NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53608

Text File | 1992-12-30 | 5.7 KB | 113 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: Patrick's ideas of what makes right (Was: Bare-Fased [sic])
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 30 Dec 92 18:14:32 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: West of S. Main, south of Sunset
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:49:33 GMT
Lines: 96


[Note to the readers:  the following lines prefaced with a single # are the
ones in the post that Petey Honey is replying to.  Since my configuration of
Gnus doesn't insert a character to indicate quoting, the way PHoney presents
his reply is confusing as to just who said what -- thus, the # to indicate
what I said that's making him jitter so...PLH]

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

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

 >In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:

 >  In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
 >  >
 >  >I'll happily stand on my net reputation for lying versus yours.

 >  I'll happily stand the validity of most "net reputations" against truth
 >  anytime.

 #...at least, until the reputation approaches the truth a little too closely.

 >If there didn't exist people like our dear TSAKC who spend virtually all of
 >their posting time trying to fabricate people's "net reputations", then maybe
 >"net reputations" would be a useful yardstick, Stephen. But with all the
 >context-cutting, misdirection, obfuscation, and outright LYING that these
 >folks do, do you really think that the resulting "net reputations" are worth
 >a damn? They are tainted by the obvious vendettas of the people that create
 >and sculpt them.

 # In other words, they're no good because YOU didn't create them -- classic
 # "do as I say, not as I do", it looks like to me.  At least you're
 # consistent, kebbin.  :-)

   Heh heh heh.  Formula for a PLH rebuttal: no matter what your opponent
   says, claim it's only because HE says it.  Well, the truth in this case
   is otherwise.  Ask Siren if you can.  You can't?  Why not?  is her
   address still a mystery to the net?  Why?  Your old nemesis, Chaney,
   once said she was flamed off the net by the politically correct
   pro-choicers.  [He did not use the words "politically correct."  That's
   my embellishment, to distinguish between the likes of Keegan on the
   one hand and a small handful like Elizabeth Bartley and Will Steeves
   on the other.]

Cute, PHoney.  Make claims about something that happened long before you
showed up on Usenet, and which you STILL don't know anything about, it would
seem.  I can't ask Siren (at least, I can't ask the one who Chaney was
pissing in his pants about) for one simple reason -- she's dead, you idiot.
Never mind such little details as that, or the fact that she posted
something that proved that Chaney was nothing more than the malicious little
asshole he enjoys being on the net.

 #--PLH, people that think two wrongs make a right -- enjoy their antics while
 #they're around...

   So, if PLH does not belong to this group, why did he insist on Chaney
   coming to his place to collect his apology?  Apparently he thinks Chaney's
   wrongs toward him and his insistence do make a right as far as he is
   concerned.  To top it off, he is ready to add another wrong: if Chaney
   comes to see him in the wrong place (no hint as to what the right place
   is) PatricKK will see to it that the appropriate police escort him away.

Why am I reminded of a certain former student up the road from you in
Raleigh who believed he could read minds, too?  So what are you going to do
about it, Nyikos?  I'm waiting, because I know it'll generate another
heaping of good publicity for your institution, I'm sure.

   Perhaps PatricKK thinks his wrongs, whatever their number, all make
   right--or, to put it in more traditional terms, might makes right.
   [See my follow-ups to Garvin on how much mightier the regular politically
   correct pro-choicers are than the regular pro-lifers--Suzanne and I, with
   Doug as an honorary member, now that Chaney appears to be on extended
   vacation.]

Sorry, Phoney Petey.  We don't read your every word, because you haven't had
anything new to say in a long time -- you're just parroting the same
stupidity you have ever since you "stumbled" in here.  Regardless of that,
you're funny as hell if you think you have any idea of what I think about
*anything*.  You wouldn't know me if I was standing right in front of you,
you dickless wonder -- so what makes you think you know more about me than
people I deal with in person on a daily basis?

Now -- when are you going to apologize to me for the libel that you're
repeating on orders from your mentor Steve Chaney?  (First you say you have
his permission to post the noisome bullshit, then you say you don't know
what's happened to him -- can't you keep your lie straighter than that?)
You have my salutations for your efforts to prove my statement true --
you're going to do yourself in on Usenet, and you're going to do it all by
yourself.  All I have to do is watch.  So shut your mouth, already, and get
on with the show, eh?

--PLH, I'm not going to say some adolescent borrowed my terminal...this is
*me* talking at you.

--