From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: *another false accusation by nyikos* (was Re: A forgery by Adrienne Regard?!?!?!?!? (was: Stipu..))
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:38:29 GMT

In <1992Nov7.200836.20294@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>In article <nyikos.720735358@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> In <1cjte2INN4fj@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>> 
>> >In article <1992Oct27.160808.11344@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>> 
>> >>I missed this one.
>> 
>> Which "one", Dean?  Are you still missing it?

Dean did not answer this question.  Evidently he is still missing it,
because he is still under the delusion that I misattributed something
to Adrienne.   
 
>> >>  Did this stupid, blustering fool,
>> 
>> I see you disavowing your earlier retraction of your claim that I am 
>> stupid.  Since you have reinstated your claim, I would like to see
>> the evidence that caused the new change of heart.

>This posting of yours is it, babe.

Come one, come all!!  Dean Kaflowitz was able to draw on his powers of
precognition, and have a new change of heart, based on what he saw in his
crystal ball!  {Or did you read "This posting" of mine on your palm, Dean?}
 
>> >> this
>> >>set theory expert who just announced in another post yet
>> >>again that he has a PhD really say this stuff? 
>> 
>> Which stuff, Dean?  Why did you delete all the evidence to back up
>> your statement, yet again?

>Dear stupid, blustering fool.  DId you happen to notice that
>you were posting a response to a response? 

Now Kaflowitz is claiming to be clairvoyant.  "say this stuff"
indicates he saw something which, it now turns out, was not in the
post he was responding to at all:

>  One would hope that
>a man with a PhD might be able to figure out that I had no
>control over what Adrienne deleted.  Did you really earn a
>PhD or did you buy one, Peter? 

Unfortunately, I did not know Dean was clairvoyant when I made my
post, otherwise I would not have asked the stupid question ("Which
stuff, Dean?") for which he is now flaming me.  :-)

Apparently Dean thinks one must be a telepath in order to earn a
Ph.D.  Ordinary mortals must purchase one, he thinks.  I wonder
whether *he* has a Ph.D.  If he does, should we add telepathy to
his growing list of extrasensory capabilities?  :-)

> My posting was about your
>false accusation against Adrienne, in which you accused her based
>on your inability to read something simple like the attributions.
>Instead of apologizing for accusing her of forgery, you follow
>it by accusing me of deleting the evidence, when it wasn't
>my posting.

Here we go again.  Despite his extrasensory powers, Dean is unable
to see past his ideological blinders and look at the evidence 
objectively.  Maybe Adrienne's powers are greater still, holding him
in her thrall?

[Blustering paragraph by Dean deleted.]

Me to Adrienne:
>> Four months ago you made an offer I could not refuse:
>> 
>> #>I've been on this net over 7 years, and I've never understood this fetal
>> #>worship.  Can you help me?
>> 
>> Of course this was not directed at me, but few people have tried to 
>> accept your offer to be helped except Martin Guerrero and me, and
>> Martin did not even know the offer had been made, otherwise he
>> might have stuck it out longer.

>This is more evidence of what a stupid, blustering fool
>you are Peter.  If one reads this posting of yours without my latest
>additions one finds that you can't even maintain a coherent line
>of thought.  Where this stuff about Adrienne came from is not at 
>all clear.

Do you want the thread, date, and Greenwich mean time?  I can provide
all that and more, if your clairvoyance does not reach back into July.

>  Adrienne
>asks a question about fetal worship and you characterize her
>request for clarification as an offer from Adrienne.

And why not? for seven years she has been missing a vital clue about
the pro-life position.  Sounds almost like a cry for help :-)

>> >It's a sad thing to see such needy personalities.  Bill, would you 
>> >talk to the poor bloke?  Maybe you can do some good in this area....
>> 
>> >Adrienne Regard
>> 
>> Are you talking to Overpeck, by any chance?  It just so happens I saved
>> a post from him back in July.  Seems I am not the only one who confused
>> Bill Overpeck with Phil Buckland.

>Where did Adrienne confuse Bill Overpeck with Phil Buckland?

What makes you think I was talking about Adrienne?

>> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes: >
>> In article <1992Jul09.024833.143762@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
>>    (Susan Garvin) writes: >>
>> 
>> >>Let me get this straight - when Adrienne said what she thought
>> >>to Phil Buckland, she was really vilifying Bill Overpeck?

Sounds like Susan is the one who is confused.  You are relying too much
on your extrasensory powers and not enough on your common sense, Dean.

>> >(psst, Susan, that's 'villifying', per Bill.  The definition: "when anybody
>> >says anything, it's a slam against poor ol' Bill".)
>> 
>> Let's see now.  If we characterize Bill as hypersensitive, he'll look
>> foolish and Adrienne's offensive behavior will look normal...hmmm...
>> yep, let's do it. 
>> 
>> >Actually, I think I ended up on Bill's shit list about a year ago when
>> >I actually agreed with him on something:  That one should not make broad
>> >assumptions about persons one has not met.  Since that date, he's been
>> >*very* *touchy*.  
>> 
>> Perhaps it's because you continue to make such assumptions despite your 
>> alleged agreement.
>> 
>> >My opinions are all personal attacks.  My arguments are
>> >all ad hominem.  My disagreement is an afront to his beliefs.
>> >
>> >Ain't life hard.
>> 
>> Is this intended to imply that I'm petty?  Imperceptive?  A whiner? 
>>  
>> You continue to live up to your image, Adrienne.  
>> 
>> Bill

>This addition of yours, Peter, just goes to show you haven't the
>foggiest notion of what you are talking about.  Clearly Adrienne
>did not confuse Phil  and Bill, but the part of the posting that
>would make this clearer is missing.

The posting is complete except for "topmatter".  You seem to have
overestimated your powers of clairvoyance, Dean, but like I said, it
apparently does not extend all the way back to July.

>You're really losing it Peter.  And thank you for the evidence
>that you are stupid.  I notice you don't dispute the statement
>that you are a blusterer.

Why should I dispute *any* statement for which you do not produce
a scrap of evidence?  I've only been disputing a lot of your statements
to show what a blusterer *you* are.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion