NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/48146

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 5.2 KB | 132 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!digex.com!roger
From: [e-mail] (Roger Williams)
Subject: SJM caught in lie - Film at 11
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: access.digex.com
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 02:41:40 GMT
Lines: 120

In article <[e-mail]> Stephen J Mezias claimed

"I wrote none of the above.."

However, the truth is that he DID write the following sentence:

"The law is whatever Petie wants it to be or thinks it should be."

The thing that tipped me off was his use of "Petie".  Most of his fellow
name-flamers use "Petey" or variants thereof.  As far as I am aware, he's
the only person to use "Petie".  According to the "Steve Chaney and Dennis
Hall both spell embarrass the same way so they must be the same person"
standard of proof held by the pro-choicers, this, in itself, is sufficient
to convict Mezias of being less than truthful.  However, my own standard
is higher than that and I retreived the original article.

Attached is the article that he lied in completely unedited except
for the addition of a '>' character so that the headers could be
included:

------------ Article containing lie attached below --------------
>Path: digex.com!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!news.ans.net!cmcl2!rnd!smezias
>From: [e-mail] (Stephen J. Mezias)
>Newsgroups: talk.abortion
>Subject: Jim Kalb is back and Petie's misattributions live on!
>Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>Date: 12 Nov 92 16:47:16 GMT
>References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>Organization: NYU Stern School of Business
>Lines: 23
>
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Kalb)
>is back!  Hi, Jim: Do you still subscribe to the chastity belt theory
>of why abortions should be illegal?  That is, do you still believe
>that forcing women to carry pregnancies to terms is justified by their
>having engaged in the the dirty deed?
>
>BTW, Jim, be careful about repeating attributions from Petie's posts.
>They are frequently wrong:
>
>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>>
>>>>>BTW I would not say killing a rapist is violating the rapists rights.  The
>>>>>rapist abrogated those rights in the act of rape.
>>>>
>>>>Well, *there's* another interesting, non-viable interpretation of the law!
>>>>A rapist has abrogated his right to live by the act of rape, huh?
>>
>>>The law is whatever Petie wants it to be or thinks it should be.
>
>I wrote none of the above; so, I have no idea why my name is there.
>
>SJM
>
>
------------- End of article containing lie -------------------
Notice that SJM wrote "I wrote none of the above; so, I have no idea
why my name is there."  Also notice the sentence immediately above it:
"The law is whatever Petie wants it to be or thinks it should be."

Now for the article referenced in the References line in the header
above.  Again, this article was completely unedited except for the
addition of a ">" quote character so that the headers could be included.

-------- Start of article refuting SJM's lie ------------------
>Path: digex.com!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!stanford.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!rnd!smezias
>From: [e-mail] (Stephen J. Mezias)
>Newsgroups: talk.abortion
>Subject: Re: misogyny
>Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>Date: 9 Nov 92 17:21:53 GMT
>References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>Organization: NYU Stern School of Business
>Lines: 36
>
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>(Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>>Why, hello, Peter.  I've noticed through the past 14 articles now, that your
>>poster appears to be online again.
>
>Amazing how the failures of his poster is so self-serving, isn't it?
>
>>I do notice, however, that so far 14 articles have scrolled past my screen,
>>including a response to something I posted a few weeks ago, but still no
>>mention of *YOUR* *MISTAKE* and your accusation of forgery wrt another post.
>>Why is that, Peter?
>
>He also misattributed an insult to me and then took that as license to
>use it to characterize my position and accuse me of starting the
>name-calling.
>
>That's Petie.  Deletia about the rights of rapists:
>
>>>BTW I would not say killing a rapist is violating the rapists rights.  The
>>>rapist abrogated those rights in the act of rape.
>>
>>Well, *there's* another interesting, non-viable interpretation of the law!
>>A rapist has abrogated his right to live by the act of rape, huh?
>
>The law is whatever Petie wants it to be or thinks it should be.
>
>>Peter, when are you going to begin making sense?  Once you get the
>>attributions figured out?
>
>Baseless speculation, Adrienne, based on his track record there is no
>reason to presume that he will ever get the attributions figured out.
>
>SJM
------------------------ End of article refuting SJM's lie -----------

The prosecution rests, Your Honor.

Roger Williams
[e-mail]