NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/48209

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 5.7 KB | 125 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsk!cbnewsj!decay
From: [e-mail] (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: compromise
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:36:48 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Keywords: Holtsinger refuted
Lines: 112

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>
> >In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> >>
> >> Typical.  She makes allegations of the unreliability of the quote, does
> >> not give her own quote, deletes Doug's quote.  I move that networkers
> >> disregard such claims as "he had made unmarked deletions" by Ms. Garvin
> >> until she shows where these were made and what they were [or at least
> >> a sample].
>
> >Considering your inability to figure out who said what in
> >a posting, your comments on anyone else's deletions or posting
> >behavior is highly suspect to say the least.  In fact, given
> >your history, there is a presumption that what you say about
> >anyone's quotes or deletions is incorrect.
>
> Show me where I was unable to figure out who said what.
>
> You seem to believe what others say about me instead of thinking for
> yourself.

No, stupid boy.  I read the original articles and was able
to follow the attribution lines.  By the way, you accused me
of deleting material (accused by means of stupid insinuations)
in a posting when I wasn't the one who posted it.  Adrienne
followed a posting of mine and you responded to her.  Have
you figured out yet that I can't manage to delete material
from what Adrienne posts?  This is why people have begun
to suspect that you are one very stupid person.  This is
why there is a presumption against you when it comes to
your ability to figure out who said what.  You not only get
these things wrong, you do it consistently.  I haven`t seen
any response from you since you accused me of deleting things
and I explained it to you.  You going to own up to your
stupidities and try to be more careful in the future, or are
you just going to bluster and bulldoze in the hope that
someone who hasn't followed these things from the start
thinks you have credibility?  I suspect you'll continue
doing the latter.  The former requires more character and
integrity than you've shown so far.

> >Oh, and can you please explain why you think Susan shouldn't
> >b eallowed to delete material from a posting?  She explains her
> >reasons for the deletions and it is a reasonable explanation
> >and the deletions are practical.
>
> I won't argue with that, I'm just suspending judgment about the truth
> of her allegations until she posts documentation.  You would do well
> to do the same the next time you accuse me of something.

I did.  I do.  But I guess you just won't respond to those postings
in the hope that folks forget them.

> >I think Dr Giggles is back doing his "I'll just attack
> >my opponents for no good reason" game again.  He made an ass
> >of himself with Adrienne and now he has an urge to make an
> >ass of himself with Susan.
>
> You have not seen all the evidence in re the Adrienne game.  You don't
> even realize that she started the attack, not I.  I wonder whether you
> can take off your ideological blinders long enough to disbelieve
> *anything* Adrienne says about me.

I saw the very original posting and then your accusations of forgery.
I remember wondering why you said that about Adrienne when I had
seen the original postings and new who had posted what, and when
the attributions clearly showed that she hadn't posted the supposed
forged material.  But I didn't bother getting into that thread
because I figured Adrienne could take care of herself.  Later, I
was surprised enough at the vehemence of your remarks to say
a thing or two about it myself.

And you're stil trying to bluster and lie your way out of your
error.  Or are you stupid enough to be convinced you were right
in the first place.  That wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Density seems to be your strongest asset.

> >I suspect that Nyikos isn't really teaching mathematics.  I
> >think he's the NCSU Professor of Making an Ass of One's Self.
> >In that regard, he holds th epost with great distinction.
>
> Go on, Dean, make an ass of yourself, see if I care.

You should at least show more care about making an ass of yourself.
>
> >> As far as I can see, this unsupported allegation ["you cannot assume..."]
> >> by Ms. Garvin is her sole support for her word "*completely*" highlighted
> >> above.
>
> >Oh, and there is much more support for it than that.  The fact
> >that actual practice supports Susan's statement is pretty good
> >support.  As always, Peter, you prefer wild speculations such
> >as Doug's, to the facts.
>
> Funny how you deleted Chief Justice Burger's words from my post.
> Would you characterize his lambasting of the actual practice of Roe v. Wade
> with the "mere shallow rhetoric" of Blackmun as "wild speculation"?

Are you sure I was the one who deleted it?  I don't believe that
was me.  I think it was Susan.  I hope you can support this false
assertion of yours.

> The day you are an actual Dean of anything will be the day college
> students are done a serious disservice.

That was so lame I had to include it again.  I may have to make
it a .sig.  I haven't seen anyone suggest this yet, so I move
we nominate Dr Giggles Nyikos for the net.council of idiots.
He would be right at home with Tire Iron Kaldis and Kibble Darcy.

Dean Kaflowitz