From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: A forgery by Adrienne Regard?!?!?!?!? (was: Stipu..)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 24 Oct 92 01:17:34 GMT

In <1c197pINN2ve@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <nyikos.719283669@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>>In article <1bfgu1INNpie@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>>After sex, even if the man has never wanted to become a parent
>>>>and used a condom and spermicide, he has no right to make decisions
>>>>about his "personal or family privacy."  He cannot abort the child;

>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'm sorry, Adrienne.  I thought Susan Garvin was 
an AnotherAdrienneRegardWannabe.  It appears that, instead, you are an
AnotherSusanGarvinWannabe.

Chaney has charged Susan Garvin with forgery but when last I heard, he
was still trying to complete his documentation.  I on the other hand
have it in my files: The post to which you are following up, exactly
as it appeared.

I'm not posting it here, for fear that I may be falling into a very clever
trap you have set for me.  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?

Note that there are exactly as many >>>> up there in the reference as
there are in the part quoted.  That is as it should be, because the
part quoted is from a FOLLOW-UP by Don Beaver to a post of yours.
It's always the case (don't ask me why; after seven years on the net,
you are in a much better position to know why) that there is one MORE
>  pointing to things in the text than there is pointing to the 
reference from which that text came from.

Of course, your post had >>> where now there is >>>>, and my post where
my alleged mis-attribution took place has >> in the same places, but
again, all is as it should be.

And of course, you edited out the attributions to Beaver, and to your
own follow-up to Beaver, otherwise no one would have been fooled.

Other readers please note: way up there, you will see a reference to
a post by Adrienne preceded by >>>>, a reference to a post by me
preceded by >, and nothing in between.  This is due to deletions by
adrienne, which I can document.

>Adrienne Regard

Peter Nyikos

PS Adrienne is probably laughing her head off right now for the way
she tricked me into doing all this typing.  But gee, when she says
things like

>(not that it would surprise any of us that you show no interest, period,
>in ever getting things right on the net......)
 
I really owe it to the clueless newbies to show them that these words
were meant in jest, despite the absence of smileys.

=====end included post=========
Newsgroups: talk.abortion