NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53259

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 4.9 KB | 104 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 misses the point of my :-)
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 28 Dec 92 19:53:08 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Out there off 59, somewhere...
References: <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 00:30:03 GMT
Lines: 87

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

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

   Susan, showing how she missed out on Larry Margolis speculating on whether
   I had no sense of humor when I took a statement by him that had a smiley
   on the end of it seriously:

   >Patrick, those pro-forcers sure like to threaten you.

   Here is a copy of the post to which Susan is referring, large parts of it
   still intact in the PATRICK.92Dec22 post to which she is following up.
     Anyone want to guess why she did not leave any of it in?

   ___________________________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 post_________________________

   >Of course, if he follows through on his threat, you already have
   >the evidence that his only intention is to harass you.  I'm
   >not sure if even Nyikos is that stupid - I'm inclined to
   >believe he's just blustering.

   Even if I had not put in the smiley, I'm not sure the above could be
   construed as harassment by someone who has now put up with dozens of
   posts by her in which she calls me "PHoney" without so much as a
   peep in complaint, and who has been even more consistent than Patrick
   in being "suspicious" about my netserver failures--which some might
   construe as harassment and even consider an un-smileyd version of the
   above post to be a legitimate response to that.

If you hadn't put in the :-), it wouldn't have made a bit of difference to
*me* -- I'm the one whose mailbox you were jokingly threatening to dump your
garbage into, remember?  I didn't take it seriously for one simple reason:
I assumed that even YOU aren't stupid enough to seriously consider doing
something like that.  If you did, I'd make sure a lot of people knew about
it, and quickly -- and you'd have some explaining to do to some sysadmins at
The USC.  Fortunately, though, so far I've assumed correctly.

   After all, to escape the harassment in such a hypothetical case, all
   Patrick would have to do is e-mail me the one-word message, "Uncle,"
   even before the harassment begins.  I have no such option in the face
   of "Petey Honey" "PHoney" or offers by Keith Cochran to fist me.

You know where the "n" key is?  I suggest you learn its uses, if you're so
upset by people saying less than adulatory things about you.

   But then, Susan and Patrick are the two networkers who remind me most
   of playground bullies who scream bloody murder at the first sign of
   resistance from the ones they bully.

What a hoot -- what am I forcing you to do, you little cretin?  I'd like to
see you explain *that* to anyone.  I'm 1700 kilometers away from you, you
looney-tune -- how in bloody hell can I force you to do *anything*?  (Except
stay out of my mailbox if I don't want you there, of course -- and you've
honored that request, so far, so no problems there, right?)

All I can say is -- boy, are you just cranking out the good publicity for
The USC with this stuff you're babbling about...

--PLH, no wonder no one wants to travel to Columbia...


--