takes" could just as easily mean 
>:> "never" as "tomorrow", couldn't it?
>
>:Yup, it sure does.  And I had a good laugh writing it, as I made obvious.

I take it as another example of Suzanne trying to backpedal her way out of
something she said.  She's done it before:  she called women who have sex
out of wedlock "less than prostitutes because prostitutes at least get
paid" - then, after trying unsuccessfully to defend herself from the many
people who called her on this, tried to act like she was just kidding.
Recently she denied ever saying that she said gay men hate women, she
tried to back-pedal out of it until people posted her own words which make
her a liar. She's been strangely quiet since then.

Ask her why water evaporates.

>Laughing it off?  If her Heh heh heh laughs anything off, it is the
>serious tone in which Eric Marsh asked the question.  And knowing 
>Storga's propensity for ripping things out of context, I wonder
>just what preceded Eric's question.

Could you please justify your accusation of my "propensity" for ripping
things out of context.  Some examples, please. As far as I'm aware this
"Suzanne" thread is the first major discussion you and I have shared.
Hardly enough of a sample to draw the conclusion of "propensity", wouldn't
you say, oh alleged math *professor*.

>>>THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS thread, what remains is 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."  
>
>>Suzanne would certainly like to see a Catholic theocracy established.
>
>Totally unsubstantiated.  For this reason, I have deleted the rest of
>Storga's paragraph as irrelevant.

I see.  This goes into the archives as well.  The next time you bitch
about someone gutting one of *your* posts because they felt it was
"irrelevent" I'll try to remind you of your double-standards.

As for "totally unsubstantiated"... I think it's pretty assinine for
someone who *claims* to be a math professor to ignore evidence presented
to him.  You might make the argument that my evidence is not compelling,
but to claim I haven't substantiated my claims *totally* is absurd.

>>...
>>>Some of the passages 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.
>
>>In other words, you can't refute one of them.
>
>You are a jerk, Storga.  I indulge in a little legal terminology, 
>and you immediately jump to this silly conclusion.  

Tut, tut.  Matthew 5:22. Take two rosaries and call me in the morning.

>BTW do you know what "Trumped-up charges" means?

Yes.  Are you accusing me of making up the posts altogether?

>>  BTW, how much is Suzanne
>>paying you to be her defense lawyer?
>
>Nothing.  She even e-mailed me saying she appreciates my concern, but
>I don't really need to defend her.  But you see, Storga, you said you
>are expecting an apology from me, so now you've made me go through
>this series of posts, don't you see?

But Peter, this was your original posting (part of it):
X>People keep telling me of all kinds of horrible things Suzanne has
X>posted in the past.  I haven't seen any that would even remotely
X>justify the above statements, and I am calling your bluff: if you have
X>any evidence Suzanne said these things, please produce them.

You asked for evidence that Suzanne said these things - "ANY EVIDENCE"
[emphasis mine].  I provided evidence.  You owe me an apology.

>>  I notice she hasn't posted one word
>>in her defense,
>
>"Yup" seems to qualify.

Well, heck.  If it works for her then - Yup.  See, now you have to believe
me too.

>>>Today I begin with a charge that is best handled by demurrer.  It is the
>>>charge of not being *au fait* with the latest biblical translations.
>
>>Latest?  The OT was written in Hebrew and has been translated pretty much
>>the exact same way for many many years.
>
>Are you really this dense, Storga, or do you really think Suzanne
>can read Hebrew, or keep up with the latest translations?

It was explained to her several times here on the net what the literal
transaltion is.  How could you possibly think the commandment read "Kill"
when right after this god commands thousands to be killed for the "crime"
of belonging to the wrong tribe?

>From the 1966 Jerusalem Bible:  {What does "many many years" mean?}
>
>"You shall not kill." [Exodus 20:13]
>
>The Jerusalem Bible makes a real effort to cling to the Hebrew original,
>rendering the Tetragammaton consistently as "Yahweh" throughout and 
>using other names of God without translation, like the archaism
>"Shaddai" in the book of Job.

I construe it to be an error.

>>>True the charge may be, but hardly something on which to hang a serious
>>>accusation of hypocrisy, or whatever, on Suzanne.

So you admit that I've given "ANY EVIDENCE".

[much deleted - this is about the "kill"/"murder" theme]
>>>1. For centuries, English translations of the bible (almost?) invariably
>>>had "Thou shalt not kill."  It is only in the last decade or two that
>>>translations have appeared putting "commit murder" in place of "kill."
>
>>Strange how I found out the actual translation 20 years ago when engaged
>>in bible study for a few years, yet Suzanne (who has based her entire life
>>and the lives of her children on the teachings of the bible) hasn't
>>learned the proper translation and commandments.
>
>Okay, I guess I am showing my age when I said "decade or two".  Which
>translation did you discover this in?  

It came up during bible study.  I don't recall the exact translation but
it was one of the Jehovah Witness bibles.

>                                       And who gave you the authority
>to say that it is the "actual translation"?

You first.  Who gave you the authority to say it isn't?  Do I really need
authority to repeat what was learned in a classroom?  Do you sign a
release for each student that you supposedly teach so that they may
regurgitate what *you* teach them?

...
>[Repetitious comment by Storga deleted.]

Second time you've deleted my text - remember this next time you whine.
I'll put back my statement since I state that it was the *POINT* I was
trying to make.

X>Obfuscation.  The point is, Suzanne is not familiar with the book she
X>supposedly basis her life upon.  But she quotes it, incorrectly, to people
X>here on the net to support her arguments.

>>>	Therefore, Suzanne may be excused for not wishing to keep
>>>up with the latest fad in translations.
>
>>She can be excused by you.  Not by me and others here.
>
>This from a confessed atheist.  I'm amazed how bullheaded he is in
>sticking to his original accusation.  And I thought I was being
>needlessly detailed when I posted this demurrer.

No, you're just being a needless asshole.

>I'll tackle the remainder of Storga's follow-up in the next follow-up.

Gosh Peter, I can hadly wait.  I haven't had this much fun turning someone
inside out since the last time POC tried to "debate" me.


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.
-- 
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.