From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  3 Nov 92 21:18:11 GMT

In <1crmguINN47d@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <QewJ0BO00iUyQ1wmc_@andrew.cmu.edu> "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>Adrienne Regard writes in response to my comment:

>>>>>If someone has stated specifically, like Peter Nyikos has done, that he 
>>>>>doesn't appreciate being called 'Petey, honey', and a person continues
>>>>>to do it, then she is guilty of sexual harassment. 

Not quite.  "doesn't appreciate being called" should be replaced by
"considers it sexual harassment to be called".  And by the way, I did
not mean anything with a formal legal standing thereby.  I would not
complain to any authorities, of any kind, over such a mild form of sexual
harassment.  

Let me qualify what I have just said.  In talk.abortion there are a 
number of people who say "Petey honey" with the very obvious intent
to harass me.  I have not seen any OTHER use of "Petey honey" in
talk.abortion.  Hence my somewhat drastic step.

>>>Except _Peter_, huh Andrea?  _Peter_ can continue his petty condescension
>>>and name calling EVEN THOUGH he was quite clearly and unambiguously asked
>>>to stop. And simulatenously cry 'harassment' when someone ignores his 
>>>request that _they_ discontinue such foolishness, huh?

>>A number of questions for you, Ms. Regard. The first is, who put you on a 
>>first name basis with me? I don't know most of the people in this forum and
>>they (and you) do not know me. I prefer that you do not use my first name.

>Great.  I hope you are immune to misspellings of Gansley-Ortiz.

>>If using Ms. Regard is too 'stuffy' for you I am willing to refer to you in
>>some other fashion. 

>I don't much care one way or another.

>>Secondly, where did I exempt P. Nyikos? Your question makes no sense.
>>>Which is it -- goose or gander?
>>Again, because I have never exempted anyone from my comments, your question
>>makes no sense. What is it that you're trying to ask?

>Ms. Gansley-Ortiz, you did not specifically, in this thread or to my 
>documentable knowledge, exclude p. Nyikos.  However, insofar as you have
>supported P. Nyikos' 'sexual harrassment' charges, and IGNORED (via lack
>of comment upon same) P. Nyikos' continuation of the use of 'Lady whatever'
>when he has been SPECIFICALLY and documentably asked to stop, readers in
>the viewing audience are likely to come to some conclusions about what your
>defense of P Nyikos' claim *means*.  Think about it.

Ms. Gansley-Ortiz is no longer able to answer, but as far as I know she
never saw me use those honorifics up to the point in time you made the
foregoing comment.  After all, I only used one of them in one post
in the past month.

>>>Peter Nyikos is not only a fool, he is a hypocritical fool.

My foolishness consisted of using the "Lady..." term TO PROTECT YOUR
REPUTATION, IN LIEU OF CHARGING YOU WITH FORGERY.  See if I ever act
so foolishly again.

Ms. Regard is not only an ingrate, she is a hypocritical ingrate.

For more information, see my post earlier on the "In defense of Peter
against `Lady...'" thread in talk.abortion.

>Ah, but you aren't considering that we in the reading audience *also* note
>that which you HAVEN'T commented on, i.e., P. Nyikos' own foolish behavior
>and hypocracy.

Because, as usual, you did not document your claims.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism