NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/48364

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 11.2 KB | 248 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!att-out!cbnewsj!decay
From: [e-mail] (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: *another false accusation by nyikos* (was Re: A forgery by Adrienne Regard?!?!?!?!? (was: Stipu..))
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 02:18:27 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Summary: EVery time I turn around, Peter proves he's stupid
References: <[e-mail]>> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 235

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:
> >> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Adrienne Regard) writes:
> >> >In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> >> >>I missed this one.
> >>
> >> Which "one", Dean?  Are you still missing it?
>
> Dean did not answer this question.  Evidently he is still missing it,
> because he is still under the delusion that I misattributed something
> to Adrienne.
I missed the original accusation, though I saw th earticle you followed
with your accusation, then saw the reposts of your remarks in which you
accused Adrienne of forging an article simply because you couldn't
follow the attributions.  Is that clear enough for you "Doctor?"
>
> >> >>  Did this stupid, blustering fool,
> >> I see you disavowing your earlier retraction of your claim that I am
> >> stupid.  Since you have reinstated your claim, I would like to see
> >> the evidence that caused the new change of heart.
> >This posting of yours is it, babe.
> Come one, come all!!  Dean Kaflowitz was able to draw on his powers of
> precognition, and have a new change of heart, based on what he saw in his
> crystal ball!  {Or did you read "This posting" of mine on your palm, Dean?}

Why should I go find old postings when you post fresh stupidities,
like the above?  I am no longer surprised that what I said was so
confusing to you, "Doctor."  Tell me, "Doctor," how much did
you have to send to the mail-order diploma mill to get that
"PhD?"
>
> >> >> this
> >> >>set theory expert who just announced in another post yet
> >> >>again that he has a PhD really say this stuff?
> >> Which stuff, Dean?  Why did you delete all the evidence to back up
> >> your statement, yet again?
> >Dear stupid, blustering fool.  DId you happen to notice that
> >you were posting a response to a response?
> Now Kaflowitz is claiming to be clairvoyant.  "say this stuff"
> indicates he saw something which, it now turns out, was not in the
> post he was responding to at all:

You claimed I deleted material from this posting.  I see I'm going
to have to explain this in detail to you, "Doctor."  I am no longer
surprised to find that you don't even know how to count, so I'll
take this as slow as possible.

Okay, the "Doctor" claimed I deleted material.  That claim came in the line
with 3 greater than signs.  However, the last quoted material from
me before that has 5 greater than signs.  Material with 4 greater
than signs is from Adrienne.  Now listen carefully, because it
gets even trickier and I have a feeling I've lost the "Doctor"
already.   For me to delete material from the posting to which
the "Doctor" responded, I would have to have posted the posting
to which the doctor responded, but I didn't.  In fact, I
included the material the "Doctor" requests when I posted the
posting that Adrienne followed up.  Therefore, the material that our
rather stupid "Doctor" claims I deleted was deleted by Adrienne.
The "stuff" in question was the "Doctor's" stupid accusation
against Adrienne.  Which I saw in subsequent posts and have seen
reposted.  The "Doctor's" newsfeed was very conveniently "down"
when all of this was being discussed.  I wonder if his newsfeed
will go "down" again now that he's made a complete fool of himself
yet again and accuse me of deleting material in a posting I didn't
post.

>
> >  One would hope that
> >a man with a PhD might be able to figure out that I had no
> >control over what Adrienne deleted.  Did you really earn a
> >PhD or did you buy one, Peter?
>
> Unfortunately, I did not know Dean was clairvoyant when I made my
> post, otherwise I would not have asked the stupid question ("Which
> stuff, Dean?") for which he is now flaming me.  :-)

Stupid isn't even close to describing how lacking in thinking
ability you are, "Doctor."  You haven't figured out yet that
I am talking about your claim that I deleted material in a posting
that I didn't post.  You're being flamed (I have to spell this out
for the "Doctor" because he is pretty slow on the uptake) for claiming
I deleted material from a posting I didn't post.
>
> Apparently Dean thinks one must be a telepath in order to earn a
> Ph.D.  Ordinary mortals must purchase one, he thinks.  I wonder
> whether *he* has a Ph.D.  If he does, should we add telepathy to
> his growing list of extrasensory capabilities?  :-)
>

I'd settle for you have average reading skills.  One would think a
"PhD" would at least have that.

> > My posting was about your
> >false accusation against Adrienne, in which you accused her based
> >on your inability to read something simple like the attributions.
> >Instead of apologizing for accusing her of forgery, you follow
> >it by accusing me of deleting the evidence, when it wasn't
> >my posting.
>
> Here we go again.  Despite his extrasensory powers, Dean is unable
> to see past his ideological blinders and look at the evidence
> objectively.  Maybe Adrienne's powers are greater still, holding him
> in her thrall?

Amazing.  You first accuse me in this posting of not answering your
question about the "stuff" (that' sat the start of this posting),
and now you try to bluster your way out of your accusation that I
deleted material from a posting I did not post.  I must be the one's
with the powers if I can delete material from Adrienne's posting.
I don't even know what state she's posting from.
>
> [Blustering paragraph by Dean deleted.]
>
> Me to Adrienne:
> >> Four months ago you made an offer I could not refuse:
> >>
> >> #>I've been on this net over 7 years, and I've never understood this fetal
> >> #>worship.  Can you help me?
> >>
> >> Of course this was not directed at me, but few people have tried to
> >> accept your offer to be helped except Martin Guerrero and me, and
> >> Martin did not even know the offer had been made, otherwise he
> >> might have stuck it out longer.
>
> >This is more evidence of what a stupid, blustering fool
> >you are Peter.  If one reads this posting of yours without my latest
> >additions one finds that you can't even maintain a coherent line
> >of thought.  Where this stuff about Adrienne came from is not at
> >all clear.
>
> Do you want the thread, date, and Greenwich mean time?  I can provide
> all that and more, if your clairvoyance does not reach back into July.

No, stupid.  I have to really spell it out for you.  Your remarks to
Adrienne had nothing to do with the posting and came clear out
of the blue.  They weren't even close to remaining on the subject.
And they are rather incoherent, considering that out of nowhere you
start rapping at Adrienne about some supposed offer made last July.

>
> >  Adrienne
> >asks a question about fetal worship and you characterize her
> >request for clarification as an offer from Adrienne.
>
> And why not? for seven years she has been missing a vital clue about
> the pro-life position.  Sounds almost like a cry for help :-)

Sounds like you ought to learn to comprehend what you read.  I'll
give you a chance to say some more stupid things.  Explain how
asking a question is translated into an offer.
>
> >> >It's a sad thing to see such needy personalities.  Bill, would you
> >> >talk to the poor bloke?  Maybe you can do some good in this area....
> >>
> >> >Adrienne Regard
> >>
> >> Are you talking to Overpeck, by any chance?  It just so happens I saved
> >> a post from him back in July.  Seems I am not the only one who confused
> >> Bill Overpeck with Phil Buckland.
>
> >Where did Adrienne confuse Bill Overpeck with Phil Buckland?
>
> What makes you think I was talking about Adrienne?

In that case, have you any idea what you are talking about?  I don't
know what you're talking about.  I'm sorry, Peter.  I've been going
along flaming you and I begin to think that maybe you really aren't
very tightly wrapped and I ought to begin pitying you.

> >> [e-mail] (Adrienne Regard) writes: >
> >> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
> >>    (Susan Garvin) writes: >>
> >>
> >> >>Let me get this straight - when Adrienne said what she thought
> >> >>to Phil Buckland, she was really vilifying Bill Overpeck?
>
> Sounds like Susan is the one who is confused.  You are relying too much
> on your extrasensory powers and not enough on your common sense, Dean.
>
> >> >(psst, Susan, that's 'villifying', per Bill.  The definition: "when anybody
> >> >says anything, it's a slam against poor ol' Bill".)
> >>
> >> Let's see now.  If we characterize Bill as hypersensitive, he'll look
> >> foolish and Adrienne's offensive behavior will look normal...hmmm...
> >> yep, let's do it.
> >>
> >> >Actually, I think I ended up on Bill's shit list about a year ago when
> >> >I actually agreed with him on something:  That one should not make broad
> >> >assumptions about persons one has not met.  Since that date, he's been
> >> >*very* *touchy*.
> >>
> >> Perhaps it's because you continue to make such assumptions despite your
> >> alleged agreement.
> >>
> >> >My opinions are all personal attacks.  My arguments are
> >> >all ad hominem.  My disagreement is an afront to his beliefs.
> >> >
> >> >Ain't life hard.
> >>
> >> Is this intended to imply that I'm petty?  Imperceptive?  A whiner?
> >>
> >> You continue to live up to your image, Adrienne.
> >>
> >> Bill
>
> >This addition of yours, Peter, just goes to show you haven't the
> >foggiest notion of what you are talking about.  Clearly Adrienne
> >did not confuse Phil  and Bill, but the part of the posting that
> >would make this clearer is missing.
>
> The posting is complete except for "topmatter".  You seem to have
> overestimated your powers of clairvoyance, Dean, but like I said, it
> apparently does not extend all the way back to July.

Uh huh.  I don't believe you.  Post the complete story, with complete
attributions or admit you are screwed up again.  Not that I expect such
and admission.  You've been wrong about Adrienne and me all along
and you won't admit it, but keep throwing blustery nonsense like this
around to try and weasel out of it.
>
> >You're really losing it Peter.  And thank you for the evidence
> >that you are stupid.  I notice you don't dispute the statement
> >that you are a blusterer.
>
> Why should I dispute *any* statement for which you do not produce
> a scrap of evidence?  I've only been disputing a lot of your statements
> to show what a blusterer *you* are.

Everything you said in this posting and the previous posting is
evidence of it.  Hell, the abundance of evidence makes it fairly
conclusive.

Dean Kaflowitz