From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: compromise
Keywords: Holtsinger refuted
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:22:05 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes about Susan Garvin:

>>> Typical.  She makes allegations of the unreliability of the quote, does
>>> not give her own quote, deletes Doug's quote.

>> Yo!  Newbie!  J. Greenfield showed that DearOldDoug made unmarked deletions
>> last summer!  I'll bet that if you swallow hard and apologize to Ms. Regard
>> and Ms. Garvin, some kind soul will email you Mr. Greenfield's posts.

> Otherwise I'm out of luck, eh?  I'll just have to live on with the
> delusion that Doug's deletions are molehills compared to Garvin's 
> mountains.

Luck is about the only thing you've got going for you, chief.  Admitting that
you're delusional is a positive sign.  It took guts to do that, and I applaud
you.

>>> I move that networkers disregard such claims as "he had made unmarked
>>> deletions" by Ms. Garvin until she shows where these were made and what
>>> they were [or at least a sample].

>> Mr. Pot, you should really be more careful about disparging remarks about
>> Ms. Kettle.  Read on.

> You should really quit talking to yourself, Chris, and you should also
> note that I am a Mr. [or Dr. if you prefer] and not a Ms., and that
> I have not been demonstrated to be like a kettle.

Goodness me, could it be that you're doing one of those childish "I'm rubber,
you're glue" shticks?  Well, they say that the period between 20 and 45 is
only a short respite from adolescence.

> Other readers, read on.  You will see why I said this.

'Cause you're a buffoon???

>>>> With absolutely no shame for *completely* misrepresenting quotes, Doug 
>>>> Holtsinger writes:           ^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
>> These words were penned (keyboarded?) by J. Greenfield.  You have removed
>> that attribution.  Why, Petey?

> You are talking gibberish. I did not remove any attributions [in fact, I
> left in one too many; I've admitted this mistake in a number of posts].

The attribution to Greenfield was in the body of Garvin's article, not at
the beginning.  Either by accident or by design, you deleted it and proceeded
to respond as if to Ms. Garvin.
  
> You removed an attribution to Holtsinger, also the one to Garvin that I
> ought to have removed.  There was no attribution to a J. Greenfield, unless
> by him you mean Holtsinger, just as "Dennis Hall" is a favorite moniker of
> Susan Garvin for Steve Chaney.

Dennis Hall was a favorite moniker of Steve Chaney's, until his little joke
was found out.  Back to the issue at hand, Holtsinger's attribution was not
deleted, it's right up there for everyone to see.  I'll even reprint it for
you since you are so easily confused:

>>>> With absolutely no shame for *completely* misrepresenting quotes, Doug 
>>>> Holtsinger writes:

That's the attribution Greenfield chose to use in his post.  It's just as
valid as --

sample> In <BxDM9o.178.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

- or -

sample> In talk.abortion,  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
sample> coughs up a furball:

[--begin asides--]

> Note to readers who may not know whether to believe me or Chris, 
> also those who reflexively believe what Chris wrote above
>  [I don't think Chris falls into either category, BTW]:
>  I "enclosed" a copy of my post in a 
> follow-up to Keegan a few minutes ago, and you can see for yourselves
> that what I am saying above is true.

Of course, Mr. Keegan _and_ Ms. Garvin posted Garvin's post with Greenfield's
attribution intact recently.  Petey's news server must have died just before
those articles were written into his news spool.

> Also note, at the beginning of this post there is an attribution line
> to Susan Garvin with >> in front of it.  Chris Lyman has let a lot
> of lines of text preceded by >>> slide by without commenting that
> they were "penned" by anyone other than Ms. Garvin.

Having read Greenfield's original post and Garvin's resposting of same, I
had no trouble telling who wrote which words.  Neither did anyone else, with
the exception of one blithering math professer from USC.

[--end asides--]

Now, pay attention, Perfesser.  The following was written by J. Greenfield,
not by Susan Garvin.

>>>> As I have said *several* times before, *I* have never said that the two 
>>>> cases should not be read together.  What I said is that you cannot 
>>>> assume that the discussion of "health" in the Doe opinion applies to the 
>>>> "life and health" provision in Roe, regarding third-trimester abortions.

But you attributed it to Ms. Garvin.

>>> As far as I can see, this unsupported allegation ["you cannot assume..."]
>>> by Ms. Garvin is her sole support for her word "*completely*" highlighted
>>> above.

>> These words [>>>> in this post] were penned (keyboarded?) by J. Greenfield.
>> Do they offer remedial reading courses for topology experts at USC?

> Again you are speaking gibberish. The >> words were keyboarded by me.
> Are you now saying that I am really J. Greenfield?  But I never did the
> things you attributed to J. Greenfield above.

Are you still wondering why everyone is laughing at you?

Now, pay attention, Perfesser.  The following was written by J. Greenfield,
not by Susan Garvin.

>>>> Every objective indication supports this contention.

But you attributed it to Ms. Garvin.

>>> The above sentence is rendered vacuous by the omission of all objective
>>> indications from the post to which I am following up.  The best she can
>>> do is show that *some* of Doug's quotes are *consistent* with her 
>>> contention.

>> These words [>>>> in this post] were penned (keyboarded?) by J. Greenfield.
>> Stop playing dumb, Petey, we get enough real stupidity from you as it is.

> Why are you wasting everybody's time, Chris?

Are you still wondering why everyone is laughing at you?

[--the rest mercifully deleted--]

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's
character, give him power."  -- Abraham Lincoln