From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Apology for insults
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Jan 93 15:08:56 GMT

In <jhh3byn@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>In <9ha3=ab@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>>>In <am023-d@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>>>You are an idiot, "Nyikos".

>>On the same basis on which Susan Garvin referred to Holtsinger as 

>>Doug "yer fat black ass" Holtsinger,

>>I could call you  "You are an idiot" rocker.

>Sure you could.  Knock your wee little self out.  I certainly would never
>ask for an apology, because I simply don't care enough about what you
>say.

Really?  Then someone is using your address to e-mail me things. I think
you should look into this: someone sent me a message asking me to stop
glorifying the KKK by posting Chaney's .sig.  Documentation on request
but only to "rocker". [Best to e-mail me.]

Legal/ethical question: if I provide the documentation to rocker, and
she denies receiving it, and I provide it again with cc to Beth Bartley,
and she thinks all this is too trivial to be worth acknowledging, do
I have a right to post the documentation here?

Or am I being anal-retentive by even bringing this matter up, Chris Lyman?
Should I have just ignored rocker's insincere dig at me?  

>>>I said this after the ruckus about Patrick's original remark, and I'll
>>>say it again.  Apologies for offensive statements are between the
>>>offender and offendee.  You may demand an apology for yourself if
>>>you were offended by the remark, you don't demand apologies for
>>>someone else.

>>And I do recall several pro-choicers, including Galen Hekhuis (after
>>checking to see which way the wind blew) telling he should apologize
>>for his "your fat black ass" remark to Chaney.  Unless you have really
>>fine-tuned your definition of the word "demand", you are in the unenviable
>>position of implying that a bunch of your fellow pro-choicers are "idiots":

>Oh please, "Nyikos", take a course in reading comprehension.

It is you who seem to need one.  Nothing you say below contradicts what I said
above.  If you dispute this, please explain how my saying "I am more 
certain than ever that you owe Chaney an apology" is a DEMAND, while
the statements described below do not.  And when doing it, please
take note of the words "fine-tuned" above.  If you just give us a lot
of fine-tuning, you are wasting bandwidth.

>  And do
>brush up a bit on your t.a history.  I posted these EXACT sentiments
>during the ORIGINAL ruckus, and I made no distinction on the basis of
>philosophy.  I castigated pro-choice and pro-"life" alike for
>demanding apologies from Patrick AFTER he had already apologized to
>the group at large.

But he pointedly avoided apologizing to Chaney, even though he admitted
that Chaney deserved it most of anybody.  He said Chaney would have
to go to see him in person to collect the apology "on a silver platter"
and now it turns out that he would have had some law enforcement official
take him away if he came to collect it.

Some silver platter.

>As for the "idiot" bit, you have exhibited a whole spectrum of 
>behaviors that led me to that conclusion about you.  I don't call you
>an idiot based solely on your tiresome and unwarranted demands for
>apologies, Miss Net.Manners.  So there is, in fact, NO implied 
>insult in a position that I hold in regard to public apologies.

Can you exhibit one of the behaviors you allege I exhibited?  Anyone
can make claims like these against anyone; the trick is to back them
up.  As I am attempting to back up the claim that either (1) you care
about what I say, to the point of e-mailing me or (2) your e-mail was
insincere or (3) someone is using your e-mail to send asinine accusations
to me.

Go ahead and call me anal-retentive, Chris.  And tell me: when you
addressed me with the words, "Yo! Shit-fer-brains," were you being
anal-retentive, or maybe suffering from diarrhea of the mouth?

>>>You are an idiot, "Nyikos".

>>Susan Garvin called Doug that, and me "PHoney `KKK' Nyikos" on the curious
>>grounds that we used these terms more often than anyone else.  This is
>>debatable in my case because Elizabeth Bartley began a whole thread titled
>>"KKKaldis Alert".  At any rate, by this same criterion, it is arguable that
>>you are

>Is there any semantic content in the above paragraph?

Let Beth Bartley be the judge of that.

>>"You are an idiot" rocker.

>Call me anything your little heart desires, "Nyikos".

I call you a coward for not backing up your claim that Chaney 
initiated sexual innuendo with you prior to your saying
"OOh little Chaney, I think you've had something `straight' for
me..."

...after I said to Scott Safier, who continued your sexual
innuendo, "Chaney did not initiate this line of talk. rocker did"

and you said, "This statement is not correct,"

and used this Holtsingerese comment as a basis for launching a 
powerful verbal barrage against me, a barrage which would have
been meaningless had you acknowledged my statement as correct.

It would have been as meaningless as your long paragraph about
hacking, had you meant it to apply to me.  You see, rocker, I couldn't
hack if my life depended on it: I never took a course in computer
science, and to this day I have to follow instructions to the letter
just to use a computer for anything.

Peter Nyikos

PS  Why do you keep putting my last name in quotes?  Better I should
call you "rocker" rather than  rocker.



Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57285 talk.politics.misc:69123 talk.religion.misc:27218 misc.legal:23081