Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: compromise
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:59:13 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: na
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: Holtsinger refuted
Summary: PHoney will ignore this - he can't admit a mistake


Although at least two people reposted the articles in question 
and proved that Nyikos is lying, I'll do it one more time.  I
doubt that Nyikos will acknowledge his error, since he has a 
pattern of lying about people and never admitting it, but I
don't want him to think that he's fooling anyone.  Each time
that he lies about his actions, I'll repost the proof.  
Eventually, I hope, he'll quit lying.

(I'm not that hopeful.  Reverend Holtsinger's lies about the
Roe v. Wade decision have been exposed countless times, yet
Holtsinger still reposts them.  Perhaps these people are praised
for this characterless behavior by their priests, ministers, or
gurus.)

In article <nyikos.722214039@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

[text deleted, before and after this paragraph]

#You are talking gibberish. I did not remove any attributions [in fact, I
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#left in one too many; I've admitted this mistake in a number of posts].  
#You removed an attribution to Holtsinger, also
#the one to Garvin that I ought to have removed.  There was no attribution
                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#to a J. Greenfield, unless by him you mean Holtsinger, just as "Dennis
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#Hall" is a favorite moniker of Susan Garvin for Steve Chaney.

I'm reposting two excerpts from the articles in question.  First,
my original post:

In article  <BxDM9o.178.2@cs.cmu.edu>, I wrote:

#["quote" from Tushnet deleted]
#
#The following included text is from article
#<1992Aug17.131337.3354@newstand.syr.edu> written by
#greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield).  
#
#/begin included text/
#
#
#With absolutely no shame for *completely* misrepresenting quotes, Doug 
#Holtsinger writes:

Starting with the same line, here is Nyikos' reply.  Note that
he deleted the attribution.

In article <nyikos.721692137@milo.math.scarolina.edu>,
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
In <BxDM9o.178.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

##["quote" from Tushnet deleted]
#
#Typical.  She makes allegations of the unreliability of the quote, does
#not give her own quote, deletes Doug's quote.  I move that networkers
#disregard such claims as "he had made unmarked deletions" by Ms. Garvin
#until she shows where these were made and what they were [or at least
#a sample].
#
##With absolutely no shame for *completely* misrepresenting quotes, Doug 
##Holtsinger writes:	      ^^^^^^^^^^^^
#
###First I'd like to present my sources, and then I will address
###the points that you raised. My claim is that Roe v. Wade
###essentially constitutes abortion on demand throughout the term 
###of pregnancy due to the broad definition of "health" given
###by the Supreme Court. 
###
###Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton must be read together: 
#
##As I have said *several* times before, *I* have never said that the two 
##cases should not be read together.  What I said is that you cannot 
##assume that the discussion of "health" in the Doe opinion applies to the 
##"life and health" provision in Roe, regarding third-trimester abortions.
#
#As far as I can see, this unsupported allegation ["you cannot assume..."]
#by Ms. Garvin is her sole support for her word "*completely*" highlighted
#above.

Note, too, that Nyikos replies to Mr. Greenfield's text as if I
wrote it.  

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion