NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/talk/abortion/54571

Text File | 1993-01-08 | 7.4 KB | 164 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!wupost!newsfeed.rice.edu!rice!news.rice.edu!patrick
From: [e-mail] (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Patrick lies again! (was Re: Gee, they must like me a lot!)
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:02:05 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 04:47:00 GMT
Lines: 149

On Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:02:05 GMT, [e-mail] (Stephen A Chaney) said:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>
>>
>>   Gee, it seems both Chris Lyman AND PatricKKK Humphrey are spending
>>   time talking about me. And then they send me their little love notes
>>   afterwards.
>>   This, folks, is only a continuation starting from PatricKKK's
>>   re-initiation of email between the 2 of us. Remember, as he said, I
>>   only IMAGINE that pro-choicers are emailing me first. (Which proves
>>   how much of a liar he really is.)
>>
>>Okay, Mr. Wizard, riddle me this:  who sent you the mail first?  In that
>>mail, whose address was in the "cc:" field?

>I'm going to go back and look, but in the "coming from" field, it said
>in bright letters: [e-mail].

>FACT: MY MAIL GOT SOMETHING FROM _YOUR_ ACCOUNT.

>FACT.

Wow.  You figured that out without having to ask a grown-up what it meant?
I'm proud of you, Steve.  I figured you didn't have the brains or the
honesty to cop to Chris sending you mail first -- with my name in the "cc:"
field in the header.  I answered his mail, and I didn't bother to clean up
the headers -- and RMail put *your* stinking username in the "cc:" line.
That's how this whole thing started.  FACT, stupid little boy.

>Try and disprove that, Patrick. Go ahead. I have the evidence that it
>came from YOUR ACCOUNT.

Did I ever say it *didn't*?  (I've got the evidence it did, too -- after I
replied to Chris.  You want to prove I'm lying about that?  Give it your
best shot, little boy.)

>You are one hell of a stupid liar, Patrick.

Ouch.  That really stings, coming from someone who's forged articles and
assumed alternate identities.  You must have a pretty slipshod standard of
ethics out there.

>>No one's sending you anything afterwards -- you're getting it at the same
>>time as the other recipients, numbnuts.  Since you're whining about it
>>again, though, I guess this would be as good a time as any to ask a question
>>that was brought up back in November:  are you still going to "take care" of
>>me, once and for all?  Seems to me you got a little unscheduled vacation
>>from the net the last time you made that statement -- and I'm sure Dr.
>>Radimsky is still interested in seeing that you're using University
>>resources for University purposes...

>FACT: Who is sending it to me? YOU.

Very good, SteveDennis.  Now, can you tell me something I *don't* know?

>Since I am getting it from YOUR account, not Chris Lyman's, it is a fact
>that YOU are sending it TO MY ACCOUNT.

Right -- after YOU responded to MY cc:. from the first time.  Funny how you
don't want anyone to snap to that...

>FACT: YOU started emailing me again. You've denied this time and time
>again, but each time, I'm going to post your letters to show you are
>emailing me. I don't bother you, and I don't want copies of your letters
>or otherwise, in my account.

I've denied it?  Why should I deny it, when *I* have the freaking copies of
the mail I sent and replied to?  (I'm enjoying your temper tantrum, but some
adult really should explain to you an elementary concept in most mailreaders
-- if you don't want to read mail from a particular person, you can hit a
"D" on the line with their mail in the summary window, and voila!  End of
problem.   Obviously, that contains far too much common sense for you to
ever accomplish on your own -- but I'll leave you to sputter about it all
you want, since I'm not going to give you the chance to mail me your stupid
little display of your bigotry.  You'll have to post it in public, so
everyone can see what a swell guy you are.)

>And Radimsky never game me a vacation off of the net.
>I've been on alt.fan.Rush-Limbaugh, in case you haven't noticed.

Sure, Steve.  I guess that's why you vanished from posting anything in
groups I read -- including alt.fan.rush-limbaugh -- immediately after I
forwarded Dr. Radimsky a copy of your charming little threats you made at me
on Fidonet.  Of course, you're probably still insisting that Scott Roby was
severely punished, too.

>I have never ever lost USENET access, and if you think I have, then
>please post the evidence. Show us which system administrator told you
>that, and the text & date of the letter.

I don't care if you lost it or not, and you don't get to see my mail I have
from CSUS.

>Problem is, you don't have enough proof to back up your claims, to prove
>that you're not a kid using your daddy's account, much less accusing me
>of this.

You could find that out for yourself incredibly easily -- but you're too
damned cowardly to even do that much.  Blow a few bucks and pick up the
phone, if you dare.  If you want to see a picture of the person you're so
eager to slander, as well, find someone with a gopher client and try "gopher
is.rice.edu" -- and check out under the Information Systems Faces menu.
(Of course, you *will* need a viewer like xv to see it, but that's your
problem.)

>And "take care" of you, meant emailing your sysadmin to stop you from
>emailing me any further.

You bleeding buffoon -- I mailed you from a Fidonet BBS, not from Rice, with
the mail that prompted you to make that threat in the first place.
Your complaint would fall on deaf ears, because I didn't use Rice equipment
to send you mail that way.  Seeing as I know the sysop of 1:106/500 pretty
well, too, he'd be a little more likely to listen to my side of the story
than yours.  But hey, if you want to waste your time *and* show everyone
what an idiot you are -- be my guest.

>>(Being called a liar by you -- it is truly to laugh...)
>>
>>[Mail between Chris and I, with Steve's stupid "cc: [e-mail]",
>>deleted -- he obviously didn't learn anything from the last time]

>Well if you want to reprogram this node's mail system to take out that
>error in its programming, then fine with me. Just call my sysadmin and
>tell them you'll be down to fix that bug.

You mean Mr. Computer Geek himself can't figure out how to edit a header
line in mail?  Now I *know* the higher-education system in California sucks
-- big time...

>>--PLH, who sticks to one userid (and personality) at a time, thank you...

>Yup, the worst one.

You wouldn't know my personality if it hit you over the head -- not that it
would, of course.  It's staying with me in Texas.

>FACT: YOU started emailing me again.

Fact:  You're a maliciously abusive little boy.  Other fact:  Chris Lyman
was the one that sent you the mail, with *me* as the cc: entry.  I replied
to him, and sent a copy to you -- so what's your frigging point, putz?

--PLH, I pity the poor taxpayers of California, who have their money
extorted to support shenanigans like what Steve's trying to pull...

--