From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Trumped-up charges against Suzanne. Demurrer #1.
Keywords: kill, murder, translation, homicide
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  6 Oct 92 14:04:16 GMT

In <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.

 
:> 								- Kevin

:Suzanne Forgach

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.


>>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.

>...
>>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.  

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

>  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?

>  I notice she hasn't posted one word
>in her defense,

"Yup" seems to qualify.

> yet you and Darcy seem to be falling all over yourselves
>in an effort to impress her.

>>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?

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.

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


>...
>>** An example of her not understanding the bible's basic commandments:
>><1991Jun25.203208.26036@noao.edu> (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>><1991Jun25.163655.27284@ssd.kodak.com>, (Dan Bredy (x37360)):
>>>> <1991Jun25.130241.4087@infonode.ingr.com> (Keith Drake) writes:
>>...
>>>God _did_ say "Thou Shalt Not Kill".  So little Freeman should take it upon
>>>himself to say "Well OK, you can kill now" ???
>>
>>** the bible actually says "Thou shalt not commit murder".
>>
>>>                                                  Sure even though God said
>>>"Thou Shalt Not Kill", Hitler chose to kill anyway.   
>>
>>** She repeats it - obviously not a typo.
>>
>>COMMENTS:

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

>>2. The latest translations are themselves ephemeral.  The job of 
>>updating the translation is far from complete: one would expect a 
>>really modern translation to get rid of the archaism "Thou shalt".
>>Simply substituting "you shall" will not do, since it makes the
>>commandment sound like a prediction rather than the proscription
>>that it is obviously meant to be.

[Repetitious comment by Storga deleted.]

>>	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.

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

Peter Nyikos