From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Guilty of ... STUPIDITY!
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  1 Oct 92 02:41:53 GMT

The subject line should refer to Cochran, IMO.  Will is merely
guilty of thoughtcrime.

In <1992Sep27.142543.22029@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

>In article <1992Sep26.010732.2804@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>
>>Besides which, I was quoting my *thoughts and feelings*, and you don't have
>>to be Sigmund Freud to know that what one feels, has little correspondence
>>to what one actually does.

>What one feels generally has a large on impact on what one does, though.

>>Except for *one* fight at the age of *eight*, I have never committed violence
>>against *anyone* (and I am even ashamed of the *one* fight that I was in ...
>>hardly the mark of a serial killer, which is the picture you have painted of
>>me), but I would be a fool to say that I have never had the *thought* - Are
>>you *really* going to say that it has *never* even crossed your mind, Dan?

>We're not talking about fighting, we're talking about killing.   There's just
>a tad bit of difference, you know?

There is a huge difference, and that is EXACTLY why Will mentioned the
fact that he has not comitted violence against anyone except for a fight
at the age of 8.  Don't you see the point?

Cochran, where did you get your "Justified and Ancient"
title?  I have seen precious little justification for it in all the time
I have known of you.

>>I was referring to the fact that I just *knew* that people were going to
>>accuse my *thoughts* of being *actual violence*, as you seem to have done.

>No he hasn't.  You said something killing a woman if she showed you a lack
>of respect by having an abortion and not telling you about it.

Cochran, I have addressed this in a running series of posts with Dan King.
You have had a chance to refute my arguments, and have not even tried.
You can still catch my last post on "Will's appalling attitude toward 
women" if you hurry.

Do you want to?  I suspect you are simply ignoring my arguments because
you can't deal with them, and prefer to pretend they don't exist.

>While some men will only THINK those thoughts, some men will ACT on those
>thoughts.

>And that seems to be a pretty good reason for throwing out every "spousal
>notiication" law in the book.

Funny.

1. They have just been ruled unconstitutional.  Why bother?

2. Some at least have judicial bypass clauses, and if the pro-choicers
are any indication, a judge should have no trouble deciding that Will
should NOT be notified.  Which is a shame, because these judges would
be barking up the wrong tree, IMNSHO.  

The trees they should be barking up are the ones where closed-minded people
like King and Cochran are hanging out. But King, at least, had the decency
to post Will's whole post for me.  

>>
>>I was speaking QUITE figuratively, Dan.  *She* herself often said "There are
>>times when I thought of killing you," which I thought were quite extreme,
>>but I knew that she was only speaking from anger, *not* from any intention
>>of committing violence.  When I spoke similarly, I meant the exact same
>>thing.

>Maybe you should find yourself a less violent relationship?

Don't get mixed up with Cochran, unless fisting is your idea of a less
violent relationship:

Subject: Re: Are you trying to threaten me, little man? (Was: Badges...)

In <1992Sep8.234357.2424@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715902274@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <1992Sep3.233740.12447@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>
>>>In article <nyikos.715464590@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>>In <1992Sep1.020959.10514@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>I'll volunteer to be the "doer" to Peter's body.  If you'd like some of my
>>>>>qualifications, see if you can find a post titled "You Asked For It!", where
>>>>>I describe some of the slight correlations between fisting and giving birth.
>>>>
>>>>If you are trying to gross me out, you'll have to try a lot harder than
>>>>this.  In fact, I don't think it can be done on talk.abortion without
>>>>calling the wrath of network censors on your head and bringing on pressure
>>
>>>Are you trying to threaten me, little man? 
>>
>>Threaten? who? me? Not on your life.  If anyone brings pressure to bear,
>>it sure won't be me.  My motives for saying the above were utterly
>>different.
>>
>>And while we're on the subject of threats, my comment was in response
>>to a very explicit threat on your part, or have you forgotten?

>Reading comprehension time, Peter.  Keith never threatened you at all.
>I made an offer to you (which, although you are perfectly free to 
>decline, you have not even offered me the courtesy of a response).  

Since you insist on me taking your response on face value instead
of as an attempted gross-out, I'll do you the courtesy.  But don't
count on me doing it all the time.

>Keith in return made an offer to *me* which I was also free to
>decline.

Not only did you not decline it, you repeated it and asked me to
respond to it yet again, since you'd missed my first response.
I inferred that you therefore approved of his offer.

>  Now by some weird stretch of the imagination, you might 
>say that *I* had threatened you by making the offer in the first place
>but I think most people would laugh in your face if you tried to make
>such a ludicrous claim.

So I'm not claiming it, I'm just claiming that you consider his
offer a reasonable one. 

[End of excerpt from "Are you trying to threaten me, little man" post.]

>>
>>Sure, but I'll bet the back forty that you at least *thought* of it.  My

>I didn't think of violence.  Bob told me he had fooled around on me, I packed
>my things, and left.  That was a couple of years ago, and we're still friends.

>=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=

And your fist.  If Clarence Thomas had admitted to telling Anita Hill
anything like your and Sarah MacCabe's "offer", he would probably be
unemployed today, because NO court would want to have him.

BTW I will now say the sort of thing Anita Hill testified to having
said to Clarence Thomas: I find the apellation "Petey Honey" degrading
and offensive, and will take it as sexual harrassment from now on,
especially if it comes from another man.

If Anita Hill never said it, I can understand why: I was afraid 
acknowledging it would be merely to invite more of it, but now I
say, enough is enough.


>= "I warned Larry about such intellectually dishonest posting."               =
>=    -- Peter Nyikos in article <nyikos.717105984@milo.math.scarolina.edu>    =

You quoted it, not I.  I'm beginning to think Larry is a distant third
to you and Gordon Storga in this department.

Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: soc.women