From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:33:57 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <Bsuyt7.B9M@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (You know who) writes:
>[Looks like it's slice and dice time again...]

Well, I hope I don't get prison time for this slice & dice session.

>In article <1992Aug12.000213.19610@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug11.022942.11142@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>>>
>>>Look. This is ridiculous -- it sounds like the whole `Have you stopped
>>>beating your wife?' trap. It's ugly and it's abusive.
>>
>Poor baby...you know "ugly and abusive", all right -- like making up things
>that I never said, and you know I never said, but spreading them anyway.

1) FACT: YOU SAID YOU HAD DOCUMENTATION THAT "CHANEY POSTS AS HALL." 
2) FACT: YOU THEN RETRACTED IT BECAUSE I CALLED YOUR BLUFF TO SHOW AND
   PROVE.
3) FACT: YOU SAID I WAS POSTING AS CONRAD VINCENT. FACT: YOU ALSO
   REFERRED TO ME AS "CHANEY/VINCENT".
4) FACT: YOU THEN SAID YOU DIDN'T SAY THAT, RIGHT AFTER CONRAD VINCENT
   AND I HAMMERED YOUR LIE INTO THE EARTH.  
5) FACT: YOU THEN SAID MY ACCOUNT WAS MISSING ON NEXTNET AND THAT IT
   WAS NOT RECOGNIZED.	 
6) FACT: ALL THESE RETRACTIONS CAME AFTER PROMPT CHALLENGES BY ME.

Stick the fork in you, Patrick, you're done. 

>I haven't lied about your account -- and you have.  That's already been
>shown.  You're the one playing pranks, badgering a certain sysadmin at UD -- 

Telling them to do something about the harassing e-mail I was getting
from Scott Dog. Why is it that he doesn't nag our system
administrators or me, anymore? 

Because 1) They won't listen to him; and 2) Dick Smith will, well, as
they say, deal with Scott Roby personally, in ways which Roby won't
like it.  

>and never mentioning that you're none too popular with your own admins at the
>moment, having caused them a lot of extra work.  You've twisted the story
>of my saying "documentation" into me lying -- when I admitted my error *before*
>you stuck your scrofulous face up to abuse me.  

Abuse you? You ain't seen abuse yet, kid. Keep lying about me and
you'll learn what abuse is all about. All I have to do is refer to
your credibility and that's enough abuse right there against you, 
to earn me a hearty boycott by the local pro-aborts. YOU helped start
this flamewar, Patrick Roby, and if you suddenly can't take the heat
and you're claiming I'm abusing you, then call a truce and the war's
over. But until then, remember, you started this fight, so don't come
crying over Internet about "abuse" when I abuse you right back. 

Everyone on this newsgroup knows too well that once YOU get on someone
and start your little insults and games, if they try to seek peace,
your kind (or Kaufman or Regard or Garvin) will insult and beat them
into leaving the newsgroup, with your abusive posts. And I'm not
talking about mildly abusive, either. 
Your problem now, is that I don't flee your insults, I fight back, I
don't let up, and I hammer away, post after post. Now, if YOU try to
admit where you lied about me, you're afraid I'll do the same thing
back to you, and it's hard for a grown man, especially from... well,
that's state-ist, so I won't say it... to admit he's wrong, unless
he's absolutely cornered. 

And no, you backed down after I told you to show us that documentation or
retract. I challenged you the instant the article came up. That was
one of those "I cornered Pat Roby" situations where you had no other
option _BUT_ to back down. So you did a politician's move: you turned
and called it a simple "mistake."

Yeah, like that lie is to be believed.  

But I'll extend you this courtesy: if you call truce, I'll drop the
issue and we can attempt calm and logical dialogue. But it's gotta be
your call because I don't call off wars once they start. 

>You're just a venomous little
>boy who sees nothing wrong with treating others the way he's treated at 
>home. 

Well, you're half right. I do get extremely venomous when attacked by
liars and cutthroats like you. But as you do read constantly, people
who don't get nasty with me, I don't get nasty with. I like peace,
Humphrey, but if, like in your case, it's got to be a flame war, as
you know, I am as vicious as they get.  

And my folks didn't treat me bad. Unless bad to me is different
than bad to you. Now, THAT may be the problem.

> (I got a good laugh out of you addressing me with a name I haven't
>gone by since I got out of high school -- and that was before you were born,
>son.  I'm not 17 any more, and my name is Patrick.  See to it that you 
>remember it, or I'll remind you.)

Okay, Patrick Roby. Of course, that means I am recognizing you as the
liar you are, but in such a case, wouldn't Patrick Roby be kinda
majorly redundant, like having 2 liars in one? :) 

Which reminds me of what I'd said about your being too old and set in
your ways... 

>>>Now, *I* like to see idiots embarrass themselves by posting degenerate
>>>hateful tripe on worldwide computer networks, but that's a perverse
>>>pleasure I seem to share with few people. What I'm saying is, you're
>>>not making friends with this kind of stuff.
>>
>>Who'd want to make friends with Kaufman, Humphrey or Susan Regard?
>>These folks are so nasty, they even grabbed a hold of Siren and blew
>>her Internet.feathers off when she pleaded with Kaufman and I, to stop
>>our vicious exchanges. I cooled down for a while, but after seeing it
>>was useless and that I'd always have a Susan Regard, a Patrick Kaufman,
>>a Decayed Halfwitz and a Scott Humphrey, I just decided that if they
>>can flame, so can I.  
>
>Sure, Dennis.  I guess that explains why you waddled your fat ass in here 
>and started jumping on people with no provocation.  The Bard hit it square
>on -- you are making no friends by acting like a rabid chihuahua.

And you, Pat Roby, aren't making any friends by lying. And you sure aren't
encouraging your current friends by making it Internet news that you
go around probing people's accounts and making it your business, as
Scott Roby did, to contact system administrators and dig deep for the
latest dirt on Steve Chaney. But I think a little better of you than
your alter ego Scott Roby; at least you don't go around, playing
pranks.  

Besides, aside from Jay Stein (possibly), I didn't jump on anyone
without provocation. Ever. I didn't get all that nagging e-mail from
Ronald Bense, and a half dozen others, without provocation: I was
involved in a flame war, and people began going after me. Dan Bredy
was starting a flame war with Kellmeyer and Schweikert, not to mention
Suzanne Forgach, and Dan King was just slamming on people in general
(not like Bredy, however), so they asked for what they got when I came
onto Internet. 

The lesson you do not get, is that if you don't want folks like me to
respond to your articles and tear you to little shreds, don't do it to
other people. Then, I'll cool down. 
Too many pro-lifers have disappeared off this newsgroup because of
your nasty tactics for me to remain a nice guy on talk.abortion.

>>>Otherwise, get help. Even my future father-in-law, who lives in Yorba
>>>Linda, California, and is about as anti-abortion as anyone, would
>>>never do anything as heinous as kick his children into homelessness
>>>over a political disagreement. The worst he ever did was get *real*
>>>grouchy.
>>
>>Then he ain't Mark Kaufman or Patrick Humphrey. 
>
>Obviously not, Rocket Scientist -- with my one step-daughter not turning
>17 for another three months, it's not too likely I'm going to be a 
>father-in-law until I'm at least 40.  (Of course, that milestone isn't
>all *that* far away...)

Glad she's not pro-life, or else she might get a daily ear-blasting
from assholes like you, Pat Roby. Or you might lie about her like you
do me, who knows? 

>>And don't start up on that dysfunctional shit, either - at least _we_
>>don't sniff the flower, drop out of school or have the cops dropping
>>by our house weekly, to check out a family brawl.  
>
>You're the one that started up on it.  Thanks for demonstrating some of what
>makes you tick -- it makes me appreciate my family that much more...

I introduced a scenario and then, after that, under "Revised
Consistency Check," something that happens in real life. You turned
and twisted it around and called it "dysfunctional." 

No one has yet proved one thing about my family that could be
dysfunctional, and yet you continue to assert my family history was
"bad." There is absolutely nothing wrong - at least there never has
been a thing wrong - with parents demanding respect, which my brother
didn't give for a while, before they put their feet down and demanded
it from him. There is also nothing wrong with taking an inheritance
away when the kid(s) decides not to give respect at all. 

But in your language, it's called "dysfunctional." The rest of America
knows it as normal. Y'know, 50 million French can't be wrong and you
be right. Or, in this case, 250 million Americans.  

>-- 
>Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
> +1 713 528-3626 at Rice.  776-1541 at home.  916 777-9311 - are you kidding? 
>
>           * Hit Steve Hall or Dennis Chaney to feel a lot better *

Nice, Pat Roby. Hit someone who doesn't exist, rather than even
imagine hitting someone who does, because they might knock you out.

You're a classic coward. 


===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
	        With the little girl's consent, of course. 
		 Don't you pro-choicers just _hate_ this? 
===============================================================================
		  Previous .sig joke added as irritant.
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.