From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  6 Oct 92 16:59:56 GMT

In <1992Oct2.085720.25866@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

><nyikos.717897446@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>><usglkrx.717686544@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman) :
>>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>><1992Sep25.211600.23804@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) :
>>>>><1992Sep18.233054.14674@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
>>>>>>From article by iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski):
>>>>>>> In article mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>>>>>>> >In nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>>>>> >    <...> the fact that Suzanne
>>>>>>> >used the word "crucified" to refer to the justifiable tongue-lashing
>>>>>>> >Christ gave those who debased His temple trivializes the agony and
>>>>>>> >suffering He underwent in His death and spiritual separation from His
>>>>>>> >Father.
>>
>>I've already followed up to this post, but since then I realized that
>>there are many layers of deception that I haven't addressed before.

>Starting with Suzanne and yourself.

I'm not even handing you any rope, yet you seem determined to hang
yourself.

>>1. The original statement of M. Price, which Storga cunningly deleted,

>I would prefer to be called a cunning linguist that a cunning deletist.
>If you don't get the joke I suggest you grab a dictionary and start
>looking just before 'cunning'.

I get it, and it all fits in with what I have learned about you.

>>had to do with the "white hot flashes" of Jesus, with the comment,

>If I did delete a portion of Price's post it was not with any malice or
>misrepresentation intended.

If you believe that, you are an even sicker man than I thought.
See excerpt from post below.

>  I don't recall seeing any portion having to
>do with 'hot flashes of Jesus' (was he experiencing menopause?).

Sorry, it was rages:

[From an exchange with Susan Garvin.]
>##In article <nyikos.715655719@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>###In <1992Sep3.213620.21098@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>####
>####In <1992Sep3.201731.13010@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>###
>#####From article <1992Aug26.061545.18227@s1.gov#, by lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich):
>###### 	Well, to be fair, even Jesus Christ was known for white-hot
>###### rages, or so his biographers depict. Consider what those poor Scribes
>###### and Pharisees suffered.
>###
>#####Oh, yeah, He really crucified them.
>###
>####     I am disgusted. I find this lighthearted treatment of the Savior's
>####agony on the cross appalling and blassphemous. I demand an apology!
>###
>###You don't fool me for one second, M. Price.  I wonder if anyone doesn't
>###see you are being sarcastic.

>>"Think of those poor Scribes and Pharisees, how they must have suffered."
>>[This I did comment on before, along with the fact that Suzanne's 
>>rejoinder, directed at M. Price and NOT Jesus, was "Yeah, he really
>>crucified them," putting the "suffering" of the Scribes and Pharisees 
>>into perspective.]

>Really, a very poor joke on her part, and one we know offended at least
>one Christian.

So please reveal for us who this Christian is, and don't say it was 
Lori's aunt, because she did not see the context, which was missing
from what she saw:
			_____________
|>>>> > M. Price
|>> Storga, before Lori's aunt saw what was going on
|> Nyikos

|>>>> >    <...> the fact that Suzanne
|>>>> >used the word "crucified" to refer to the justifiable tongue-lashing
|>>>> >Christ gave those who debased His temple trivializes the agony and
|>>>> >suffering He underwent in His death and spiritual separation from His
|>>>> >Father.

|>>Suzanne seems to ignore the castigation of other Christians who take her
|>>to task for trivializing their god's contributions.  I notice she doesn't
|>>apologize for it.

|>Get with it, Gordon!  Don't you see how Ivan has exposed M. Price's 
|>"castigation" for the hoax that it is? 
			________________________

>[note: I'm deleting portions of this post because Peter tends to ramble on
>about things that have little to do with the topic at hand]

Unfortunately, some of your other deletions do not have this innocence.

>...
>>3. This same Gordon Storga has brought trumped-up charges to bear on
>>Suzanne which I have begun to address in posts.  

>And you've done a piss poor job of it too.  Strange how Suzanne isn't even
>commenting on these things that get your knickers riding so high.

You just keep feeding yourself that rope, don't you Gordon?  It will
take a while, but in the end your mendacity will become obvious to
even the most dense person following what is going on.  Of course,
I don't expect more than a few pro-choicers on talk.abortion to
publicly ADMIT to seeing it.  

>-------- portion of Peter's post rebuking my statements about Suzanne ---
>>People keep telling me of all kinds of horrible things Suzanne has
>>posted in the past.  I haven't seen any that would even remotely
>>justify the above statements, and I am calling your bluff: if you have
>>any evidence Suzanne said these things, please produce them.
>------ end portion ----

>I posted evidence, Peter.  That you don't find the evidence compelling is
>*your* problem, not mine.

True to form, you deleted "the above statements":

|>>>> Suzanne
|> Storga

|>>>> Beware lest somebody come along and second guess the "quality" of _your_
|>>>> lifestyle, Brian, and hence whether _your_ life is "worth living".

|>You've alreadyt done this to a degree.  You've already decided that 
|>anyone living without your religious views is not living a "quality" life.
|>You'd even like to legislate things so they have to live your views.  In
|>fact, your entire religious viewpoint is that those people who don't live
|>a certain "quality" of life will be *rightfully* killed.

The evidence was a totally ambiguous exchange between Eric Marsh and
Suzanne, which Suzanne (with Darcy's help) clarified.  All the other
200 or so lines you posted had nothing to do with it.

>----- more of Peter's post -----
>>And if you can't produce anything, then as far as I'm concerned about
>>your further charge of hypocrisy:
>>
>>Storga : velcro : : Forgach : teflon
>------ end portion ----

>Note the mature closing argument ("Neiner, neiner!").  But I've produced
>a dozen or so statements by Suzanne that support my previous posts.
>Peter has apparently changed his demand from "produce anything" to
>"produce something that I can't possibly twist so that Suzanne comes
>off looking like she was just kidding".

I don't think you realize how much velcro you are wearing.
(Metaphorically speaking, of course.)

>>More about velcro, Storga, and hypocrisy in the next three lines:

>Ok...

>[I, Gordon, wrote this for those of you who aren't keeping score]:
>>>>>Suzanne seems to ignore the castigation of other Christians who take her
>>>>>to task for trivializing their god's contributions.  I notice she doesn't
>>>>>apologize for it.

>I don't see any mention of velcro in these lines.  I see that I mention
>Suzanne apparently ignoring other Christians concerns about her
>use of certain terms.  This in itself seems rather un-Christian of her,
>and it's compounded by her apparent refusal to apologize to those she
>might have offended.  In fact, someone did post that Suzanne's comments
>offended her aunt.  I still haven't seen any explaination or apology from
>Suzanne.

More rope.  This guy is absolutely incredible!

Peter Nyikos