NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53267

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 7.0 KB | 175 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!mcochran
From: [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Petey Ny makes a fool of himself in public. Again...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
    of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
    control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Sender: [e-mail] (netnews admin account)
Organization: None to speak of...
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 02:08:56 GMT
Lines: 160

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

[PHoneys defense of DODie and his fake quotes deleted]

>>#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:
>
You analyze it? Wonderful. This means we are no doubt in for another
long, meaningless harrange filled with lies and misrepresentations.

>>#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.
>
I notice that in your defense of DODie (the only person (?) you have
yet convinced of your credibility) you fail to note that aboce he is
lying about Patrick. He accuses Patrick falsely of threatening other
posters. By your silence, are we to assume that you condone his lying?

>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.
>
No PHoney, he's doing it because he's a gibbering sycophant.

>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.
>
DODie and PHoney. Does this strike anybody else as a match made in
net.heaven?

>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.
>
Anybody with the reading comprehension of a third grader is capable of
spotting DODies lies for themselves. I understand that this makes it
hard for you, Petey, so maybe we can start labeling them just for you.

>>## 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?
>
When dealing with idiots and liars (such as DODie, Chaney, and you),
it is simply prudent to keep archives, since it is a sure bet that
sooner or later they will be needed to prove the truth.

>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.
>
Since your newsserver is working today, may we assume that your
appology to Adrienne has been posted?
Or will your next post be "The Inability of Petey to be Honest"?

>>#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.
>
Something we can agree on. Thank anybody you want to that there aren't
more twits like DODie (and you) running lose on the net.

>>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.
>
And what qualifies you to determine that DODie is not psychotic?
Here's a clue PHoney...
That's a medical diagnosis you're making, it has nothing to do with
topology. Your credibility has reached a vanishingly small total...

>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.
>
I think we'll all accept that you are without a doubt the worlds
foremost expert on posting shit in talk.abortion.

>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:
>
Your definitions above are sadly lacking Petey.
But what can we expect from a person who calls himself Pro-Life while
at the same time supporting the efforts of a group which is directly
responsible for the deaths of children by preventing them from
receiving their transplants.

>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
>
Oh lookie! I made #1 on PHoneys list! I guess he can't get us off of
his (alledged) mind...

Now then, lets compare this list of people who find Susan credible
with the list of those who find PHoney credible.

DODie

Pretty damn short list there...

--
                  Mark Cochran          [e-mail]
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.