NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/48775

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-20 | 5.9 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48775 alt.abortion.inequity:5200 soc.women:20016 soc.men:19650 alt.feminism:4766
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!hubcap!opusc!usceast!nyikos
From: [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: compromise
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: Holtsinger allegedly refuted
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: na
Date: 20 Nov 92 14:08:55 GMT
Lines: 118

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>[e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> [e-mail] (Susan Garvin) writes:

I followed up to this article yesterday evening (19 Nov 92 23:00:39 GMT)
and made a couple of embarrassing mistakes thru not pausing to reflect
on all the possible meanings of what Chris was saying.  I canceled the
article this morning but if some copies leaked through, I ask readers to
disregard them and to take *this* follow-up to be the true one.

>>> I really shouldn't bother refuting him.  However,
>>> Since the Reverend insists on discussing the availability
>>> of late term abortions under Roe once again, I thought that
>>> I'd reproduce the following article.  The first time that
>>> Reverend Holtsinger tried to argue this issue, he posted
>>> his version of Tushnet's opinion.  (I looked up the source,
>>> and I found that he had made unmarked deletions.)  Undaunted,
>>> Holtsinger continued to argue the point, and surprisingly,
>>> continued to quote out of context to support his argument.

>>> ["quote" from Tushnet deleted]

>> Typical.  She makes allegations of the unreliability of the quote, does
>> not give her own quote, deletes Doug's quote.

And part of the significance of it is, Susan and Doug may have been working
from different versions of the Tushnet article.  There are even some
seriously adulterated passages from Roe v. Wade in general circulation
[one of them right in the FAQ for talk.abortion], as Doug and I have
separately documented.

>Yo!  Newbie!  J. Greenfield showed that DearOldDoug made unmarked deletions
>last summer!  I'll bet that if you swallow hard and apologize to Ms. Regard
>and Ms. Garvin, some kind soul will email you Mr. Greenfield's posts.

Well, I don't know what qualifies as an apology in your eyes, but I just
posted one in response to Susan's initial short post about my "selective
editing".  Adrienne is a trickier case but I'll get around to her too when
I have a little more time.

Anyway, Mr. Greenfield's posts will be of little use to me until Doug
has a chance to present his side of the story.

>Btw, DearOldDoug went on a tear of doctoring quotes last summer, all the
>while whining that people were quoting him out of context.

Perhaps.  But I have not yet seen any selective editing on Doug's part
that is anywhere near the incredible liberties Susan regularly takes
with what others have written.

>> 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].

>Mr. Pot, you should really be more careful about disparging remarks about
>Ms. Kettle.  Read on.

Well, I am always open to correction if people will document their
corrections.

>>> With absolutely no shame for *completely* misrepresenting quotes, Doug
>>> Holtsinger writes:           ^^^^^^^^^^^^

>These words were penned (keyboarded?) by J. Greenfield.  You have removed
>that attribution.  Why, Petey?

If I did, it was unconsciously.  This was a 500+ line post of Susan's that
I was following up to, and whole screens whizzed by after each push of the
<Select> key before the next hit of the PF6 key to complete the deletion.

The attribution was somewhere in the body of the text, not at the top
where the initial attribution lines are.  I actually LEFT IN one
attribution line too many at the beginning of the post, also easy to do
in a 100+ line (maybe 200+, I haven't counted) followup to a 500+ line post.

>>> As I have said *several* times before, *I* have never said that the two
>>> cases should not be read together.  What I said is that you cannot
>>> assume that the discussion of "health" in the Doe opinion applies to the
>>> "life and health" provision in Roe, regarding third-trimester abortions.

>> 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.

>These words (>>) were penned (keyboarded?) by J. Greenfield.  Do they offer
>remedial reading courses for topology experts at USC?

Once I've deleted something, I can't very well read it, can I now?

[To eliminate cognitive dissonance: Chris speaks of words preceded by
>> but now that I am following up, they are preceded by >>>, while the
words preceded by >> are now due to me.]

>>> Every objective indication supports this contention.

>> The above sentence is rendered vacuous by the omission of all objective
>> indications from the post to which I am following up.  The best she can
>> do is show that *some* of Doug's quotes are *consistent* with her
>> contention.

>These words (>>) were penned (keyboarded?) by J. Greenfield.  Stop playing
>dumb, Petey, we get enough real stupidity from you as it is.

You did say "Mr." Greenfield, so I stand corrected here too.  But I wasn't
"playing dumb": the reference line, if I ever saw it, had faded from my
memory.

>[--the rest mercifully deleted--]

The rest includes some powerful words by former Supreme Court Chief
Justice Burger, and interested readers can find them in a follow-up
to Jim Keegan on this same thread, same newsgroups, if my original
post has expired.

Peter Nyikos