From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 01:39:05 GMT


wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
>   wdo@TEFS1.acd.com writes: 
>   (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.  
>>
>> Malicious?  You're despicable.  

>Malicious.  I had the opportunity to see them first hand at ISU
>last year.  Malicious.  Waging a campaign of hostility and bit-
>terness against pro-lifers because of existing parental consent
>laws is sadly misguided.  And these people were malicious.

How fascinating.  Do you make similar diagnoses of groups such as
Mothers Against Drunk Driving?  I mean, just LOOK at how nasty 
they get about people who have a beer or seven and then want to
drive home.  Why, the vast majority of drunk drivers have never
killed _anyone_!  Many of them have never even had an accident!
Who are those evil, malicious MADD women persecuting them like
that??????

Maybe, just maybe, they want to keep someone _else_'s child from
dying for the same reason that _their_ child did.

>> This family lost their daughter because of a parental consent 
>> law.  

>Right.  And when my son was nearly killed by an automobile at 
>age 7, it was those awful traffic laws that did it.  It had
>nothing to do with the fact that we should have been watching
>him more closely.

But of course if the driver had been drunk, you'd NEVER do anything
malicious like those nasty MADD people, would you?  After all, it
was _your_ fault that your kid was in a dangerous situation, 
whether or not the driver was drunk had NOTHING to do with it!
Right?  Right?

>> They were devastated, and they don't want other parents to 
>> suffer the way they did.  They campaign against the law that 
>> killed their daughter, and you call them malicious.  You dis-
>> agree, so you dismiss their work as "political expediency".  

>Sorry, CJ.  I was there.  I heard them.  There were (perhaps)
>five pro-lifers in a room of ~200, sitting quietly in the back.  
>We made no noise, we made no rude gestures, we made no faces.  
>We just sat there listening.  But someone apparently identified 
>us to Karen Bell who, for at least five minutes, treated us to 
>a hateful discourse that blamed *us* for her daughter's death.

And just LISTEN to how those nasty women that started MADD
treat people convicted of drunk driving, _whether_or_not_ they
ever killed _anyone_.  Why, there oughtta be a LAW!

>> You know no compassion.

>And apparently you know no Bells.  But I know malice when I 
>see it.

This, of course, comes from your well-known ability to judge 
the motivations and attitudes of people who you've met only
briefly, if at all.

Let's all just shut up now, and bow to Mr. Bill's superior
psychiatric judgement.

>> Fuck off & die, Overpeck.

>Hmm.  I guess your objections to needless deaths don't extend
>to men, huh?

Perhaps Ms. Silverio wouldn't consider your death needless.

In any event, I find it incredibly amusing whenever you get on
your high horse around here.  Apparently, the right to be angry
or condescending is a right you reserve solely for yourself.

Heaven forfend a mere woman should criticize Mr. Bill.

>Bill

                    -rocker

Newsgroups: talk.abortion