Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: compromise
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 00:58:23 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: almost

In article <nyikos.722267650@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#In <BxowEK.Kpp.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
##That was, well, amazing.  In a burst of selective editing, Petey
##Honey deleted a reference line and spent hundreds of lines 
##replying to someone else as if he were me.  
#
#It could be you are right about everything except the "selective" part.
#It was a 500+ line post of yours I was following up to, and I may well
#have deleted a reference line somewhere in the middle of the post.
#But if so, it was because I overlooked it, not because I selectively
#deleted it.  

That's right, Nyikos, you just accidentally deleted three lines
of text that indicated the included article and no lines immediately
above or below them.  

Do you really find it that hard to say "I deleted the reference lines"?
You've seen the proof that you did.  Hell, you've posted the proof
that you did.  I guess you really are incapable of admitting
your error.

#Note to all readers:  In an earlier follow-up to this same short post
#of Susan's, I carelessly assumed "reference line" referred to an
#attribution line preceding the text of the article.  My mistake there
#was just the opposite: I left in an extra attribution line, and I thought
#that was what was confusing Susan, just as Adrienne was "confused" (or
#at least may have thought some newbies might be confused) when I did
#the same thing in following up to a post of hers.

No, no one was confused by your selective editing.  We all
recognized it for what it was.  Why are you lying about
Adrienne?

#Anyway, my apologies to Susan and whoever else [including myself :-) ]
#who was confused by the missing reference line.  I honestly thought
#I was talking about words due to Susan.

You're apologizing to yourself, Nyikos, since you were the only one
who was confused by your deletion.  I note that you still are
not capable of apologizing for your error.

It's refreshing, though, that you are willing to admit that you
did not read what I wrote in the article.  I stated quite clearly
that I was including someone else's article.  You quoted
my statement to that effect in your reply.  

#BTW I am curious to know whether Susan endorses the words I mistakenly
#attributed to her.  They sounded quite in character with the other
#things she has written.

That's nice - you can stay curious.  I've already been through
this discussion with DODie.  I'm not at all interested in repeating
it for your benifit.  Perhaps you could pay someone to do it for
you.

##I guess he'll be accusing me of forgery now.
#
#No, Susan.  Unlike Chaney, I am very careful about how I word my 
#accusations.  I guess I overestimated the ability of people to
#draw fine distinctions, though, and I guess some were confused
#by *me* into thinking I had accused Adrienne of forgery.  To such
#networkers, as distinct from those who were confused by *Adrienne*,
#I apologize for the confusion.

I think that you look quite foolish talking about other
peoples' ability to draw fine distinctions when you have
just admitted that you either don't read or can't understand
the posts to which you reply.  Everyone in t.a. saw your
false accusation of Adrienne, and everyone here knows that
you're still refusing to apologize for it.  Lying about
it now won't help.

#Peter Nyikos  (Menu for today: crow and humble pie)

But only in t.a., right, Nyikos?  You wouldn't want to apologize
in all the groups in which you made your original statements,
now, would you?

Susan