NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53258

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 9.0 KB | 215 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!destroyer!cs.ubc.ca!uw-beaver!newsfeed.rice.edu!rice!news.rice.edu!patrick
From: [e-mail] (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 28 Dec 92 20:15:16 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: We'll be back *next* week.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 00:20:38 GMT
Lines: 199

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:

   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:

Neither you nor Holtsmussen would know me if I was in your filthy faces, so
what gives you any call to tell me I'm a racist -- when YOU'RE the one
posting your shit (and at the orders of your lord and mentor Steve Chaney,
no less) more times in an hour than I've posted in my entire life?  You're
just jealous of *anyone* who possesses even a rudimentary set of ethics,
PHoney.

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

[deleted, of course -- but just think of all that good PR Petey Honey is
generating for his employers at The USC...]

   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:

Are you saying no one threatened me?  Idiot.  I'm the best judge of that.
You're talking right out your ass, as usual, if you think anyone is going to
fall for your lies about me.

   ____________________________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.

Substitute "Steve Chaney" instead, and I think we've got a good one to ask
of you, worm.

   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.

Well, since the newsgroup is made up of more than just the three of us, most
people *do* have the necessary brainpower to figure out that you've got
problems galore at your site, even if YOU can't accept that others can come
to their own conclusions.  What did you say your SAT scores were again?

   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.

You're about as credible as Joe Isuzu, numbnuts.

   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.

You haven't documented a single one yet, snake.  If I didn't know any
better, I'd think you were getting just the least bit obsessed with her.

   >## 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?

She was talking about YOUR fantasies, you bilge-soaked buffoon.  What did
you say your SAT scores were again?

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

Did you ever explain the reason for lying about the reason you were
"charging" her in the first place, you mendacious little twit?

   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, I can't wait to skip past it.

   >#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.

Thank "Bob" for DODie not being like *anyone*, except maybe you and your pal
Chaney -- it makes it a lot easier on the other 5,400 million of us.

   >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.

Evidence is piling up rapidly, in the meantime, that "Doctor" Peter Nyikos
of The USC is an unmitigated asshole -- and you've provided it all by
yourself.  (Remember, I said I'm not going to have to do a thing to you --
you're going to do it all to yourself, and I have but to sit back and watch.
Chaney did it, just as I predicted -- and you and DODie are next in line.)

   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.

Old proverb time -- "Never piss into the wind."  You do just that, and then
wonder why you're soaked, and blame it on everyone but the one responsible
for his situation -- you.

   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:

[stupid list deleted -- PLH]

   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.

You malign anyone with more than a single neuron by being in this newsgroup,
Doctor Giggles. I just thought I'd let you know what I felt about your
little campaign of innuendo.

--PLH, this one is gonna be *fun* when the scales get balanced...


--