From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: In defense of Peter against "Lady" Adrienne
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  3 Nov 92 17:26:06 GMT

In <1cpcnnINN6rs@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <nyikos.720130520@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>I see you've been taking "credibility" lessons from Adrienne. 

>This from a man who accused me of forgery to the net, because *he* 
>can't read the attributions correctly, and hasn't had the balls to
>apologize.

My netserver was not receiving messages.  If you explained why I am wrong
and you are right about the attributions, I missed it.  So don't be
talking about balls.

[By your warped standards, I *could* accuse you of cowardice for 
posting *this* message while my 
netserver was down, hoping that it would stay down until the message 
expired, but I am not into such petty *ad hominem* accusations.]

As to the forgery business, read on.

>Andrea, you *do* notice that he's still using that "Lady Adrienne" shit,
>don't you?  After I requested he not do so, publicly.  AFTER *he* complained
>that someone else was harassing him....

You misjudge me, Adrienne.  The reason I dusted off that honorific after
a month of disuse is so that I could AVOID charging you with forgery and
provide you with "a big fat out", as Suzanne might put it. 

Read the title of the thread, with all the question marks; read my post:
nowhere do I categorically charge you with forgery.  I wanted to come
up with a formula whereby we could both back out of this situation
without major damage to your reputation: you could withdraw your charge
of me misattributing you, without being accused of misrepresenting me.

I've put two excerpts from the post below, to let you and everyone 
else see what I mean.

#>Peter, get your attributions right.  I did not say the above.  Don did.

#>I know you have a crush on me, and can hardly post, even in your conver-
#>sations with others, without some reference to me, but please, make an
#>effort to get it *right* when you pretend to be actually quoting.

#>(not that it would surprise any of us that you show no interest, period,
#>in ever getting things right on the net......)

# I mean, your forgery, if it could be called
#that, is so transparently obvious to anyone who has been on this net
#seven weeks, let alone seven years, that you must be joking, and must
#be counting on everyone else who is not a clueless newbie know you are
#joking.  

#I do, however, think you owe all the clueless newbies an apology.

#Especially since you haven't put in any smileys.  But, as I have told
#others, that is your prerogative as Lady High Everything Else of 
#talk.abortion.  But, again, how is a clueless newbie supposed to
#know that?

Now you seem to be wanting to brazen it out and continue to charge
me with misattribution.  If this is your intent, Adrienne, you are
a bigger fool than I heretofore thought you were capable of being.

As to your implication (expressly stated in other posts) that I am
a hypocrite for "still using" a "Lady..." honorific for you while
complaining about harassment by others--Adrienne, you seem to have
no inkling even now of why I used these titles in the first place.

I used them because you were bearing down on me imperiously:

#>> Nyikos
#> Regard
# Nyikos

#>>Similarly contentless bravado below, deleted.
#>>          ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
#>This from *you*, Peter?

#>>attempt to snow people, goes for you too:
#>>           ^^^^^^^^^^^

#>I swear, you clueless twits who don't know how to use (-:s just kill me.
#>Put it in your .signature if you simply cannot remember when to use it.

#>("What's a .signature?")

You certainly packed a lot of wallop into those few lines: implying
that I engage in contentless bravado while Chris Lyman does not,
implying that I was ignorant of .signatures, implying that 
Larry Margolis was the very soul of honesty and that I was slandering
him by omitting smileys...

I think I was quite restrained when I countered:

#I dunno...It appears to me that Lady Regard's attempts to dictate the 
#use of (-:s and .signatures might come under the rubric of "anti-choice".

Had I meekly borne your onslaught, what thanks would I have gotten 
for it?  The same thanks that Martin Guerrero got from you for being
such a gentleman in the face of unprovoked verbal assaults from you?

That thanks consisted of an escalation of those assaults to where you
seemed bent on proving Suzanne Forgach's claim that you are the most
twisted person on this net.

[Note to readers other than Adrienne--Adrienne knows damn well what I
am talking about--I am prepared to post extensive comments by Adrienne
and Martin if you find any of the above hard to believe.]

You also conveniently ignore the fact that in the same post where
I first used the honorifics "Lady High...", I reverted to calling
you Adrienne immediately after my two-line response marked by single
# above.  My purpose in producing them, pure unadulterated self-defense,
was fulfilled with those two lines.

I used them one more time, apiece, until dusting one off to spare you
from the charge of forgery.  I used "Lady High Executioner" when 
Cochran interrogated me in connection with a Black victim of a botched
abortion [Again I was feeling pressured by an overbearing "pro-choicer".]
and "Lady High Everything Else" to take the heat off Frank O'Dwyer
when you were pressuring him into using smileys.  

ALL THREE uses of this "...Everything Else" honorific to date by me, 
have been in connection with you wanting to pressure us into using
smileys in cases of ALLEGED joking on our part and/or exempting 
yourself from using them when I had good reason to believe you were
joking (or lying, or being more dumb than I had heretofore believed
you capable of being).

Now tell me honestly, Adrienne: would you prefer that I call you
"Lady High Everything Else" for exercising a "noble" prerogative,
or would you prefer that I simply accuse you of hypocrisy in the
matter of smileys?

If, after all that I have just said, you still think my use of those
honorifics is on the same moral plane as people deliberately, without
provocation, going out of their way to call me by a "term of endearment"
when I specifically posted that I felt harassed by it [and note: YOU
*never* told me why YOU wanted me to stop using those "Lady" titles]
then all I can say is, there were serious deficiencies in our moral
upbringing and in your education [if any] in moral philosophy.

Peter Nyikos

PS
Lest there be further misunderstanding on this score, I do NOT count
as "uses" such *mentions* as:

#> Adrienne, speaking to Martin Guerrero
# me

#>Excuse me, "we" haven't been doing this.  Maybe you have gone off down
#>that primrose path, but I wouldn't waste my time.  If you have misinter-
#>preted my arguments in this manner, may I suggest it might have something
#>to do with conveniently rephrasing *my* arguments into your arguments and
#>then refuting them?  A circular pastime at best.

#Right, Martin, Adrienne never said we *should* abort some of our children,
#except that she herself thinks a woman's children SHOULD be aborted if
#she wants it that way.  A small nitpicky distinction on which her five
#imperious lines depend, and she wonders why I called her the "Lady
#High Everything Else" of talk.abortion.