From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Let's Play Attributions, Take 2
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:56:20 GMT
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: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In <nyikos.722180424@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>[Aside: note also the "misc.test" AND NOTHING ELSE in the "Follow-up to" line.]

Note also the Summary: line.

>Can I be faulted for having suspected, at that point, that Chaney has
>a plausible case against Garvin, and that Garvin "ha(s) some explaining
>to do," as I put it in my follow-up, prefaced by "I think"?

Yes.  Why haven't you looked at the original sequence, which you included
below?

>Here is the post, exactly as it appears in my files:

I'm going to add numbers before each line, for easier reference.

 1>Newsgroups: talk.abortion
 2>Path: usceast!gatech!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!garvin
 3>From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
 4>Subject: Re: Susan Garvin on Forgery
 5>Message-ID: <BwLtMz.GDD.2@cs.cmu.edu>
 6>Followup-To: misc.test
 7>Summary: I think it's wrong, Chaney likes to do it
 8>Keywords: Chaney/Hall, flame, typical
 9>Sender: news@cs.cmu.edu (Usenet News System)
10>Nntp-Posting-Host: satan.cimds.ri.cmu.edu
11>Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
12>References: <1992Oct22.160749.18540@csus.edu>
13>Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1992 02:30:29 GMT
14>Lines: 75
15>
16>In article <1992Oct22.160749.18540@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
17>#
18>#
19>#Susan:
20>#
21>#When you tried to fudge an article and say that I responded to an
22>#article on Larry Margolis, and you accused me of mistakenly taking
23>#Margolis' place, you pulled a classic act of net.forgery.
24>
25>No, Dennis, forgery is when you alter the from line in your posts,
26>as you have done, or when you change someone else's words, as
27>DOD has done.  I reposted two articles, deleting only the text
28>that followed the pertinent lines.  There was no forgery
29>involved.
30>
31>#Your credibility truly no longer exists now, Miss Theocrat USA.
32>
33>I'm sure that you wish this were true, Dennis.
34>
35>I notice that you have not attempted to prove that I changed
36>anything in the quotes, nor did you follow through on your
37>threat to contact my sysadmins.  Now, I know why you have
38>done neither of these things - you know that you're lying.
39>I hope that you continue to make false accusations and empty
40>threats.  It illustrates quite clearly just how ridiculous
41>you are, and let's everyone feel good about laughing at you.
42>
43>I'll bet that you're the campus joke, aren't you, little bit?
44>
45>In article <1992Sep29.155656.17489@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
46>In article <1992Sep23.160756.8470@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (Cranius Sphinctus) writes:
47>
48>##I'm speechless, actually.  I'm stuck in 7:00-A.M.-no-stimulants-
49>##in-the-bloodstream hamster wheel over this statement:
50>##
51>##Message-ID: <1992Sep23.014327.29219@csus.edu>
52>#### Oh, I love it when my liberal approach makes me look pro-choice.
53>##
54>##He wrote that in a followup to a post by barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet which}i
55>##presumed that *Larry Margolis* was pro-choice.  I was left with the
56>##impression that Mr. Chaney was confused about his identity and thought
57>##he was Larry Margolis for a moment.
58>#
59>#No, you stupid shit - it was a response to ME. It was my attribution
60>#directly before his words.
61>#
62>#You've got some major stepping to do, Cranius Sphinctus, to make this lie
63>#of yours stick. For instance, re-posting that article to show evidence.
64>In article <1992Sep23.014327.29219@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
65>#In article <1992Sep22.123959.2529@wkuvx1.bitnet> barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
66>##In article <1992Sep22.052211.14940@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
67>####
68>####            For heaven's sake, Dan, it's only a TELEVISION SHOW...
69>####
70>### Going to war with a fictional character is certainly bizarre.
71>##
72>##Yes, but criticizing the unrealistic depiction of liberals as "good"
73>##and conservatives as "evil" is not.  Would you criticize a TV show for
74>##a strong pro-life message?  If you're pro-choice (I assume you are), I'd
75>##bet you would.  So back off - Danny was right in his criticisms of the
76>##show _and_ the character.
77>#
78>#Oh, I love it when my liberal approach makes me look pro-choice.
79>
80>
81>
82>Ask your priest about lying, Dennis.
83>
84>Susan

Note that the reposted article starts on line 64.  In line 68, Chaney
wrote "It's only a TV show".  In line 70, I wrote:
   Going to war with a fictional character is certainly bizarre.

In lines 72 - 76, barnejd addressed what *I* (Larry Margolis) had written.
In line 78, Chaney responded as though barnejd had been addressing him
rather than me.  (I prefer to phrase it this way than to say that Chaney
thought he was me, as the latter thought makes me rather nauseous.)

As I told you more than once in email, and as the post, *exactly as it
appears in your files* confirms, Susan was correct and Chaney was wrong.

And while you're at it, note lines 59 and 60.
   it was a response to ME. It was my attribution
   directly before his words.
Ignoring the fact that he's wrong about whose attribution appears where,
this provides further evidence that people (and I'm using the term loosely
in this case) *don't* always count the number of arrows before text; many
assume that the attribution directly before the words corresponds to the
person who wrote those words.

I see that you apologized to the ones whose attributions you screwed up in
this case, so maybe there's a decent person hidden inside the pompous windbag
you portray, who's trying to get out.  Let's see if an apology to Adrienne
for accusing *her* of forgery, when she simply pointed out that *you* messed
up some attributions, will be forthcoming.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49270 talk.religion.misc:21908