From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Guilty of ... STUPIDITY!
Summary: Oh, baby, baby, baby.  We could get married... 
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 02:54:26 GMT

In article <nyikos.717907313@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>The subject line should refer to Cochran, IMO.  Will is merely
>guilty of thoughtcrime.

And you are entitled to your own opinion.  The net.attitude seems to be
against you.

>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?

Yes I do, "Dr Nyikos".  Will has stated that "hypothetically", a woman
who showed him disrespect by having an abortion and not telling him might
wind up dead.

In my book, that's just a tad ...extreme... if you know what I mean.

>
>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.

Which has been what, two whole months?  Seriously, it's from KLF.

>
>>>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.

Why do I need to refute your arguments, when Dan is doing such a fine job?

>
>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.

Peter, you can be an apologist for Will all you want.  That's not going
to change what he posted.

>
>>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
>>notifcation" law in the book.
>
>Funny.

If you thought it was, I would suggest you get a tune-up for your humor
modules.

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

It has been ruled unconstitutional to discriminate against women because of
their sex.  Why bother with the fact that they can't serve in "combat" roles
in the military?

>
>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.  

So you would force a woman to tell Will that she had an abortion?  Even after
the statements he made in his post?  Interesting...

>
>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 don't do archives.  I'm limited to ~300k of disk space on this system, and
refuse to go through the hassles of downloading everything.

>
>>>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:

Where did I suggest that Will have anything to do with me, Peter?

>
>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.]

That's a nice excerpt there, Peter.  However,

1) What does this have to do with anything??

2) Fisting, like most forms of sex, is non-violent.

3) In some respects, fisting does provide a unique insight into what the
woman goes through in giving birth.

>
>>>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.

My, my, my.  You do seem to have this fascination about my fists, don't you?
And what does Clarence Thomas have to do with Will Steeves?

>
>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.

Sexually insecure?

>
>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.

Sure enough.  I'll try and avoid that in the future.

>
>>= "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.

All three of us are miles behind "Dr Nyikos" in terms of intellectually
dishonest posting...
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=   "Wendy? Yes, Lisa? Is the water warm enough? Yes, Lisa? Shall we begin?"  =
=                                                                     "Prince"=