From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: List of Susan's false accusations 
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 07:45:44 GMT

My apologies to the rest of t.a. for continuing to respond to DOD.
Those of you who haven't yet done so might want to add this thread
to your killfile, since it's not likely to involve anything
other than DOD's requests for information that I have already
provided.  I will not change this subject line.

In article <1992Aug28.212318.23069@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <BtoDvx.EvK.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
## I can't imagine
## why you want me to provide article numbers of posts to which
## you replied, anyway.  
#
#I just want you to provide proof for your accusations. 

As I've said before, I did at the time that I made them or very
shortly thereafter.  I am not at all responsible for the fact
that you don't remember what I said.
 
#It makes you
#look extremely foolish to wage a campaign of character assassination
#without providing any evidence to back up your allegations against
#me.  

The evidence has been provided.  I'm enclosing several posts
which say basically this.  Since you seem unable to understand
me, perhaps you can understand these other people.  

#I think you're hoping that these allegations will take on
#an air of truth to them if you repeat them often enough, but people
#living in the real world usually expect to see some kind of supporting 
#evidence for these kinds of allegations. 

People living in the real world have already seen that evidence.

I don't use your tactic of repeating botched quotes and blatant
lies in the hope that I'll be believed, either.  Not everyone
is as dishonest as you are.


#      "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
# that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
# we want to be precise)..."
#   -- Gloria Feldt,
#      chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona
#
#  "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
#    -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>

Are you ever going to tell us what it is about Judaism that bothers
you so?

Okay, the response from other participants in t.a. follow.  Unlike
you, each of these men have a reputation for being honest.  You
could learn a lot from any of them.


Here's what Stephen J. Mezias said in <29216@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU>:

In article <1992Aug27.205632.5585@ncsu.edu>
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes the usual lies
and mistruths, this time with the intent of slandering Susan Garvin:

#a) Unsubstantiated accusation that I had been making up sources 
#   for an article that Susan Garvin had never seen:
#
#    # I have more sources which I shall post shortly. 
#
#    "(As soon as he makes them up.)"

This is not an accusation but an observation, and one that was argued
to be correct in several posts at the time it was made.

#b) Unsubstantiated accusation that I had doctored a quote from a 
#   Planned Parenthood official from an article that had been
#   posted to the net: 
#
#    "We need more pro-forcers like Holtsinger who are willing
#     to doctor quotes that are easily checked, too.  What did
#     you delete from the PP quote, DOD?"

You doctor quotes all the time, DOD.  Your willful misrepresentation
of Bill Clinton's acceptance speech being one of the more recent and
widely discussed.

#c) Unsubstantiated accusation that I have willfully lied on 
#   talk.abortion:  
#
#    "(I'd prefer to think that Nyikos is merely
#     ignorant rather than a willful liar like Holtsinger until
#     I see more from him.)"

You willfully misrepresented the danger to abortion rights of a vote
for Bush, neglecting to mention that he would veto the FOCA and
stating that he might or might not get to appoint new justices to the
Supreme Court.  As anyone who follows current affairs knows, it is a
virtual certainty that he will get to replace at least one judge if
reelected.  

#d) Unsubstantiated accusation that I had changed the meaning
#   of a quote from a Georgetown University law professor: 
#
#    "I accomplished what I meant to accomplish -
#     I showed that your selective editing of people's words
#     is not limited to net articles, but to published works
#     as well."

All true.  I find substantiation in your past behavior for every one
of Susan's `accusations.'


And Chris Lyman said in <1992Aug27.212342.7592@pwcs.stpaul.gov>:


dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

# List of unsubstantiated accusations by Susan Garvin against me:
# a) Unsubstantiated accusation that I had been making up sources 
#    for an article that Susan Garvin had never seen.

We're also accusing the sun of being likely to rise in the east tomorrow,
DearOldDoug.

# b) Unsubstantiated accusation that I had doctored a quote from a 
#    Planned Parenthood official from an article that had been
#    posted to the net. 
# c) Unsubstantiated accusation that I have willfully lied on 
#    talk.abortion.

They say the memory is the first to go, eh, DearOldDoug?  _I_ substantiated
a few of your lies last week.

# d) Unsubstantiated accusation that I had changed the meaning
#    of a quote from a Georgetown University law professor. 

If I paid closer attention to your doings, DearOldDoug, I'd be able to respond
to (b) and (d) as well.  Frankly, my threshold for dealing with tedium is low.

I notice that a lot of posters in the alt.politics* heirarchy are not buying
your hogwash either.



And, Dean Kaflowitx said in <1992Aug28.114225.16974@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>:


In article <1992Aug28.011747.16087@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# In article <5240@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
# 
# # you did neglect to mention that the actual accusations
# # had been substantiated
# 
# 
# When?

Doogie, you just printed the accusations and deleted all of the
substantiation.  That is why your statements are not correct.
Ms Garvin provided numerous arguments that substantiated her
remarks about your veracity.  Your failure to include them
is perhaps understandable, but winds up supporting her
contentions that you are less than frank.  To say that her
remarks are unsubstantiated, then print the remarks without
her substantiation, which was present in the originals, just
adds to the stench surrounding your "integrity."  I might
add that, just because you don't agree that what she provided
as substance does not mean she failed to substantiate her
accusations (though I think of her remarks more as observations
of fact than accusations).

Dean Kaflowitz

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion