From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson's rant letter
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:43:25 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:

>>>>     For those of you (like Mr. Nyikos) who seem reluctant to accept just
>>>> how loony Pat Robertson has become, here's the AP report on his charming
>>>> little letter/plea for $$, lifted from talk.politics.misc:

>>> HOLD IT!  HOLD IT!  I thought this was all about Pat Buchannan.  

>> Did you?

>> "Robertson is much too astute to make blanket statements
>> like the one you say he suggested."
>>  - Peter Nyikos <nyikos.715285141@milo.math.scarolina.edu>

>> "Hmmm.  Maybe I gave Robertson more credit than he deserves."
>> Peter Nyikos - <nyikos.715468090@milo.math.scarolina.edu>

>>> What's
>>> Pat Robertson doing, plagiarizing his lines?????

>> [article deleted]

>>> Or is it Pat Buchannan plagiarizing Pat Robertson?

>> Or is Nyikos losing his mind?

> Not quite, but I certainly must have been stressed by all the things I
> read before posting these comments.  I kept having a mental image of
> Buchannan all the while typing in "Robertson," and maybe because
> it was because the original post had to do with the Republican National
> Convention (or is my memory letting me down here too?) and I saw
> Buchannan on TV, but not Robertson.

The original post referred to 'the mindset of some of the Republican Party's
leading lights' as I recall.  If you find posting to the net to be stressful,
perhaps you should cut down somewhat.  There were 39 t.a articles on my spool
this morning; about 1/3 were from you.  Work on quality instead of quantity
and maybe your signal-to-noise ratio will improve.  Just my two cents.  Your
mileage may vary.

> Starting back on square one: all bets are off as to how astute Robertson
> is.  Buchannan is, but Robertson probably isn't, otherwise his presidential
> campaign four years ago would have been a real threat, what with his
> million-plus band of loyal followers.

Mark Russell said that Buchanan's speech at the RNC was the best speech that
David Duke ever wanted to give. ;-)

> Now to square two: I still don't have much of a clue as to who Robertson
> was really talking about.  All the quotes attributed to him that I have
> read so far start in the middle of the sentence and do not say much about
> whose agenda he was referring to.  The fact that some of the people
> involved were members of mainstream feminist organizations does not rule
> out their being also members of splinter groups.

Again, Peter, such speculation gets you zero points on the t.a scoreboard.
Will you please pay attention?  Robertson was writing in opposition to the
proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Iowa state constitution.  It is very
clear to me and to many others that when he wrote, "socialist anti-family
political movement," he meant the feminist movement in its entirety.  After
all, I'd bet dollars to donuts that there isn't any language in the Iowa
ERA "encouraging women to leave their husbands, kill their children, destroy
capitalism, practice witchcraft and become lesbians."

But I honestly have no use for all those donuts. :-)

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    Not those mamby pamby wimp liberal "oh dear someone somewhere
    has done something unnice, I'll call the kare bears..." -- drieux
Newsgroups: talk.abortion