From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Apology for insults
Organization: Not USC, and thankful for it.
	<nyikos.727394857@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
	<1993Jan19.004545.20253@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<nyikos.727565273@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
	<PATRICK.93Jan20182357@rio-grande.is.rice.edu>
	<nyikos.727633101@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:00:36 GMT

On 21 Jan 93 16:18:21 GMT, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) said:

>In <PATRICK.93Jan20182357@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>>On 20 Jan 93 21:27:53 GMT, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) said:

>><snip, snip, and the bandwidthectomy proceeds...>

>Highly selective surgery here...

Idiot.  I wanted to kick you in the head on a couple of points, and I don't
have to re-post the entire article to get to them.  Why are you so obsessed
with my affairs, you laughable excuse for a professor?

>{Restoration of Galen's text:}

>>>> I'd also like to mention that while
>>>>the person who first used the remark avoids it now, and has apologized,
>>>>people like you and our Reverend DoD and even Chaney himself dredge it up 
>>>>at every possiblity.  

>{end of restoration}

>>[to Galen]

>>>On the other hand, Patrick also flames people about all kinds of things
>>>that happened in the past, like in the act of referring to Chaney
>>>as "Dennis Hall".  And the relevant stuff on that happened well before
>>>I joined this newsgroup.

>>So what's your point?  You *do* have one this time, I hope?

>Sure.  Look at the restoration of what you deleted, and ask yourself:
>1. How bad is my reading comprehension?
>2. How bad are my reasoning abilities?
>3. Why did I think Nyikos would not be able to figure out that I had
>deleted the justification for what he wrote?

You don't know what I was thinking.  Why do you insist you *know* what I
think?  I'll give you one answer to cover all three questions:  no one cares
what YOU think.  Are you having that much fun, being one of those little
buzzing mosquitoes?

>>>Patrick also insulted me repeatedly when all I did was e-mail him when
>>>my netserver wasn't posting (and I had *no* idea he objected to being
>>>e-mailed), just as I did you [Thanks again for posting those things for
>>>me long long ago.], and diplomatically said I feel he owes Chaney an
>>>apology.  He never apologized for any of that, nor for the countless
>>>insults he has heaped on me since then.

>>You damned liar.  I'm sitting here looking at the mail I sent in response to
>>your whiny little demand you sent me on my mainframe account -- 1992 August
>>18, 15:33:18 EDT.  Sound familiar?  In my reply, which I sent you about ten
>>hours later as I was settling in for the night here at work, I included
>>this:

>>...You're also being put on notice not to appear in my mailbox again, either
>>on this system or where I normally post from.  (If you'd paid attention to
>>that, you might have figured out how to spell my name correctly.)

>I assumed that your "Like, what's the big deal?" e-mail letter to me
>canceled that out.  Like, how was I supposed to answer your question
>without either:

Thanks for showing us all you really are a damned idiot.  You're a bear for
"assuming" things when it suits your little agenda of speculation, ain't
you?  And, as for how you were supposed to answer my question:  are you
truly incapable of figuring out that you could always POST the damn thing?
Hell, you could have called, for all that, if you'd had the gonads to do
even that much -- but no, you just had to decide you knew better than I did
what I was *really* saying.  

>A.  E-mailing you back   or
>B.  Posting private e-mail?

See my answer up there, twit?  You have *anything* to say to me, you say it
in public where everyone else gets to see it as well.  Otherwise, if I want
your opinion, I'll beat it out of you.  You dig?


>See also point 2. above, assuming your memory is good enough so that
>you can scroll back up to 2. without forgetting what you were scrolling
>back up to.

PHoney, your obsession with discrediting me is what YOU should be concerned
with -- it ain't my problem.  

>Peter Nyikos

>PS  Pro-choicers are bad at dealing with conditional clauses.  Let's
>see whether Patrick picks up on mine.

You forgot to ask if I even bother listening to what you say, dimwit.
Articles like this provide a good reason to just not bother with your
buzzing.  

Have a nice day, scam artist.

--PLH, PHoney's about as honest as a $3 bill -- and he'd steal the Lord's
Supper, to boot...


--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion