From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: The Mendacity of Gordon Storga
Keywords: mendacity
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 07:58:09 GMT

Sorry for the long posts, folks.  Peter likes to include several reposts
in his messages whenever possible.  When you try to trim them down he
accuses you of "creative editing with ulterior motives".  Yes, he is a
little paranoid.

<nyikos.718489686@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In the "Is it Christian values or chauvinism thread," Gordon Storga has
>posted a follow-up that is remarkable for its dishonest nature,

Well, I did refer to some of your postings.  That's probably where you got
the dishonesty from.

>transparently clear to anyone who has access to the post to which it
>follows up. 
>
>I will repeat the relevant parts of both of these posts below.  First mine:

Geez, do we have to have the whole thing posted again?  Can't you just
include the relevent portions?

>References: <>10771@scott.ed.ac.uk>> <1992Sep18.233054.14674@noao.edu> <1992Sep25.211600.23804@coopsol.com>
>In <1992Sep25.211600.23804@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><1992Sep18.233054.14674@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
>>>From article by iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski):
>>>> In article mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>>>> >In nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>> >    <...> the fact that Suzanne
>>>> >used the word "crucified" to refer to the justifiable tongue-lashing
>>>> >Christ gave those who debased His temple trivializes the agony and
>>>> >suffering He underwent in His death and spiritual separation from His
>>>> >Father.
>
>>Suzanne seems to ignore the castigation of other Christians who take her
>>to task for trivializing their god's contributions.  I notice she doesn't
>>apologize for it.
>
>Get with it, Gordon!  Don't you see how Ivan has exposed M. Price's 
>"castigation" for the hoax that it is?  And I've addressed this
>"castigation" myself several times.
>
>And is M. Price really a Christian?  Who are the others who have
>"castigated" Suzanne, and is any of them really a Christian?
>
>If you insist on perpetuating this charade, go ahead, but tell the "other
>Christians" to be prepared
>to "defend Christianity" against atheists as well as actual Christians
>like Suzanne.  Otherwise everyone will see how hollow their "Christianity"
>really is.
>
>>>> I don't think I'm the only one here (I'm posting from alt.atheism) who
>>>> is tired of this talk about the "agony", "suffering", and "death" of
>>>> Jesus from Nazareth.  (Yes, I mean all those quotation marks).
>>>> ...
>>>> Rightly so.  Go ahead, prove that he suffered.  Only be sure to make
>>>> it quite clear that he didn't just fake suffering (for whatever purpose).
>>>
>>>Oh, yeah, you mean like the way unborn babies "fake" their suffering when
>>>they are ripped limb from limb via abortion.
>>>
>>>Get real.
>
>>Indeed.  I suggest you take that advice.  The suffering of the mythical
>>"unborn baby" is on par with the "suffering" of the mythical Mermaid by the
>>pollution of the oceans, or the "suffering" of mythical Pink Elephants
>>that die in car crashes with drunk drivers.
>
>If Suzanne chooses to regard a fetus as an unborn baby, her choice should
>not be trivialized in this manner.
>
>I note your failure to address the question of whether Christ faked his
>suffering.  Since you are, by your .sig, a professional atheist,
> I suggest you get the
>"Christians" who "castigated" Suzanne to address it.  Note especially
>how M. Price uses the terms "trivializes the agony and suffering."  
>
>[Rest of post deleted.]

Mercifully.

>Now comes Gordon's follow-up. Certain aspects of it are worth remarking
>on:
>1. By deleting his preceding comments, he makes it look as though he
>himself had not mentioned Christians in a very domineering (vis-a-vis
>Suzanne) manner, and it was these Christians whose very existence I
>was calling into question.

It was pretty obvious that I was referring to the person who was
responding to Suzanne.  Are you that dense?  By taking "other Christians"
out of context you make it look like I was referring to tens of thousands
when I was referring to the one who responded.  Later we find that another
woman was offended by Suzanne's remarks.  That makes two.  Satisfied?

>2.  Like a little brat caught stealing from the cookie jar ("Cookies?
>what cookies?") he feigns incomprehension over the phrase "other
>Christians", as though he himself had not used the phrase in the post
>to which he is following up.

It was pretty obvious who I was referring to.  If you really are this
dense how did you become a professor?

>3.  He also pretends that "atheists" refers to him, whereas it refers
>to the like of Derzhanski, claiming that Christ faked suffering.         

I see.  You use the plural "atheists" without substantiating it, but I
must substantiate the plural "Christians".  You're sounding more and more
like Suzanne every day.

===== I'll leave it in this time =====
><nyikos.717627005@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>><1992Sep25.211600.23804@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) :
>>><1992Sep18.233054.14674@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
>>>>From article by iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski):
>>>>> In article mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>>>>> >In nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>...
>>And is M. Price really a Christian?  Who are the others who have
>>"castigated" Suzanne, and is any of them really a Christian?
>
>Oh geez.  Here we go again: "*_THEY_* aren't *REAL* Christians, not like
>Billy Joe Bob and me."
>
>>If you insist on perpetuating this charade, go ahead, but tell the "other
>>Christians" to be prepared
>>to "defend Christianity" against atheists as well as actual Christians
>>like Suzanne.  Otherwise everyone will see how hollow their "Christianity"
>>really is.
>
>Huh?  Which "other Christians" should I be telling, and why should I tell
>them to "defend Christianity" against me?
>
>>>>Get real.
>>
>>>Indeed.  I suggest you take that advice.  The suffering of the mythical
>>>"unborn baby" is on par with the "suffering" of the mythical Mermaid by the
>>>pollution of the oceans, or the "suffering" of mythical Pink Elephants
>>>that die in car crashes with drunk drivers.
>>
>>If Suzanne chooses to regard a fetus as an unborn baby, her choice should
>>not be trivialized in this manner.
>
>I have no problem with how Suzanne personally chooses to regard a fetus.
>I have a problem with Suzanne's position that everyone should be forced by
>law to abide by her views at the loss of personal freedoms.
>
>>I note your failure to address the question of whether Christ faked his
>>suffering.  
>
>Don't get your PhD in a twist, Peter.  I wasn't interested in addressing
>that portion of the issue.  I've addressed that aspect far more times in
>these groups then I care to remember, always with the same stammering
>apologetic answers from people perhaps like yourself - you know, pompous
>and arrogant.
>
>>            Since you are, by your .sig, a professional atheist,
>> I suggest you get the
>>"Christians" who "castigated" Suzanne to address it.  Note especially
>>how M. Price uses the terms "trivializes the agony and suffering."
>
>Why would I want to get the "Christians" to address it?  I've addressed it
>myself before.
>
>[end of Gordon's post]
>
>Here he may be excused for having forgotten what I wrote earlier and
>he himself failed to delete, "Otherwise everyone will see how hollow
>their Christianity really is."  Still, I believe even here, he knows
>what is being talked about, the mendacity of M. Price, who feigned
>indignation over something Suzanne said in order to justify his
>demand for an apology.

It doesn't matter.  As Mr Butler has so eloquently stated, one need not be
of a particular religious bent to identify mockery and insensitivity.
I do not need to be Black to see racism.  As for your insistance that I
organize these "other Christians" in some way, all I can say is - in
your dreams.

>Finally, I continue to be deeply offended by the cavalier way in which 
>Storga dismisses the possible suffering of very real fetuses by 
>comparing it to the "suffering" of mythical creatures, and, in
>another post, to the sizzling of bacon in frying pans. 

Gee, that's really too bad.  I'm deeply offended by the cavalier way that
you and so many of the other pro-lifers dismiss the real suffering of
pregnant women who DO NOT WANT TO BE PREGNANT.  These women are suffering
emotionally and potentially physically, not to mention the financial
costs, yet many of you just wave your hands and say "She shoulda kept 
her legs closed".

And the sad thing is, so many women LET this happen to them by not voting
or voting stupidly.


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.