From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Loren and Heather should bicker in person, not on net
Date: 22 Dec 92 20:27:46 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <nyikos.724972656@milo.math.scarolina.edu>,
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
> 
> In <lefty-181292170344@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> 
> ...in his usual flaming style, always without giving a clue as to what
> the flaming is justified by.

Gee, Peter, I knew you had trouble keeping the ownership of attributed
text, but the problem seems to be running much deeper than that.  You don't
even seem to be able to read or understand it when it's included in an
article.

> >> Mr. Anderson
> >Lefty
> 
> >Here we have an excellent example of the Common Newbie Nematode.  After
> >contributing nothing to any discussion other than his belief that women who
> >are raped never get pregnant, and his occasional yelps of "Attaboy, Loren!"
> >Mr. Anderson shares with us his belief that "99% of the rest of the net"
> >would rather not listen to Heather quite ably skewering Mr. Finkelstein for
> >being such a completely clueless fool.
> 
> >Seems as though your hero is getting the worst of things here, Mr.
> >Anderson.  You might do better to quietly slink away.  If you keep jumping
> >up and down, yelling, "Don't hurt him!  Don't hurt him!" you're bound to
> >attract attention to yourself.
> 
> I'm not doing any of the above, by the way.  I missed out on all the
> really substanitive arguments due to netserver failure, and all I'm 
> hearing are trivial little echoes that do not justify anything Lefty
> is saying--not that I have *ever* seen Lefty give *any* justification
> for *any* of his flaming comments.

Note that Peter seems to have confused himself with Mr. Anderson, the
nematode in question.  Not that Mr. Nyikos isn't an invertebrate; he's
simply a _different_ one.

Note also that Peter continues to indulge his baffling prediliction of
jumping into the middle of a thread which he has admittedly not read.

Note further that Peter seems to feel that he is entitled to some kind of
"justification" beyond what I clearly included in the original article.  In
this regard, I would suggest that Peter is sadly mistaken.

> >> I suppose flames are a constitutional right, but let's *all* try
> >> and keep them to a minimum, ok?  (I admit to my own guilt and
> >> agree to help)
> 
> >I have a better idea.  Why don't you take yourself down to the nearest
> >highway, lie down in the express lane, and work on perfecting your
> >impression of a median divider?
> 
> This is run-of-the-mill, all in a day's play flaming by Lefty.  The really
> good stuff comes when he goes after Darcy, when you get to read about
> driving stakes through the heart and that sort of thing.
> 
> "...de l'audace, encore de l'audace, toujours de l'audace!"
> 			--Danton, almost exactly 200 years ago, cheerleading
> 			  the French revolutionaries
> 
> [Translation given at the end of the Quote of the Hour, after my "signature".
> Against Darcy, Lefty seems to get into the same frenzy as the Jacobins 
> during the reign of terror 200 years ago.]
> 
> >> And, ftr, I believe the term is "pom pon", not "pompom";
> >> not that I agree to the above accusation, of course.
> 
> >For the record, you haven't got the slightest, foggiest fuck of an idea
> >what you're talking about.  The term is most certainly "pom pom".
> 
> Note the escalation in the language level.  Too bad Mr. Anderson
> did not say, "FYI, the correct spelling is `pom pon'."  Then you would
> have seen some real fireworks from Lefty instead of this wishy-washy
> gutter language, which is almost boring compared to his best productions.
> 
> >Hie thee hence, Mr. Anderson.  Take that single, lonely neuron of yours
> >with you when you go.
> 
> This is more like it.  Keep those insults coming, Lefty.  You'd bore
> us to tears (or maybe have us in stitches) if you ever tried posting
> what you think of as a rational argument on abortion.

Oh, I don't know.  You've failed to post anything remotely resembling a
"rational argument on abortion," and you're boring us to tears _anyway_.

For you to have the audacity (seven years of French, high school and
college, mon ami) to mouth the phrase "rational argument on abortion" is
ludicrous beyond words.  In the couple of months that you have been
regaling us with your idea of "rational arguments" you have simply
convinced me that your idea of rationality must diverge tremendously from
mine.

Do you still insist, without benefit of evidence, that the pro-lifers who
bombed abortion clinics were actually pro-choice advocates trying to make
the anti-abortion side look bad?  Are you continuing to suggest, without
benefit of evidence, that clinic workers are burning down their own clinics
for the insurance settlements?  Do you continue to claim, without benefit
of evidence, that Planned Parenthood is milking tremendous profits from the
abortion business?

Rational discourse indeed!  You should wash out your mouth with fuming
sulphuric acid!

> Quote of the hour: 
> 
> [note the reference to posting-up in the third line :-)]

{Proof that Peter has nothing better to do with his time than type in sixty

 lines of irrelevant French history elided}

Oh, by the way, mon vieux: va te faire foutre!

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53193 talk.religion.misc:24659 alt.atheism:24378