From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Idiocy of PHoney Nyikos
Summary: Nyikos makes more baseless accusations
Keywords: pro-lie
Date: 23 Dec 92 23:41:21 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

Gee, PHoney, don't you know what "mendacity" means?  If you wanted
to show that I was lying, it really would have helped if you had
included at least one example of me lying.  You didn't.

In article <nyikos.725144278@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu 
(Peter "KKK" Nyikos) writes:
#In <1088@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
##In article <nyikos.724975331@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#
###Stephen Mezias' comments deleted - he's answered for himself]
#
###I was tempted to change the subject title to "Laugh of the week from
###Mezias," but then I realized that this is no laughing matter; maybe
###it *is* one to Mezias, though, just as it apparently was to Susan Garvin.  
#
#{Lefty-style bravado by Susan deleted}

Actually, I said that I did think Steeves' backpedalling was funny.
I still do.  I think your clumsy attempts to defend this hateful
person are even funnier.

###Dean Kaflowitz
###covered up for her as best he could, in response to a post in which I took
###a flippant comment by Susan, and asked her whether she considers the 
###accusation against Will to be all a big game, with no relevance to anything
###going on in the real world.  Susan never answered the question, perhaps
###thinking that Kaflowitz made me and everyone else forget about it.
#
##I've forgotten all about it.  (Yes, Reverend Holtsinger, really.)
##(Oh, yeah, PHoney, you won't get the previous reference.  Too bad.)
##All of which goes to show how seriously Susan takes these matters.
#
##I'll answer your question now that I see it, though - no, I don't
##think that reposting Steeves' own words and confronting him with
##them was a joke.  I think that Steeves sincerely wishes that
##he'd never posted that particular article.  He did post it, though.
#
#I was referring back then to the charge that Steeves would kill
#any woman who did not show him respect. 

Well, PHoney, if you want me to comment on charges that only
were made in your imagination, then you'll have to specify 
what they are when you ask for the comments.  I never saw
anyone accuse Steeves of such a thing.  

#Susan gave Don a contemptuous
#put-down about how he feels a need to post to four groups on which
#this libel was repeated.  

Now you're changing your accusation, yet again.  Get back to
me when you decide what you think I said.  (Of course, I'll
continue to laugh at you, as will many others, as long as
you are unable to support any of your claims.)

#Hence my remarks, which Susan was too
#embarrassed to confront (still is, judging from the way she keeps
#changing the subject, as in the preceding paragraph) 

You're lying, PHoney.  I answered you in the post to which you are
replying and *you* deleted it.  I didn't see your first request.
I'll repeat, are you taking mindreading lessons from Reverend
Holtsinger?  (You're doing a great job at following his lead
in fraudulent editing.)

#and so
#Kaflowitz, the Designated Liar on her team for that post, jumped
#in to deflect my well-earned flame by deleting everything of Susan's
#that I was attacking and by 
#lying that I had posted much more irrational statements than the ones
#for which I was attacking Susan.  

You're lying again, PHoney.  If you'd read any of Dean's replies
the last time you lied about this, you`d know that you're lying now.
Should we assume that you didn't read his replies?

#I challenged Kaflowitz to show evidence of these "irrational", "stupid"
#statements and he backed down and withdrew the charge of stupidity.

He posted the evidence, PHoney, so you are lying again.  

#Now if Susan were a good team player, she would follow up to this post
#by posting these phantom "more irrational" statements of mine, and
#get Dean off the hook.

Dean's not on any hook.  You, on the other hand, have failed to
apologize for lying about Adrienne.  Why is that?

##[PHoney's assertions that Steeves didn't say anything about
##killing his ex deleted]
#
#I made no such assertion, as the post, whose copy I am appending, proves.

I was addresssing what really happened.  I had no idea that you
were referring to some fictional charge against Steeves.  

###(And probably also Don Beaver, whom Susan was telling not to
###post his attempted refutations on all the same places where the charge
###was aired, in her usual pro-force style.)
#
##Prove this accusation, PHoney.  Repost an article of mine in which
##I told Beaver where to post his tripe, if you can.  (Of course, you
##can't, so you'll probably claim that your newsserver went down
##right after you apologized for lying.)
#
#The post was a long time ago, so it will take a while to find it.

And above, you said that I wrote something completely different to
Beaver.  I imagine it will take you a *very* long time to find it.

[irrelevant quote deleted]

#And now, the post from which Susan Garvin falsely claims to have deleted
#assertions by me that Steeves didn't say anything about
#killing his ex-SO.  My refutation, and Will's, was of Mezias's complete
#sentence, including the libelous "because she did not respect him."

I explained above.  You have to state your fantasies if you
want people to share them.

#Fact is, she *did* respect him enough not to wait for a year before
#telling him she would abort the unborn child.  

Fact is, you have no idea how the woman felt about Steeves.  At least
this time you did specify which fantasy you were referring to. 

#But distinctions like
#this are obviously lost on Susan Garvin.  As well as fine points of
#the law, such as the distinction between saying "He was going to kill
#her" and "He would have snapped right then and there, and killed her
#on the spot."

I see that you got in your required hypocrisy, too.  Good for you.
Just as DODie shouldn't criticize people for selective editing,
it would be better if you let someone else criticize people
for not understanding fine points of law.  You're incapable
of understanding the concept of "innocent until proven guilty."
You seem to believe that filing a lawsuit is no different than
winning a lawsuit.  You seem to think that your speculations prove
guilt.  

I predict that you'll learn about some of these points of law
some day, though.  Not everyone is as forgiving of libel and
slander as I am.

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