From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: A Bare-Fased misrepresentation in same sentence by DODIE: Points?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 28 Dec 92 21:15:10 GMT

In <1154@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:


>I say, 10 points for Mr. Mezias.  


>In article <34625@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>#In article <1992Dec24.033906.16829@ncsu.edu>
>#dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes the perfect
>#sentence to capture the full essence of why he is regarded as a prime
>#net liar. 

If this is true, if this is the best piece of evidence Mezias and 
Garvin can come up with after all the ranting and raving they do almost
without end about his dishonesty, then I do not see any need to look
at further evidence, until they assign 20 or more points to something.
(11 points gives too small a difference.)

># I have difficulty understanding such behavior because it is
>#so clearly revealing of an ends-justifies-the-means mentality as to be
>#uncomfortably manipulative to read:
>#
>##I have stated numerous times I am undecided on the issue of 
>##legislation, but that I do oppose Roe v. Wade and the FOCA.

"undecided," in the Mezias-Garvin dictionary, apparently means "not
fully decided about EVERYTHING".  Still, I am amazed that they do
not see that there may be people in this newsgroup who view the
word "undecided" in a slightly different way from them.  

If they do recognize that their RESTRICTING "undecided" to this 
definition is highly nonstandard, why don't they e-mail messages
like this one to each other, and leave the rest of us alone?  

>#In the context of talk.abortion, it is incomprehensible to me that one
>#could claim to be undecided on legislative issues and opposed to FOCA.
>#Your mention of your opposition of RvW suggests that you would
>#probably make the broader claim that you are undecided about state
>#intervention to compel pregnancy while being opposed to RvW.
>#
>##My arguments against abortion often revolve around moral
>##issues, and they should not be confused with arguments in 
>##favor of legal restrictions.  
>#
>#Last time I checked deliberate misrepresentation and lying were
>#generally considered immoral.  Is that a clue about how to
>#characterize your side of the issue?

>Now, let's watch DODie ignore Mezias' post.

Why, what is there to refute in it?  The only reason I am following
up to it is that I am slowly accumulating evidence that Susan Garvin's
word is not to be trusted.

(Actually, I've been accumulating evidence at an astonishing rate, but
to a pro-choicer it must seem like a slow accumulation of evidence and
I may actually need help from others if I am not to spend all week 
documenting a case that one of the pro-choicers listed below will 
deign to take *at all* seriously.)

Peter Nyikos (not one of the pro-choicers listed below)

From an earlier post:


Mark Cochran   Keith Cochran   Patrick Humphrey  Dean Kaflowitz
Steve Novak   Steven Mezias  J H Woodyatt  Jim Keegan   Brian Kauffman
Dan King   Mark Ira Kauffman   drieux   Larry Margolis   Chris Lyman
Ron Bense   Lefty   Gordon Storga ...

not to mention:

Adrienne Regard   Sarah McCabe  Muriel Nelson   Kathi Mills  Heather
rocker    Teddi  Linda Birmingham  

Have I left anyone out?  More importantly, have I maligned anyone 
unjustly?  My apologies to anyone who does not belong on one of the
two lists above.

I was tempted to include Steve Adams, but I need to see how he 
responded to my "You figure it out" post.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights