NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/talk/abortion/46922

Text File | 1992-11-08 | 15.4 KB | 347 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!news.ans.net!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews!admin!news
From: [e-mail] (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Why Peter can't count (or, posting email for fun and profit) (long)
Summary: Petie - Still clueless, after all these years
Sender: [e-mail] (NNTP News Poster)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 23:10:43 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14k by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Lines: 331
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Nntp-Posting-Host: margoli.watson.ibm.com
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

Background:  I emailed Peter a copy of Chris' article that wondered if
Peter had seen the Hanson followup.  He replied, then I replied, and
this is Peter's response to that.  (Note that he asked me to post it.)
I deleted comments from the beginning relating only to Chris' article,
but everything from the first quoted line to the end is complete
[except for 25 lines quoted from _Beyond Abortion_, which aren't
relevant - this is already overly long; I flagged the deletion].

Hints for the terminally clueless:
Lines starting with:    Were written by:
+> > > >                Chris Lyman (posted)
+> >                    Peter Nyikos (mailed)
+>                      Larry Margolis (mailed)
+                       Peter Nyikos (mailed)
                        Larry Margolis (this post)
This does not apply to what Peter quoted between underscores; those are
labeled explicitly.  Now, on to the fun!

In <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
+From: [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos)
+Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
+Subject: Re: Dr. Hanson - again
+To: [e-mail] (Larry Margolis)
+Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 14:56:36 EST
+Cc: [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos), [e-mail]
+In-Reply-To: <no.id>; from "Larry Margolis" at Nov 6, 92 2:02 pm
+X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
+
+> > > >I think that it's amusing that Nyikos' news server sputters and dies
+> > > >whenever it receives an article with my name in the header and Hanson's
+> > > >name in the article.
+> >
+> > As Queen Victoria said, We are not amused.  But seriously, I don't read
+> > everything Chris posts, and I don't *even* read everything Adrienne posts,
+> > so he should not feel like I am being dishonest or something.
+>
+> Well, I think the majority of the group thinks you're being dishonest
+> (not to mention sleazy) for not apologizing to Adrienne for the
+> libelous allegations you made.
+
+Leaving aside the incorrect characterization of what I "made" [I don't

The characterization is correct using the standard definitions of
the words I used.  I've seen that you object to dictionary definitions,
so I realize that my use of them might be incorrect in the "Nyikos lexicon"
but I prefer to stick with the generally accepted definitions.

+expect you to believe me, but please at least hear me out], I appear
+to have a problem with my netserver having gone from being "deaf but
+not mute" to one of being "mute but not deaf".  I've been seeing lots
+of new things come in, and I've been posting a lot on talk.philosophy.misc
+as well as talk.abortion since November 2, when the netserver ostensibly
+came back up, but Frank O'Dwyer, who now has a "super-fast feed" hasn't
+seen any of my posts since October 30.  What's the situation at your
+place?

A mess; stuff from Interop is scattered all over, and we're getting ready
to go away again.  :-)

Oh, and BTW, I've seen some stuff posted from you since then.

+> The reason I mailed you the thread
+> was so that you'd have the opportunity to act responsibly in case you
+> really did miss all the posts pointing out your stupidity.
+
+I missed some of the ones you sent me.  But I still don't see anything
+that "points out my stupidity", as you so indelicately put it.  The closest

(Indelicately, but accurately.  Considering the untruths you've posted
about me, I see no reason to sugar-coat my words.)

+thing I can see is from Adrienne's 27 Oct 1992 posting:
+                _____________________________
+
+Yeah, and heap-big-math-professor that you are, you can't count, either.
+The number of arrows for a quote is one MORE that the number of arrows
+to the correct attribution, dimwit.  Take a good look, above.  It says
+"(NO arrow) Nyikos says:
+> (note arrow)  Something incredibly stupid."
+
+The one arrow quote matches to the no arrow attribution line.
+
+Therefore, 5-arrow "Adrienne says" does NOT line up with a 5-arrow quote.
+                _______________________________
+
[Back to Peter's note]
+
+The bizarre thing about this is that it AGREES with what I said in the
+post I am being flamed for:
+
No, the bizarre thing is that you *still* don't get it.  What Adrienne
said agrees with what you said, and yet you still got the wrong answer.
[The following piece of Peter's note is from Peter's old post]
+                        ___________________________
+
+Note that there are exactly as many >>>> up there in the reference as
+there are in the part quoted.  That is as it should be, because the
+part quoted is from a FOLLOW-UP by Don Beaver to a post of yours.
+It's always the case (don't ask me why; after seven years on the net,
+you are in a much better position to know why) that there is one MORE
+>  pointing to things in the text than there is pointing to the
+reference from which that text came from.
+
+Of course, your post had >>> where now there is >>>>, and my post where
+my alleged mis-attribution took place has >> in the same places, but
+again, all is as it should be.
+                _____________________________________-
+
[Back to Peter's note]
+
+And in Adrienne's post, which follows up to the one from which the above
+is taken, there is now >>>>>, exactly as Adrienne says, and *yet again* exactly
+as it should be.
+
+Do you agree that Adrienne and I are in agreement so far?

Absolutely - there are the same number of '>' before
"In article ... (Adrienne Regard) writes:" as there are
before the text to which you're referring.

+Now, where do we disagree?  We disagree in that Adrienne said I was
+attributing something to her which was said by Don Beaver, and this
+is not the case at all.  I think I saved all of her post in my reply,

Yes it is the case.  Recall above where Adrienne pointed out
   The number of arrows for a quote is one MORE that the number of arrows
   to the correct attribution, dimwit.
You said that you agreed with that.  Since the number of arrows is the
same, that means that "In article ... (Adrienne Regard) writes:" was
referring to something else, which was deleted from the followup.  What
Adrienne wrote would have had one *more* '>' than preceded the reference
to it.

+and now here is the whole reply, exactly as it appears in my files:
+
+                ____________________________________
+
+Date: 24 Oct 92 01:17:34 GMT
+Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
+Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
+Subject: A forgery by Adrienne Regard?!?!?!?!? (was: Stipu..)
+Distribution: world
+References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
+
+In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Adrienne Regard) writes:
+
+>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
+>>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Adrienne Regard) writes:
+>>>>After sex, even if the man has never wanted to become a parent
+>>>>and used a condom and spermicide, he has no right to make decisions
+>>>>about his "personal or family privacy."  He cannot abort the child;
+
+>Peter, get your attributions right.  I did not say the above.  Don did.
+
+>I know you have a crush on me, and can hardly post, even in your conver-
+>sations with others, without some reference to me, but please, make an
+>effort to get it *right* when you pretend to be actually quoting.
+
+>(not that it would surprise any of us that you show no interest, period,
+>in ever getting things right on the net......)
+
+I'm sorry, Adrienne.  I thought Susan Garvin was
+an AnotherAdrienneRegardWannabe.  It appears that, instead, you are an
+AnotherSusanGarvinWannabe.
+
+Chaney has charged Susan Garvin with forgery but when last I heard, he
+was still trying to complete his documentation.  I on the other hand
+have it in my files: The post to which you are following up, exactly
+as it appeared.
+
+I'm not posting it here, for fear that I may be falling into a very clever
+trap you have set for me.  I mean, your forgery, if it could be called
+that, is so transparently obvious to anyone who has been on this net
+seven weeks, let alone seven years, that you must be joking, and must
+be counting on everyone else who is not a clueless newbie know you are
+joking.
+
+I do, however, think you owe all the clueless newbies an apology.
+
+Especially since you haven't put in any smileys.  But, as I have told
+others, that is your prerogative as Lady High Everything Else of
+talk.abortion.  But, again, how is a clueless newbie supposed to
+know that?
+
+Note that there are exactly as many >>>> up there in the reference as
+there are in the part quoted.  That is as it should be, because the
+part quoted is from a FOLLOW-UP by Don Beaver to a post of yours.
+It's always the case (don't ask me why; after seven years on the net,
+you are in a much better position to know why) that there is one MORE
+>  pointing to things in the text than there is pointing to the
+reference from which that text came from.
+
+Of course, your post had >>> where now there is >>>>, and my post where
+my alleged mis-attribution took place has >> in the same places, but
+again, all is as it should be.
+
+And of course, you edited out the attributions to Beaver, and to your
+own follow-up to Beaver, otherwise no one would have been fooled.
+
+Other readers please note: way up there, you will see a reference to
+a post by Adrienne preceded by >>>>, a reference to a post by me
+preceded by >, and nothing in between.  This is due to deletions by
+adrienne, which I can document.
+
+>Adrienne Regard
+
+Peter Nyikos
+
+PS Adrienne is probably laughing her head off right now for the way
+she tricked me into doing all this typing.  But gee, when she says
+things like
+
+>(not that it would surprise any of us that you show no interest, period,
+>in ever getting things right on the net......)
+
+I really owe it to the clueless newbies to show them that these words
+were meant in jest, despite the absence of smileys.
+
+                ___________________________________
+
[End of included post; back to Peter's note]

+What you have just seen is the post for which I am being flamed. Since I
+could not believe Adrienne was actually thinking I was attributing Don
+Beaver's words to her, I thought this was another in-joke like getting
+me to post my SAT scores, which was explained to me by someone that
+ANYONE who posts his SAT scores is an object of ridicule all because
+of one person who was an object of ridicule BEFORE he posted his SAT
+scores.  So I tried to cover all bases to avoid another "flap" as I
+put it in my "Genesis" post, all to no avail, obviously.
+
+A few days ago it occurred to me that Adrienne may have been misled
+by the fact that in my post to which she was responding, I deleted
+everything with a >>> before it and neglected to ALSO delete the
+attribution line with the >> before it.  But this is something that

In other words, you deleted everything that Adrienne wrote, but you
neglected to delete her attribution line, and then got confused by
what you had done.  And you were claiming to not be a clueless newbie?

+I've been doing lots of times, and nobody ever called my attention
+to it before Adrienne did.

Perhaps you never maligned anyone because of it before.

+Here is the post whereof I speak, and whereof Adrienne spoke before me:
+
+                -----------------------------------
+Date: 17 Oct 92 01:01:09 GMT
+Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
+Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
+Subject: Re: Let's Play StipUlations..
+Distribution: world
+References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
+
+In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Adrienne Regard) writes:
+
+>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Don Beaver) writes:
+>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Adrienne Regard) writes:
+

Note that what Adrienne said would have been preceded by '>>>', but Peter
deleted it.  Note that the following was written by Don, since it has one
more '>' preceding it than the "In article ... (Don Beaver)" line.  Note
that n <> n+1.

+>>After sex, even if the man has never wanted to become a parent
+>>and used a condom and spermicide, he has no right to make decisions
+>>about his "personal or family privacy."  He cannot abort the child;
+
+Actually, he can, if he is strong enough.
+
+>From _Beyond Abortion_, by Suzanne Rini, p. 117:

[The quote deleted.  LAM]

+>Since a woman's right to terminate pregnancy is based upon the fact that
+>a pregnancy resides within her body,
+
+Newspeak.  A pregnancy is a property of the woman's body ("a pregnant
+woman") and not something contained in the body.
+
+What was it Holtsinger said about pro-choicers reducing women to
+containers?
+
+>Adrienne regard
+
+Peter Nyikos
+                        *****************************

[End of included post; back to Peter's note.]

+Note, BTW, that there is a little glitch in the above post: at the
+beginning of the line referencing Suzanne Rini and her book, there
+is a >  where there should be nothing at all.  Had Adrienne complained
+about *this*, attributing the reference to *her* when it was *I* who
+made it, I would immediately have seen the correctness of her point
+and apologized for not deleting the >.
+
+As it is, I am dumfounded.

Too bad you weren't rendered unable to speak because of lack of understanding
*before* you displayed that lack of understanding to the world, and made
libelous allegations about Adrienne.  [Note that I'm not referring to
your demonstrating your inability to count '>' as being libelous, but
to your accusations of forgery.]

+If you can figure out what is going on here, I'd appreciate it if you
+could post this letter of mine for me, along with your own interpretation.
+
+I'd post something myself, but the system is going down in 10 minutes
+for routine maintenance, and it is all I can do to get this letter
+out to you.  I'll address the other points you raise on Monday.
+
+Sincerely,
+
+Peter Nyikos

Hopefully, this is starting to sink in.  Should you still have problems,
try looking at a few other posts.  Note that the number of '>' before
the attribution line (the line saying "In article <message_id> someone writes:")
is always one less than that number of '>' before the text written by that
person in the referenced article.  Now, go back to the original article
you saved.  Count the number of '>' before the paragraph starting with
"After sex,".  Next, find the attribution line with one *less* '>' before
it.  Note who wrote those words.

For extra credit:  Remove your foot from your mouth, and write an apology.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), [e-mail] (Internet)