From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos (was:THE SUFFERIN
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:55:16 GMT

In <Bw1poH.BC3.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
   (Susan Garvin) writes: >
In article <1992Oct12.215240.3561@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <Bvpr2K.M4I.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
   (Susan Garvin) writes: >>>
In article <1992Oct5.190140.19923@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>>>
In <6693@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu 
   (Susan Garvin) writes: >>>>>

>>>>> What purpose is served by repeating vile, unsubstantiated rumor 
>>>>> about a dead young woman?  
>
>>>>Perhaps it has something to do with her parents malicious anti-RTL 
>>>>crusade.  
>
>>> I'm somehow not surprised to see that Overpeck subscribes
>>> to Chaney/Hall's "two wrongs make a right" tenet.  
>
>>Not hardly.  When one is attacked, one often pays attention.
>>One might even be inclined to examine the reasons for that
>>attack.
>
>Your words here are at odds with your words quoted above.
>Feel free to try to rationalize the two very different comments.

I see no inconsistency.  Perhaps you should point it out.  Or,
you could simply call me a name.

>>> sure that Overpeck can now prove that the Bell's are involved
>>> in a "malicious anti-RTL crusade."
>
>>Their personal demonstration was quite adequate.
>
>You have an odd definition of "crusade."  

Would you prefer "tour"?

>>>>> I suspect it's just more of your misogyny-on-parade.  
>
>>>>I wonder why you tend to see misogyny around every corner...
>
>>> See Dean's reply.
>
>>> (Referring to public figures by their first names if they're
>>> female and their last names if they're male is revealing, 
>>> Overpeck.)
>
>>Is it?  What does it reveal, Susan?  Are you a psychology major?
>
>Are you a psychology major, Overpeck?  
>
>Unlike some pro-forcers, I don't see a need to discuss my profession
>on the net.  

Are you ashamed of your profession?

>Your misogyny is obvious.  I guess it's to your credit that you
>recognize misogyny is not a desirable trait.  It would be more
>to your credit if you ceased indulging in it.

That's right, Susan, we are the bad guys and you are the good guys.
You have the high moral ground and we are the harbingers of hate 
and evil.  Isn't it wonderful to be involved in such an altruistic 
movement?  

>>>>She may epitomize the 
>>>>kind of tragedy many pro-choicers want to avoid, and she may not.  
>>>>I do have an idea of what her parent's agenda is, though, and it 
>>>>seems to be based on some misguided sense of revenge.  
>
>>> I believe that their agenda is to prevent any more needless
>>> deaths of teenagers.  
>
>>If it is, they have an odd way of expressing it...
>
>Oh, yes.  How odd - they go about the country telling of
>their personal tragedy so that parents who care about their
>daughters will not make the same mistakes.  

As opposed to us parents who don't care about our daughters?

>(I can only 
>imagine what you would suggest they do, Overpeck.  Perhaps
>they should start a chain of fake clinics and lie to
>women about medical facts?)

Oh, I'm sure Eleanor Smeal & Company already have plans for them. 

>>> I guess in Overpeck's twisted mind, this implies an ulterior 
>>> motive.
>
>>Twisted mind?  Is that how you characterize people who don't
>>share your particular set of values?
>
>No, Overpeck, that's how I characterize *you*.

Does it help?

>Do you really have this much of a problem recognizing comments
>addressed to you, or is this some new act that you learned
>in summer camp?

Do insults help, too?

>>>>Maybe if 
>>>>they weren't touring the country blaming their daughter's death 
>>>>on the right to life movement, no one would bother looking into 
>>>>the circumstances surrounding that death.  But that's not really
>>>>their fault.  Eleanor Smeal and the Fund for the Feminist Majority
>>>>proudly trot the Bells out in front of audience after audience to 
>>>>relive the pain of losing their daughter.  I'm sure they don't see
>>>>themselves as the victims of political expediency, but that's how
>>>>I see it. 
>
>>> I've met Bill and Karen Bell, and they're no one's fools.  
>
>>I didn't call them fools.
>
>They're no one's victims of political expediency, either.  

Unfortunately, that's something you cannot prove.  

>Perhaps
>you should have asked the Bells who asked them to get involved.
>(But why should you bother yourself with facts when your
>fantasies are so entertaining?)

As I recall, they were approached by the FFM, but if not I'm
confident you will correct me (probably while calling me an
idiot).

>>> You may need to believe that they, like the women you seek to 
>>> "protect", are incapable of making their own decisions, but 
>>> that's your problem.    
>
>>Which women are you referring to here?
>
>The women you lie to in your fake clinic, Overpeck.

We don't have a "clinic", Susan.  We don't treat people for
any medical disorders, nor do we employ any medical personnel.
We do not advertise ourselves in any fashion that could be
misconstrued i.e., the CPC is referred to in all of our ad-
vertisements as providing "abortion alternatives".  Where is
the lie?  I know that it's convenient for you to perceive
such services as deceptive (we bad, you good), but until you
pay this CPC a visit, you can't make any substantive comments
about it one way or the other.

I'll bet you don't see yourself as hateful, do you?

Bill