From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: More Bare-Fased Lies from TSAKC:
Organization: TSAKC Local 313-662 :-)
	<PATRICK.92Dec27145820@blanco.is.rice.edu>
	<1993Jan25.010853.27528@rotag.mi.org>
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:48:59 GMT

On Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:08:53 GMT, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) said:

>In article <PATRICK.92Dec27145820@blanco.is.rice.edu> patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec27.183725.7011@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>
>> In article <1992Dec26.222823.13078@rotag.mi.org> 
>> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>>
>>>> I'll happily stand on my net reputation for lying versus yours.  
>>
>>> I'll happily stand the validity of most "net reputations" against truth
>>> anytime.
>>>
>>> If there didn't exist people like our dear TSAKC who spend virtually all of
>>> their posting time trying to fabricate people's "net reputations", then 
>>> maybe "net reputations" would be a useful yardstick, Stephen. But with all 
>>> the context-cutting, misdirection, obfuscation, and outright LYING that 
>>> these folks do, do you really think that the resulting "net reputations" 
>>> are worth a damn? They are tainted by the obvious vendettas of the people 
>>> that create and sculpt them.
>>
>>   Does "TSAKC" do anything besides fabricating "net reputations"?
>>   I haven't really seen any pro-choice arguments from them,  
>>   with perhaps the exception of Galen Hekhuis.  Most of the
>>   others, like Susan Garvin, James Keegan, and Patrick Humphrey,
>>   seem to spend all their time attacking other people. Perhaps
>>   those are the "entrance requirements" into TSAKC -- you must
>>   spend a majority of your time fabricating "net reputations". 
>>   Hey Galen Hekhuis, you better get busy, or else you might 
>>   get kicked out!!
>>
>>We don't fabricate net reputations, or anything else.  Folks like you and
>>Darcy, and Suzanne, and Phil Sevilla (remember him?), and Kevin Welch, and
>>Steve Chaney, and your former classmate DJR, ...

>Nice little attempt at guilt-by-association there, eh, Humpty? I don't have
>anything in common with those folks except TSAKC's vendettas against us.

Nice little attempt at fabrication, there, kebbin.  I can't help it if you're
one of the t.a legends who earned his reputation, part of which you just
illustrated -- "vendettas"?  If daring to question your "wisdom" makes for a
vendetta, then most of the world is in on this one.  Deal with it yourself,
pink boy. 

>>...managed to pretty well earn the reputations they got on Usenet.  

>Oh, really? I assume you dragged each netter individually into a "clean room",
>isolated from all other netters, and exposed them to all of my posts, stripped
>clean of everyone else's comments, eh? And that's how they came to their 
>negative opinions? How else can you defensibly imply that netters' opinions 
>have been shaped purely by what I myself have written on the Net? The notion 
>is completely absurd. The only way you can make such a statement with any
>credibility is for your hands to be ABSOLUTELY clean of any opinion-
>tainting. Your hands aren't clean of that, Humpty. As a matter of fact,
>they're filthy from it...

Do you have a point in this rant?  After all, you went to the trouble to invent
the idea that I'm somehow implying that you're responsible for the reputations
of other participants in t.a -- which just goes to show how well you've earned
yours.  After all, you're screaming at me for something that exists only in 
YOUR imagination...

--PLH, if I participated in such a thing as a vendetta, Kevin wouldn't be worth
wasting my time on.

--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism