From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Keegan, "forgery," and attributions
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Jan 93 23:27:30 GMT

In <1993Jan19.025252.6516@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:

>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>-> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>-> >james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>-> >>well now, let's examine that part about actions
>-> >>speaking louder than words.
>-> >>a couple of months ago, you falsly accused adrienne
>-> >>regard of forgery.
>-> 
>-> I did not.  Have you ever seen the post to which you keep referring
>-> *ad nauseam*?

>of course, you fool. i was one of the first to call
>on you to apologize. see. note that the message id
>in the reference line is to your post. just think,
>had you apologized back then on october 27th or
>shortly thereafer many fewer people would see you as
>a liar.

Yes, Keegan, I see.  You have made some deletions, of course.

Including all the evidence that I "accused Adrienne of forgery".
Except, of course for the thread title, which has a string of
symbols beginning and ending in  ?  Hardly an accusation.

Like Kaflowitz, you are an expert in deleting evidence in your favor.

>>From talk.abortion Tue Oct 27 08:54:18 1992
>Xref: rpi talk.abortion:96474 alt.abortion.inequity:2815
>Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
>Path: rpi!keegan
>From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
>Subject: *another false accusation by nyikos* (was Re: A forgery by Adrienne Regard?!?!?!?!? (was: Stipu..))
>Message-ID: <f5+15qd@rpi.edu>
>Nntp-Posting-Host: hermes.acm.rpi.edu
>Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
>References: nyikos.719889454@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
>Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 13:07:24 GMT
>Lines: 19

>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes to
>adrienne:

>->Note that there are exactly as many >>>> up there in the reference as
>->there are in the part quoted.  That is as it should be, 

>no, nyikos, it is not.

The statement, without the qualifier you have deleted, is incorrect.
With the qualifying clause restored, it is correct.

The qualifying clause indicates that the reference and the part quoted
do not match.  Instead, the part quoted matches a reference to a Don Beaver
post.

I pointed out all this in the post, and because of selective deletions
like the ones you have just made, people in this newsgroup, like Scott
Roby, were bamboozled into thinking I did not know how attributions 
work, and posted a lot of irrelevant, misguided bandwidth.

TEST OF ROCKER SOFTWARE. PLEASE IGNORE.____________________________

>Roby, were bamboozled into thinking I did not know how attributions 
>work, and posted a lot of irrelevant, misguided bandwidth.

This statement is not correct.

You are and idiot, "Nyikos".

End of test_________________________________________________________

For those of you who did not ignore the above test, let me confess that
the statement may, indeed be incorrect.

It could well be that ALL the posters who posted a cumulative total of 10000+
lines [yes, I contributed, and I hope this post will be the last
of mine on this subject] on this topic have been in on the "little"
joke from the beginning.

Peter Nyikos