From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: The Continuing Story of DearOldDoug's Lies
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:39:14 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>>> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>>> [.. out of context quote deleted ..]

>>>> How does it feel being the target of your own tactics?

>>> I've never quoted you or anyone else out of context.

>> What about Bill Clinton?

> "Take responsibility for your children, or we will force you to do it."
>  -- Bill Clinton, speaking at the Democratic National Convention

The complete quote is "Fathers, take responsibility for your children, or
we will force you to do it."  You did it again, liar.

> Bill Clinton obviously supports laws which would force parents
> to take responsibility for their children.  Every rational person
> knows what he means by the word ``children''.  Obviously, you
> don't.

Sure, liar.  Havin a son and a daughter of my own disqualifies me from
that sort of arcane knowledge.  Dazzle me more with your cluelessness.

>> Adrienne Regard?

>  "For some of us, abortion on demand *is* no more serious than demanding
>   a hamburger." -- Adrienne Regard

> Adrienne Regard hasn't even complained about my quote.  Complain to
> her if you don't like that quote.

Not having seen the context in which her statement appeared, I'll pass.
I suspect that if the shoe was on the other foot, you would have edited
this part out, liar.

>> The Supreme Court?

> Please demonstrate that I've quoted any Supreme Court decision
> out of context.  If you can't, then I'm going to ask for an apology.

I thought you'd never ask.  In article <1992Aug15.172538.5884@ncsu.edu>,
you cited:

DOD>  "The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant
DOD>   woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent.  Specific
DOD>   and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy
DOD>   may be involved.  Maternity, or additional offspring, may
DOD>   force upon the woman a distressful life and future. 
DOD>   Psychological harm may be imminent.  Mental and physical
DOD>   health may be taxed by child care.   There is also the 
DOD>   distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted
DOD>   child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into
DOD>   a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise,
DOD>   to care for it.  In other cases, as in this one, the
DOD>   additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed
DOD>   motherhood may be involved.  All these are factors the 
DOD>   woman and her responsible physician necessarily will
DOD>   consider in consultation."
DOD>
DOD>   Roe v. Wade, 35 L Ed 2d at 177 (1973)

and J.C. Greenfield replied in article
<1992Aug17.131337.3354@newstand.syr.edu>:

JCG> Did you really believe that this pathetic lie would pass unscathed?
JCG> 
JCG> Why didn't you also cite the paragraph that *immediately* follows in 
JCG> the Roe opinion?
JCG> 
JCG> "On the basis of elements such as these, appellants and some *amici* 
JCG> argue that a woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to 
JCG> terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for 
JCG> whatever reasons she alone chooses.  With this we do not agree."

There were at least three recursions of that episode, based on different
fragments of RvW you cited.  Susan Garvin has also caught you doing this,
more times than I can remember.

>> Chris Lyman - email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov - #include <std.disclaimers.h>
>> "... all women think alike on the issue of abortion ..." -- Doug Holtsinger

> I've quoted entire sentences, you haven't.  Now who's being intentionally
> malicious?  You are.

Did I call you malicious?  And how come you give no warning when _you_
delete text?

Your Clinton quote is not an entire sentence, liar.  If I choose to deal
with you using your own tactics, and you call me malicious, what does
that make you?

> And Chris Lyman is a sexist for believing that all women think alike 
> on the issue of abortion.

How do we get from "all women deserve" to "all women want" to "all women
think alike?"  Explain that, fool.  Entertain us.

[from the header]
> Followup-To: talk.abortion,misc.test

Nice follow-up line.  No malicious intent there, right Dougie?  Your
projection of your own motivations to others is as transparent as spring
water, but your thinking is as polluted as the Chicago River.

-- 
Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"... all women think alike on the issue of abortion ..." -- Doug Holtsinger