From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: STEVE wants it both ways:
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:10:05 GMT

In <1992Nov13.144410.3617@athena.mit.edu> purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon) writes:

>In article <nyikos.721597128@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>Note to people "playing attributions": before I deleted some of
>>the attributions up there, there was one with five >'s up there,
>>while the max below was also five.  So if I am to be hanged on not

>With one dubious exception (the exception is dubious because it was
>claimed by the woman whose name my cats cry out when they cough up
>hairballs) in five years of posting I have never had a problem with
>attributions.  An examination of the attributed posting is generally
>enough to sort things out, and the defacto standard imposed by what
>appears to the most frequently used posting software seems
>straightforward enough.  As further evidence of this contention,
>thousands of postings containing attributions are made on a daily
>basis and received without objections.

>So why can't you get it right?

By "you", you are probably referring to Susan Garvin, who claimed that
I deleted an attribution, when in reality, I left one too many in:

From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: compromise
Keywords: Holtsinger refuted
Date: 14 Nov 92 04:56:44 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: na
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


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.  

I guess he'll be accusing me of forgery now.

Susan

Actually, I'm not sure what to accuse her of.  Maybe "sheer orneriness"
is the most appropriate charge.  Most of the time I *was* replying to
her, BTW.  The only other person involved was Holtsinger, and I did not
have anything to say to him.

To see why she is wrong, I'd have to repost my whole post, because it
is the *absence* of anything with a >## in the text that is at issue.
But I'd rather hold off on that, because the post, as Susan says
[one of the few true things she says] is a long one, though not nearly
as long as the 500+ line post of Susan's to which it is following up.

But here is the beginning, anyway:

From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: compromise
Keywords: Holtsinger refuted
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: 13 Nov 92 22:02:17 GMT

In <BxDM9o.178.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <1992Nov8.010123.18892@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>#In article <Bx9n9K.Mu2.2@cs.cmu.edu> 
>#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>I didn't address Reverend Holtsinger's quotes because I haven't
>had time to go check them to see just what he altered.  Holtsinger
>has shown time and time again that he is incapable of accurately
>reproducing other people's words.  

Garvin, on the other hand, seems to be incapable of summarizing
what other people wrote, such as my post MENSTRUAL EXTRACTION AND THE
5-WEEK LIMIT.

>Since he is also incapable of understanding the meaning of "on
>demand,"

He is incapable of agreeing with Garvin's understanding of these words.
Not the same thing at all.
 
[Rest of post deleted.] 

Peter Ny.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism