From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:31:36 GMT

cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:

>Let the galled jade wince.

How utterly literary of you.

>I refuted Keegan's allegations at Eric Rescorla's request.

Oh bullshit.  You supported nothing.  How far would you get in
court (shut the fuck up, Darcy) if you presented the judge with
a confession to a crime that no one could show was ever committed?

You neglected to mention, while presenting these "confessions",
that they were made at a time when keegan still assumed that there
was some sort of misunderstanding, and was trying to be conciliatory.
Have you never let a point or two go in an argument just so you
could get at an understanding of the underlying issues?

The fact remains that you have been unable to produce evidence
that keegan ever asked the people on the list to support his stance.
keegan himself posted the letter to which you apparently refer, and
it showed no such call for support.  This is the same letter to
which I referred, in email, to anyone who had the courtesy to respect
my wishes not to carry this on publicly.  

>Since he tells me he is satisfied with my refutation, I will not
>respond to Keegan's lies any more.  

So this is all about Eric?  You claim that Eric is satisfied, and
so you have no further need to prove your claims.  And here I
thought that women didn't need to do things just because a man
asked them to.

>I don't need to test his
>Everready Bunny batteries the way Overpeck did.  I know he'll
>just go on and on and on endlessly, thumping his little drum.

And who could blame him?  You made a claim, the only evidence you
produced was a private email in which you claim he admits to
his heinous, disgusting crime (Why, just IMAGINE asking your 
friends to support you if they agree with you!  I'm absolutely
certain that no one on the net would ever have the execrable lack
of taste to do something like asking their friends for help!
Certainly YOU would never do such a thing...), and when it is
pointed out that you STILL have not produced the evidence for 
your original claim, you haughtily answer that since a single
person has been satisfied, you have no need for further proof.
Honestly, I find it astonishing that you even bothered to reply
to keegan in the first place, given your continuing claims that
he, being the mud-sucking swine that he is, means less than
nothing to you.  Why do you continue to bother with someone that
you claim you hold in such low esteem?  Surely, if you had presented
your case as well as you said you had, your reputation would be
in no further danger from this vile slanderer.

And it is somewhat surprising that Eric would be "satisfied"
with your evidence, given that Eric himself once stated that
the only possible means of judging would be to produce the 
letter in question (that would, of course, be the letter to the
_mailing_list_) and let people judge for themselves whether it
supported your claim.  How is it that you were able to produce
mail that went to one or two people, but failed to produce the
mailing list letter in question?  Could it be that you could find
no mailing list letter that DID support you?  The letter that
keegan posted certainly didn't support _your_ claim.

>Bye, bye, bunny!

Feel free to place my name next to keegan's in your net-famous
killfile.

>cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	

                  -rocker
                   equally disgusted

>"She knew not how to reconcile two such very different accounts of the 
>same thing; for she had not been brought up [...] to know to how many 
>idle assertions and impudent falsehoods the excess of vanity will 
>lead." --Jane Austen

Ha.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion