From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Garvin, Holtsinger, Pot, Kettle(?) Milk(?)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 28 Dec 92 22:18:01 GMT

In <1185@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <34640@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>#In article <1992Dec26.191257.5575@ncsu.edu>
>#dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes a new thread
>#entitled `Was Mezias dropped on his head during his childhood?'  This
>#is in obvious response to the fact that he is a prime net liar, and I
>#had the audacity to point this out:

I don't know about Mezias, but I do know that Garvin, if not exactly a liar
(I'd need 1,000,000 lines of documentation for that because otherwise
Keegan will repeatedly ask me to apologize to Garvin for calling her a liar)
has certainly shown that "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy
neighbor" is not one of the ten commandments of her private religion, no
matter what religion she professes to follow in public.

On the other hand, her reaction to my question, "What's a rewsreader"
[in response to a passage where she used that spelling] indicates that
"Thou shalt not be laughed at" is one of the ten commandments of her
religion.

Also on the other hand, her repeated references to Holtsinger as "the
Reverend" seems to indicate that she believes he includes "Thou shalt
not bear false witness against thy neighbor" in his decalogue.

For the record, I have yet to see a documented case of "the Reverend"
violating this commandment.

>#### How many times do I have to repeat myself?  I am undecided.
>#### Try reading those three words slowly.  Hopefully it will sink in.
>##
>### Didn't [Mr. Holtsinger] just post his opposition to FOCA?
>##
>##Allow me to explain something to you.  When people on talk.abortion
>##discuss ``legislation'', they are usually talking about legislation
>##to restrict abortion.  Most people understand that.  Obviously you
>##don't.  
>#DODIE will not rely on the best-defense-is-a-good-offense strategy of
>#insulting me.  He also goes on to declare a false consensus regarding
>#what one means when one talks about legislation on t.a.  And here I
>#was thinking the FOCA was legislation relevant to abortion.  Silly me.

>It's becoming harder for DODie to lie about the consensus, too, since
>people are speaking up and saying, "No, Reverend, that's not what
>we mean."  He'll probably continue to set follow-ups to misc.test,
>and he'll probably continue to try to insult you.

Here is the explanation of the title thread.  I want to know whether
Susan Garvin, who very often sets follow-ups to misc.test AND NOTHING
ELSE, is the pot calling the kettle black, or whether it is the pot
calling the cow's milk black, or is it the pot calling the light brown 
chocolate milk black?

In other words, does Doug also often set follow-ups to misc.test AND NOTHING
ELSE, or does he never set them to misc. test, or does he sometimes set
them to misc.test in addition to the other news groups?

With Garvin throwing so much shit against the wall, some of it is bound
to stick, as here, unless someone like me asks questions like the above,
and gets answers.

>  (Maybe he'll
>even follow you from newsgroup to newsgroup - he does that, too, when
>someone proves him to be a liar.  Welcome to the club.)

I have yet to see anyone prove Doug a liar, or even a breaker of the
traditional commandment above.

>What he won't do is this - admit that he's lying or start telling
>the truth.  I don't think he's capable of either.

Of course, when you are already telling the truth, you are incapable
of STARTING to tell the truth.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion