From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: The Mendacity of Susan Garvin, Part 1 (Was: Laugh...)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 23 Dec 92 20:57:58 GMT

In <1088@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <nyikos.724975331@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>[Stephen Mezias' comments deleted - he's answered for himself]

>#I was tempted to change the subject title to "Laugh of the week from
>#Mezias," but then I realized that this is no laughing matter; maybe
>#it *is* one to Mezias, though, just as it apparently was to Susan Garvin.  

{Lefty-style bravado by Susan deleted}

>#Dean Kaflowitz
>#covered up for her as best he could, in response to a post in which I took
>#a flippant comment by Susan, and asked her whether she considers the 
>#accusation against Will to be all a big game, with no relevance to anything
>#going on in the real world.  Susan never answered the question, perhaps
>#thinking that Kaflowitz made me and everyone else forget about it.

>I've forgotten all about it.  (Yes, Reverend Holtsinger, really.)
>(Oh, yeah, PHoney, you won't get the previous reference.  Too bad.)

All of which goes to show how seriously Susan takes these matters.

>I'll answer your question now that I see it, though - no, I don't
>think that reposting Steeves' own words and confronting him with
>them was a joke.  I think that Steeves sincerely wishes that
>he'd never posted that particular article.  He did post it, though.

I was referring back then to the charge that Steeves would kill
any woman who did not show him respect.  Susan gave Don a contemptuous
put-down about how he feels a need to post to four groups on which
this libel was repeated.  Hence my remarks, which Susan was too
embarrassed to confront (still is, judging from the way she keeps
changing the subject, as in the preceding paragraph) and so
Kaflowitz, the Designated Liar on her team for that post, jumped
in to deflect my well-earned flame by deleting everything of Susan's
that I was attacking and by 
lying that I had posted much more irrational statements than the ones
for which I was attacking Susan.  

I challenged Kaflowitz to show evidence of these "irrational", "stupid"
statements and he backed down and withdrew the charge of stupidity.

Now if Susan were a good team player, she would follow up to this post
by posting these phantom "more irrational" statements of mine, and
get Dean off the hook.

>[PHoney's assertions that Steeves didn't say anything about
>killing his ex deleted]

I made no such assertion, as the post, whose copy I am appending, proves.

>#(And probably also Don Beaver, whom Susan was telling not to
>#post his attempted refutations on all the same places where the charge
>#was aired, in her usual pro-force style.)

>Prove this accusation, PHoney.  Repost an article of mine in which
>I told Beaver where to post his tripe, if you can.  (Of course, you
>can't, so you'll probably claim that your newsserver went down
>right after you apologized for lying.)

The post was a long time ago, so it will take a while to find it.

While y'all are waiting, I give a SNippet :-) from that post, 
featuring some words from
Steve Novak and Will Steeves, as they appeared in a follow-up along
the same thread.  Perhaps Will Steeves or Don Beaver can find the
original post of Susan's before I do.

The highlighted words were featured in my follow-up to Susan, and of
them I said that they were my entry for the prize for "most irrational 
comment made by Susan Garvin"--but it had lots of serious competitors,
and Susan has added a lot to the list since then, including the 
parenthetical sentence in her last paragraph above.

From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Guilty?
X-To: STEVE NOVAK
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 05:16:00 GMT
SN> >SG> I have no desire to continue this, Beaver.  You don't seem capable
SN> >SG> of rational discussion.  If you believe your entire sex is
SN> >                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SN> >SG> evil, as you said, you should really get some help.
SN> >    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

SN> >He *never* said this, Susan.  He was saying that a large number of you have
SN> >pre-judged men to be "potential oppressors".

SN> Men ARE potential oppressors.

_____________________end of SNippet_____________________________________

And now, the post from which Susan Garvin falsely claims to have deleted
assertions by me that Steeves didn't say anything about
killing his ex-SO.  My refutation, and Will's, was of Mezias's complete
sentence, including the libelous "because she did not respect him."

Fact is, she *did* respect him enough not to wait for a year before
telling him she would abort the unborn child.  But distinctions like
this are obviously lost on Susan Garvin.  As well as fine points of
the law, such as the distinction between saying "He was going to kill
her" and "He would have snapped right then and there, and killed her
on the spot."

Date: 21 Dec 92 22:02:11 GMT
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Laugh of the week from Will Steeves.
Distribution: world 

In <34319@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>In article <1992Dec16.153050.15780@zooid.guild.org>
>goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes: 

>>I know whereof I speak, because I admit that I had similar negative feelings
>>about women after all of what happened, two years ago, not to mention the
>>threats on my life.
>>*I* got over it, which basically means that *anyone* can.  :-)

I was tempted to change the subject title to "Laugh of the week from
Mezias," but then I realized that this is no laughing matter; maybe
it *is* one to Mezias, though, just as it apparently was to Susan Garvin.  

Dean Kaflowitz
covered up for her as best he could, in response to a post in which I took
a flippant comment by Susan, and asked her whether she considers the 
accusation against Will to be all a big game, with no relevance to anything
going on in the real world.  Susan never answered the question, perhaps
thinking that Kaflowitz made me and everyone else forget about it.

>Is this a joke?  The pot calls the kettle black!  Will claims to have
>gotten over his irrational hatred of women?  Is this the same Will who
>was going to murder the woman who aborted a child he alleges to have
>fathered because she did not respect him?  I think far more than one
>smiley face was needed in this post.

The only one needed for this post, or the one to which I am following
up, is one for the sentence beginning, "Is this the same Will..." and
repeating a charge which has been thoroughly refuted by both Will and
myself.  (And probably also Don Beaver, whom Susan was telling not to
post his attempted refutations on all the same places where the charge
was aired, in her usual pro-force style.)

[Yeah, I know...but I don't see why the pro-choice side should have
all the fun with the term "pro-force".]

Quote of the hour:

"Mezias telling Elizabeth Bartley to get real?  This isn't the pot
calling the kettle black; this is the pot calling the milk black."
		--Peter Nyikos, in a post of last month.



Newsgroups: talk.abortion