From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Nyikos, Apologies and Humble Pie
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:54:37 GMT

nyikos@milo.math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

> Have you eaten any crow, or humble pie, ever?  Someone once told me 
> it was nourishing.  If you could post just one example, it would do
> wonders for your credibility where I am concerned.

I'm not responding to this because I believe that my credibility needs
redeeming.  I'm answering because, in the context of your other articles
that appeared on my screen today, there's an interesting point to be made.

Yes, Peter, I have eaten crow and humble pie in this forum.  Last spring,
I saw an article from Michael Moore describing the Catholic Church's
position wrt abortions.  According to Mr. Moore, even abortions to save
the life of the mother are sins and should be proscribed.  Now I hadn't
seen any of Mr. Moore's articles before, and his article seemed to indicate
that he supported that position.  Needless to say, I went ballistic and
flamed him with the sharpest language I could muster, letting him know in
no uncertain terms that I would do all in my power to thwart a philosophy
so hostile to my wife, my daughter and other women in my life.

Later that day, I read subsequent posts from Mr. Moore, where he revealed
that not only did he _not_ support the Catholic Church's position, he had
left the Church and was indeed a pro-choicer!  I wasted no time writing
an article apologizing to Mr. Moore.  I posted it under the title, "Apology
to Michael Moore," and emailed him a copy to make sure he saw it.  He
never acknowledged the apology, but that's his perogative.  I also included
all other t.a readers in my apology; I was sure many of them were
disappointed by my lack of forbearance.

Now, let's put this in context.

From another article, Peter and I have the following exchange:

>> Pot, kettle, black, Perfesser.  I didn't read all of your 75 freaking
>> articles, but of the ones I did read, most of the content dealt with
>> your inability to understand and get along with other t.a participants.

> I understand them all too well.  Hence their inability to get along with me.

>> Btw, your apology to Ms. Regard is long overdue.

> I don't apologize for things I don't do.


Perhaps you should reconsider.

Did you not write the following Subject: line ?

*** Subject: A forgery by Adrienne Regard?!?!?!?!? (was: Stipu..)

And did you not write the following?

*** 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.

Now before you get all huffy about pulling quotes out of context, remember
that James Keegan reposted the entire article today, so it's quite easy
for other readers to see what happened.


From another article of yours today:

> I do not apologize for things I have not done.  The reason Susan Garvin
> and Keegan are so insistent that I apologize is that they can then say
> forevermore that I admitted to libeling Adrienne.

How do you know?  They're saying that you libeled Adrienne right now, and
they are right.  Is that so much preferable?

> That goes for you, too, Adrienne.  You weren't born yesterday,
> and neither was I.

> Having once been burned by the old SAT trap, I am not about to
> fall into an infinitely worse one.

I have been participating here for well over a year now, and I haven't
seen anybody's sincere apology treated with the kind of scorn you seem
to anticipate.

> Actually, I am so naive that I only figured this out a month after
> all these bandwidth-wasting repetitions were going full blast.  What
> saved me from the trap was my basic sense of honesty and fair play.
> I know I am innocent of charging Adrienne with forgery.  I *am*
> guilty of having suggested the possibility that Adrienne was guilty
> of it.  But that is all.

From what we've seen you post in the past, "suggesting the possiblity"
IS accusing.  It is what you do, Nyikos, and it's a prime reason why
hardly anyone believes you.

-- 
Chris Lyman   /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /   Disclaimer:  I said WHAT?
    "If you wants to get elected president, you'se got to think up some
     memoraboble homily so's school kids can be pestered into memorizin'
     it, even if they don't know what it means." -- Walt Kelly, "Pogo"