From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: compromise
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 07:51:21 GMT
Distribution: na
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.15 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Followup-To: talk.abortion

Every time I think Petie can't make a bigger fool of himself, he goes ahead
and outdoes himself.  Here we see a combination of attribution problems and
counting problems.  (Note followups to t.a.)

In <nyikos.722214039@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Nov16.180811.1584@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>
>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>>>> [...]  I thought that I'd reproduce the following article.  [...]

This is referring to J. S. Greenfield's article, which Petie kept
attributing to Susan.

>I'll just have to live on with the delusion that Doug's deletions
>are molehills compared to Garvin's mountains.

Well, at least you realize that they're delusions.  That's a healthy
first step.  (Isn't it, Bill?  I don't want to be accused of diagnosing...  :-)

>>Mr. Pot, you should really be more careful about disparging remarks about
>>Ms. Kettle.  Read on.
>
>You should really quit talking to yourself, Chris, and you should also
>note that I am a Mr. [or Dr. if you prefer] and not a Ms., and that
>I have not been demonstrated to be like a kettle.

In other words, "I know you are, but what am I?"  I just love this
high-level back-and-forth.

>Other readers, read on.  You will see why I said this.

Umm, because you're an idiot?

>>>> As I have said *several* times before, *I* have never said that the two
>>>> cases should not be read together.  What I said is that you cannot
>>>> assume that the discussion of "health" in the Doe opinion applies to the
>>>> "life and health" provision in Roe, regarding third-trimester abortions.
>
>>> As far as I can see, this unsupported allegation ["you cannot assume..."]
>>> by Ms. Garvin is her sole support for her word "*completely*" highlighted
>>> above.
>
>>These words (>>) were penned (keyboarded?) by J. Greenfield.  Do they offer
>>remedial reading courses for topology experts at USC?
>
>Again you are speaking gibberish. The >> words were keyboarded by me.

No, the >> words were written by Chris.  :-)

>Are you now saying that I am really J. Greenfield?  But I never did the
>things you attributed to J. Greenfield above.

You moron - Chris was talking about the '>>' when *he* wrote the article,
not after you followed up and added another level of quoting.  The words:
   As I have said *several* times before, *I* have never said that the two
   cases should not be read together.  What I said is that you cannot
   assume that the discussion of "health" in the Doe opinion applies to the
   "life and health" provision in Roe, regarding third-trimester abortions.
(which were preceded by '>>' in Chris' post, '>>>' in yours, and '>>>>' above)
were written by J. S. Greenfield in article
<1992Aug17.131337.3354@newstand.syr.edu>.  That's the article Susan reproduced.

Note that if you reply to this, there will be yet another set of '>' preceding
each line.  Try to not get too confused by that.

>>Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
>> "One of the HORRIBLE things of trying to defend a FREE REPUBLIC is
>> that I get to support your RIGHT to say STOOPID THINGS." -- drieux
>
>I wonder whether drieux will support Chris in his latest outburst
>of "STOOPIDity".

Do you *enjoy* playing the fool, Petie?

P.S.  How's that apology to Adrienne coming along?  The one for your
      accusing *her* of forgery after *you* screwed up the attributions.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion