NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/52849

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 10.1 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52849 alt.flame:17395
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!opusc!usceast!nyikos
From: [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Loren and Heather should bicker in person, not on net
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:55:47 GMT
Lines: 219

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lefty) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>,
>[e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>>
>> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lefty) writes:
>>
>> ...in his usual flaming style, always without giving a clue as to what
>> the flaming is justified by.

>Gee, Peter, I knew you had trouble keeping the ownership of attributed
>text, but the problem seems to be running much deeper than that.  You don't
>even seem to be able to read or understand it when it's included in an
>article.

An atypical bit of flaming by Lefty, in that he actually preserves the
evidence.  Trouble is, he was reading a little more into what I'd said
than what I'd intended.

>> >> Mr. Anderson
>> >Lefty
>>
>> >Here we have an excellent example of the Common Newbie Nematode.  After
>> >contributing nothing to any discussion other than his belief that women who
>> >are raped never get pregnant, and his occasional yelps of "Attaboy, Loren!"
>> >Mr. Anderson shares with us his belief that "99% of the rest of the net"
>> >would rather not listen to Heather quite ably skewering Mr. Finkelstein for
>> >being such a completely clueless fool.
>>
>> >Seems as though your hero is getting the worst of things here, Mr.
>> >Anderson.  You might do better to quietly slink away.  If you keep jumping
>> >up and down, yelling, "Don't hurt him!  Don't hurt him!" you're bound to
>> >attract attention to yourself.

The following disclaimer was included so that Lefty would not bore us
by accusing me of the same things he's just now accused Mr. Anderson
above.  As far as I can tell, it is the only bit of evidence to support
the unwarranted accusation he made above.

>> I'm not doing any of the above, by the way.  I missed out on all the
>> really substanitive arguments due to netserver failure, and all I'm
>> hearing are trivial little echoes that do not justify anything Lefty
>> is saying--not that I have *ever* seen Lefty give *any* justification
>> for *any* of his flaming comments.

>Note that Peter seems to have confused himself with Mr. Anderson, the
>nematode in question.  Not that Mr. Nyikos isn't an invertebrate; he's
>simply a _different_ one.

Whatsamatter Lefty, are you scared to tell the net which one?  Adrienne
wasn't: she called me a miserable worm once, so ticked off was she
when I gave her a pair of titles based on a pair of heroic characters
in Gilbert & Sullivan's _The Mikado_, the Lord High Executioner and
the Lord High Everything Else.  For one thing, when the play opens,
the Lord High Executioner had not had a single person executed under him,
and despite some close calls, his record remains unblemished at the end.

>Note also that Peter continues to indulge his baffling prediliction of
>jumping into the middle of a thread which he has admittedly not read.

Well, I was hoping y'all would clue me in as to what the fireworks
was all about, but apparently Lefty cares so little about the original
charges, he considers them too trivial to be worth repeating.

>Note further that Peter seems to feel that he is entitled to some kind of
>"justification" beyond what I clearly included in the original article.  In
>this regard, I would suggest that Peter is sadly mistaken.

Hoo boy.  Lefty, I challenge you to re-post the whole article,
intact, so that people may see how "sadly mistaken" I was.

Expect me to call you spineless if you chicken out on this challenge.

>> >> I suppose flames are a constitutional right, but let's *all* try
>> >> and keep them to a minimum, ok?  (I admit to my own guilt and
>> >> agree to help)
>>
>> >I have a better idea.  Why don't you take yourself down to the nearest
>> >highway, lie down in the express lane, and work on perfecting your
>> >impression of a median divider?
>>
>> This is run-of-the-mill, all in a day's play flaming by Lefty.  The really
>> good stuff comes when he goes after Darcy, when you get to read about
>> driving stakes through the heart and that sort of thing.
>>
>> "...de l'audace, encore de l'audace, toujours de l'audace!"
>>             --Danton, almost exactly 200 years ago, cheerleading
>>               the French revolutionaries
>>
>> [Translation given at the end of the Quote of the Hour, after my "signature".
>> Against Darcy, Lefty seems to get into the same frenzy as the Jacobins
>> during the reign of terror 200 years ago.]
>>
>> >> And, ftr, I believe the term is "pom pon", not "pompom";
>> >> not that I agree to the above accusation, of course.

And, ftr, I looked up "pom pon," and it is listed as an alternate spelling
of "pom pom".  Maybe Lefty was even aware of this, accounting for the low-
burning little flame you from him see [German word order] below:

[No, Lefty, I'm not confusing myself with Mr. Anderson, just imitating
his style.]

>> >For the record, you haven't got the slightest, foggiest fuck of an idea
>> >what you're talking about.  The term is most certainly "pom pom".
>>
>> Note the escalation in the language level.  Too bad Mr. Anderson
>> did not say, "FYI, the correct spelling is `pom pon'."  Then you would
>> have seen some real fireworks from Lefty instead of this wishy-washy
>> gutter language, which is almost boring compared to his best productions.
>>
>> >Hie thee hence, Mr. Anderson.  Take that single, lonely neuron of yours
>> >with you when you go.
>>
>> This is more like it.  Keep those insults coming, Lefty.  You'd bore
>> us to tears (or maybe have us in stitches) if you ever tried posting
>> what you think of as a rational argument on abortion.

>Oh, I don't know.  You've failed to post anything remotely resembling a
>"rational argument on abortion," and you're boring us to tears _anyway_.

Ah, this is the old Lefty talking.  Accusations without anything
remotely resembling documentation.  After all, folks, he is writing
mainly for alt.flame and he can't let his insult-generating skills
atrophy through searching for the original documentation.

>For you to have the audacity (seven years of French, high school and
>college, mon ami)

Lefty posting his credentials on the net!!!!!  Where are Lyman and
Hekhuis and Bense when I need them?

Why, all this was NOT in response to a straight question (like "Oh, yeah,
well, what were your SAT scores?") nor to an accusation of ignorance
of French (as in: "You have shown yourself to be ignorant of set theory
and logic.")

TEST OF BRIAN McBEAN SOFTWARE.  PLEASE IGNORE.

Listen to Peter whine: "Waaaaah!  Waaaaaah!  I get flamed for defending
my reputation, and Lefty does not get flamed for posting his French
credentials when his knowledge of French was not an issue. Waaaaaah!"

END OF TEST.

> to mouth the phrase "rational argument on abortion" is
>ludicrous beyond words.  In the couple of months that you have been
>regaling us with your idea of "rational arguments" you have simply
>convinced me that your idea of rationality must diverge tremendously from
>mine.           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^

On this, at least, we are in agreement. :-)

>Do you still insist, without benefit of evidence, that the pro-lifers who
>bombed abortion clinics were actually pro-choice advocates trying to make
>the anti-abortion side look bad?

I never insisted on it.  I suggested it as a possibility, bringing up
the argument, "If the clinics had been torched, would you be so quick
to accuse pro-lifers of having done it?"

I did not know it at the time, but I was getting warm. :-)

[That's a reference to a game I played as a kid, looking for an object
while people are telling me, "You are getting warmer."]

From _Pro Life Answers to Pro-Choice Questions_, by Randy Alcorn:

    A Concord, California abortion clinic was burned to the ground,
    and local prolifers were blamed.  Later the truth came out that
    a pro-abortion neighbor set the fire to discredit the prolifers
    he opposed.  [At this point there is a citation to: David Moore,
    "Vandals Hit Jakobowski's Clinic," _The Life Advocate, November
    1991, pp. 16-17.]  I spoke with the police detective in charge
    of the arson investigation of an abortion clinic in our area.
    His official conclusion was that the fire was set by the abortion
    clinic owner.  Nevertheless, the fire is still blamed on
    prolifers. [pp. 199-200]

Am I getting warmer? :-)

TEST OF ERIC MARSH SOFTWARE.  PLEASE IGNORE.

Boy, you guys just lie, and lie, and lie...

END OF TEST

> Are you continuing to suggest, without
>benefit of evidence, that clinic workers are burning down their own clinics
>for the insurance settlements?  Do you continue to claim, without benefit
>of evidence, that Planned Parenthood is milking tremendous profits from the
>abortion business?

Look for a post, "Planned Non-Parenthood?  Stats."  Coming your way soon.

>Rational discourse indeed!  You should wash out your mouth with fuming
>sulphuric acid!

Way to go, Lefty.  Keep those insults coming.  Are you planning to come
out with a book of them soon?  Don't bother saying what the context was.
It wouldn't make any difference anyway.

>> Quote of the hour:
>>
>> [note the reference to posting-up in the third line :-)]

>{Proof that Peter has nothing better to do with his time than type in sixty

> lines of irrelevant French history elided}

Oh, I don't know.  I kind of liked the way Danton joined in and helped
advance the general frenzy sweeping Paris.  Good thing you are incapable
of getting others to turn your flames into a conflagration of talk.abortion.

Peter Nyikos