From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: The Mendacity of Gordon Storga
Keywords: mendacity
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:54:29 GMT

In <1992Oct14.075809.16611@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>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". 

It was the way you trimmed them down, and the blatant way you
misrepresented me in "Oh geez. Here we go again." that motivated me
to post so much, so people could see how mendacious you were.

For instance, you made it sound like I am a fundamentalist, which I most
certainly am not.  

Satire:

Next thing you know, you would be accusing me of
trying to establish a fundamentalist theocracy, if I did not nip this
thing in the bud.

> Yes, he is a little paranoid.

To paraphrase a popular saying, just because you are paranoid, does not
mean they are not about to bring trumped-up charges against you. Or Suzanne.

[Next thing you know, Gordon will take the above as an admission that
I am paranoid...Sorry, just my paranoia coming out again.]

End of satire.

><nyikos.718489686@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>>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).
>>[Rest of post deleted.]

>>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?       ^^^^^^ 

You were talking in the plural, you jerk.

> 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.          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
			     ^^^
Who is a little paranoid now?  I was referring to some hypothetical
Christians who YOU claimed had been offended by Suzanne's remarks.
Note, I even asked you who they were.

>  Later we find that another
>woman was offended by Suzanne's remarks.  That makes two.  Satisfied?

No, because that was AFTER you made the comment, using the plural. Plus,
I think it has now been established beyond a reasonable doubt that
M. Price is not a Christian. Which puts it back down to one.
 What I'd like to know is, DID YOU KNOW
THIS ALL ALONG, that M. Price is not a Christian?

>>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. 

Except to you, and anyone else taken in my your feigned ignorance:

>>>Huh?  Which "other Christians" should I be telling, and why should I tell
>>>them to "defend Christianity" against me?

Gordon goes on trying to cover his tracks, this time with an insult:

> 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 was thinking ahead to the future, to all the other atheists who are
likely to take offense at M. Price's syrupy imitation of Christian jargon.
Note my use of "perpetuating" and  "be prepared to" below.
Also note how Ivan used the words "I don't think I'm the only one here..."
above.
You on the other hand were talking about Suzanne "ignoring the castigation
of other Christians," which definitely refers to the past, in the plural.

>>>>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.


>>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".  ^^^

I never trivialized their suffering, especially not in this Neanderthaler
way.  Nor did I dismiss it, in a cavalier way or otherwise. 

Peter Nyikos


Newsgroups: talk.abortion