Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: compromise
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:50:52 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: Nyikos and attributions


Nyikos seems to have forgotten that he purposefully deleted the
attribution line (but not an included reference in the text) in
a reply to me.  I doubt that he'll have the character to admit
his error, but I'll include some relevant quotes just so that
no one will be fooled by his bluster.

(Obviously, I have not included the entire text of any of the
quoted articles.  I have included only relevant sections.
I will be glad to mail both my original article and Nyikos'
reply to anyone who wants them, or I'll repost both if anyone
asks.  I'm not marking deletions here.)

In article <nyikos.721974002@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
# In <_3s1=gk@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
# 
# #peter honey, you just quoted someone other than susan
# #garvin as if the person you were quoting were susan
# #garvin. what you just did could be referred to as
# #forgery.
# 
# Show me where I did that.


I note that Nyikos asked Keegan to publicly embarass him.  I hope
Jim won't mind if I do it, too.

In article <nyikos.721974650@milo.math.scarolina.edu>,
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

#Show me where I was unable to figure out who said what.

Again, I hope Dean won't mind if I join in showing Nyikos what
a fool he is.



In article  <BxDM9o.178.2@cs.cmu.edu>, I wrote:

#["quote" from Tushnet deleted]
#
#The following included text is from article
#<1992Aug17.131337.3354@newstand.syr.edu> written by
#greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield).  
#
#/begin included text/
#
#
#With absolutely no shame for *completely* misrepresenting quotes, Doug 
#Holtsinger writes:

Starting with the same line, here is Nyikos' reply.

In article <nyikos.721692137@milo.math.scarolina.edu>,
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
In <BxDM9o.178.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

##["quote" from Tushnet deleted]
#
#Typical.  She makes allegations of the unreliability of the quote, does
#not give her own quote, deletes Doug's quote.  I move that networkers
#disregard such claims as "he had made unmarked deletions" by Ms. Garvin
#until she shows where these were made and what they were [or at least
#a sample].
#
##With absolutely no shame for *completely* misrepresenting quotes, Doug 
##Holtsinger writes:	      ^^^^^^^^^^^^
#
###First I'd like to present my sources, and then I will address
###the points that you raised. My claim is that Roe v. Wade
###essentially constitutes abortion on demand throughout the term 
###of pregnancy due to the broad definition of "health" given
###by the Supreme Court. 
###
###Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton must be read together: 
#
##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.

Now, as is obvious to anyone other than Nyikos, "*completely*"
was not my word.  I could understand an idiot such as Nyikos 
missing the reference to the included article in a previous
paragraph of my article, but I can't understand how he missed
the lines that he deleted.  Perhaps he will explain this in
a future post - that's the only one of his that I'll be
"looking for."

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion