From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Peter, do you even know how to READ? (Was: 3 docs in a 3-way).
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:50:32 GMT

In <192brnINNpbo@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <nyikos.716335245@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <18novvINN6jc@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>
>>What a grotesque distortion.
>>Did you also read the part where I say you seem to 
>> have shown no signs of growing
>>as a human being in the past 7 years?  Your distortion reinforces this
>>impression.

>Peter,

>Careful now, fella.

>I have a copy of a posting of yours, not more than 2 months old, I believe,
>where you state you had been on the net less than 7 days.  

Glad you saw it.

>Now, unless you were *lying* (this is merely a clause in the sentence, not
>an accusation, you understand -- I wouldn't dream of accusing you of such
>a despicable thing....) you wouldn't have much experience to base the
>statement above upon, now would you?  You haven't been party to the large
>amount of those 7 years to observe or not observe 'growing as a human being'
>in any way, have you?

No, but I have seen some repeats of posts and messages by you, by 
Bill Overpeck, if memory serves, when I was still in Wollongong.
So I am not entirely clueless, even though I am a newbie.

>But you couldn't be speaking through your *hat* again, now could you?

Perish the thought.  Besides Bill Overpeck's whole series of posts
[if it wasn't Overpeck, substitute the correct name wherever you see his]
there is the general overall impression that over 7 years, you must
have been exposed to a lot of gut-wrenching stories, but your reaction
to Will's seems to indicate that you drew the wrong lessons from them.

>>>Kinda makes me *glad* you have decided I'm not on your list of 'compassionate'
>>>people, because I wouldn't like the company, or the definition.
>>
>>I'm beginning to hatch a bit of speculation, not backed up yet by any solid
>>facts, mind you, that just as Dennis Hall is alleged to be a fictional name
>>of Steve Chaney, just so   Adrienne Regard      is a fictional name for
>>                            drieux
>>or vice versa.  

>drieux!  Now *there's* company I would appreciate. 

>Yeah, do that, Peter.  Cross drieux and I right off your list of 'people'.
>That's the "compassionate" thing to do:  make a whole list of excuses for
>a fellow who swore to God or Allah that he would have killed a woman, but
>by all means, disqualify drieux and I from the company of people because we
>haven't done such 'excusable' things.....

Wait a minute.

Is it possible that you are NOT as thick-skinned as Bill Overpeck's posts
indicated?

One detail that sticks in my mind from that July series is how you 
behaved like a jerk in a letter "congratulating" him on the birth
of one of his children.  There were many other things that have faded
in my memory, but they created the same overall impression.

At any rate, if I have ever hurt your feelings in any way, I am very
sorry.

Back in Wollongong, I was planning to post something which included a
personal message to you, including something like:

"Anyone like you, who has been on a newsgroup like this, which deals with
so many deeply felt convictions and raw emotions for 7 years, is obviously
someone who can not only dish it out, but also take it.  And I have a
tremendous amount of respect for someone like that."

...and other well-meaning statements.  But, being so new to the net, I
showed the post to both Doug Holtsinger and Steve Chaney so they could
give me some idea as to what the effect might be.  Both advised me
not to post it.  Chaney even said, "If you post it, Adrienne will
turn you into flaming horseflesh."

And while waiting for their reply, I read Bill Overpeck's posts.

And I didn't post it.  And Bill Overpeck's posts, as well as a lot
of your own more recent ones, have eroded a lot of that respect I
was referring to above.  But you still have ample opportunity to
regain it.  Never in my adult life have I ever written 
off anyone as hopeless.

>You really haven't a clue how much damage you do yourself, do you, Peter?

Well, according to Chaney, I avoided worse damage.  But maybe he 
misjudged you.  Having read more of his posts since then, I can see
how he over-reacts to some things, although I do agree Humphrey still
owes him an apology.

>Note that question mark again.

Duly noted, along with your comment about not wishing to accuse me of
lying.  Would that all pro-choicers were as careful with their words.

May the [Lethal?] Force be with you!

Peter Nyikos



Newsgroups: talk.abortion