NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53240

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 7.1 KB | 182 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!emory!gatech!udel!news.udel.edu!darwin.sura.net!opusc!usceast!nyikos
From: [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
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]>
Date: 28 Dec 92 20:15:16 GMT
Lines: 170

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

...showing absolutely *no* shame about quoting things out of context:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>(Doug "get yer fat black ass down here" Holtsinger) writes:
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That was an attempt by Holtsinger to quote Humphrey, to illustrate what
racist tendencies this redneck has.  The correct quote is as follows:

______________Excerpt from Chaney's "Boyz n the KKK Hood" .sig __________

             / ---   ---  \
            /  [ ]   [ ]   \
           /                \
          /                  \
         /      --------      \
        /       |      |       \
       /        --------        \
      /                          \
     /                            \
/--------------------------------------\
|      |Come on, Steve.  Let's  |      |
|      |see just how much of a  |      |
|      |boy you are.  March     |      |
|      |your fat black ass down |      |
|      |here and tell me I'm a  |      |
|      |liar, to my face.       |      |
|      |  - PatricKKK Humphrey  |      |

=============================================================================

For Susan, a net.bosom.buddy of the man Steve Chaney calls "PatricKKK"
to refer to "the Reverend" in the above way, illustrates the depths of
hypocrisy to which she has sunk.

>#In article <[e-mail]>
>#[e-mail] (Susan Garvin) writes:
>#
>## Patrick, those pro-forcers sure like to threaten you.
>#
>#Nobody threatened Humphrey, Ms. Garvin.

>Yes, they did, DODie.  I know that you can't help lying, but I
>don't see any reason to encourage you in your illness.

Doug is not lying.  See my post of a few minutes ago on this same
thread, "Susan misses the point of my :-)", where I analyze the
post to which Susan and Doug are referring here:

____________________________Copy of post______________________________

Date: 23 Dec 92 23:01:53 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Nyikos and the one bad apple theory of forced pregnancy.
Distribution: na
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>     <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Susan Garvin) writes:

>   I'm just curious - how many people believe Nyikos' claims about
>   Dr. Tiller?

>I suspect it'll be nigh unto the same number who have a news server that
>picks the oddest times to misbehave...:-)

OK, Patrick, you're asking for it: I will keep you informed, via e-mail,
of each and every time my netserver misbehaves, and when it ceases
misbehaving, until you e-mail me the one-word message, "Uncle" :-)

PJN, glad he isn't as suspicious of other people as PLH.

____________________________End of copy_____________________________

>#Humphrey is a
>#big boy now, I'm sure he can handle Mr. Nyikos' humorous
>#suggestions.  Humphrey sure isn't afraid to threaten other
>#posters, so if he does feels threatened, I'm sure he'll
>#lash out incoherently like he's done on other occasions.

>Does Nyikos give you a biscuit when you lie for him, or
>are you doimg it for the sheer thrill?

Substitute "Patrick" for "Nyikos" and you have a good question to
ask Susan Garvin.

Doug is doing this partly because my newsreader often malfunctions,
although you'd never believe it malfunctions if you only followed
the posts of Garvin, Humphrey, and Mark Cochran.

Even though Doug conforms to pro-choice definition (2) in my
proposed FAQ definition--not supporting legislation restricting
women's pre-viability abortions--he found out almost from the word
go that I am vastly more credible than Garvin--not that it is hard
to be vastly more credible than Garvin.

And BTW, I have yet to see Garvin document a single lie by Holtsinger.
I on the other hand can document lots of falsehoods by Garvin.  See
the series "The Mendacity of Suasan Garvin", Part 2 of which
was posted today.

>## Of course, if he follows through on his threat, you already have
>## the evidence that his only intention is to harass you.
>#
>#Oh, so now we're collecting evidence?

>I have no idea what you're doing now, Reverend.  Please exclude
>me from your fantasies.

Fantasies of you doing what, Susan?  Collecting evidence?  Are you
saying that you never collect evidence on anyone?  Then where did
you get those copies of the Chaney posts that you used to refute
his accusations of your forgery?

Did you ever explain the reason for the extra # in your first attempt
at refuting the charge?

If you don't know what I mean, see "The Mendacity of Susan Garvin, Part 3"
which I will post immediately after exiting this follow-up.

>#Gee, that kind of
>#reminds me of someone we used to know.... The similarities
>#keep growing...

>No, DODie, I'm not like you at all.

Thank GOiD, or whomever, for Doug not being like Susan.

>See your therapist.  Don't worry that it's a holiday - many
>people have psychotic breaks this time of year.  Your therapist
>is not doubt used to emergency appointments.  Some medication
>will probably help you through this period - at the very least,
>you'll quit making those funny sounds as you pace.

Doug is not a psychotic.  On the other hand, this "Mendacity" series is
slowly accumulating evidence that Susan *may* be a sociopath.

Peter Nyikos

PS  I am not making all these anti-Garvin posts today because I have a
fixation on her, but because:

1.  She throws so much shit in talk.abortion, I'm afraid a good fraction
of it sticks every day.

2.  Since she is at least one of {pro-choice, pro-abortion, pro-abortionist}
it will take a mountain of evidence to get a majority of regulars in this
newsgroup to take charges of her mendacity at all seriously, while a tiny
smidgin of evidence from her, or even her "good-as-her-bond" word appears
enough to satisfy:

Mark Cochran   Keith Cochran   Patrick Humphrey  Dean Kaflowitz
Steve Novak   Steven Mezias  J H Woodyatt  Jim Keegan   Brian Kauffman
Dan King   Mark Ira Kauffman   drieux   Larry Margolis   Chris Lyman
Ron Bense   Lefty   Gordon Storga ...

not to mention:

Adrienne Regard   Sarah McCabe  Muriel Nelson   Kathi Mills  Heather
rocker    Teddi  Linda Birmingham

Have I left anyone out?  More importantly, have I maligned anyone
unjustly?  My apologies to anyone who does not belong on one of the
two lists above.

Peter Nyikos