From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Janus V: HERE I STAND, Part 2
Summary: Why I am not intimidated by the odds against me
Keywords: Socrates, asinine "reading comprehension" theme
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 28 Jan 93 13:19:01 GMT


Mark Cochran made a post before New Year's Eve which I tried to reply to
on January 7, but apparently this was too long before the dam holding
back my posts burst, causing it to expire in the netserver.

Here I repost it because towards the end, I reveal a little of the
stuff of which I am made.  Most of the post looks to the past, but
towards the end I look to a future where people realize how futile it
is to talk about my alleged lousy net.reputation.

> Subject: Petey Ny makes a fool of himself in public. Again...

> Organization: None to speak of...
		^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Mark has hinted at being employed at NICU, whatever that is, in some
capacity, whatever that is.

> Lines: 160

Many of them deleted here, to avoid a high degree of redundancy in
what Marcus says.  

 I'm using the spelling "Marcus" to distinguish
him from Mark Ira Kaufmann [sp?] even though his style in many posts rivals
that of the other Mark in vacuousness.  This, I believe, is an intentional
put-down of anyone who repays him in his own coin instead of keeping 
to the moral high ground against him.

> In article <nyikos.725573716@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> 
> [PHoneys defense of DODie and his fake quotes deleted]

Nothing fake about the quotes, except that the attribution line
for Doug ("DODie") Holtsinger was altered by Susan Garvin to include
Doug's not-quite-perfect ("yer" in place of "your" and other trivialities)
recollection of Patrick Humphrey's racist comment to Chaney.

[Note added Jan. 28: Susan Garvin has *apparently* denied altering the
attribution line.  Perhaps she is waiting until I get everything
letter-perfect before sarcastically jumping in and saying that I should
have been clearer in my charges from the beginning.  This may revolve
around the distinction between referring to Doug as Doug "yer fat black
ass" Holtsinger in the text, and altering an attribution line to contain
the term.  Also she may have changed "Doug" to "DODie" and done other
things irrelevant to the real issue.]
 
> I notice that in your defense of DODie (the only person (?) you have
> yet convinced of your credibility) you fail to note that aboce he is
> lying about Patrick. He accuses Patrick falsely of threatening other
> posters. By your silence, are we to assume that you condone his lying?

"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"  Doug did not lie.  Patrick
threatened Chaney *in absentia* with eviction by the RUPD if Chaney were
to show up at his Rice U. office to collect his apology [terms dictated by
Patrick for collecting said apology].  Compare that with "What you get, you
won't expect" at the end of the "fat black ass" message, and extrapolate.

[In case this use of the word "extrapolate" went over your head, it refers
to what might have happened to Chaney had he shown up at Patrick's office,
as suggested in that "fat black ass" message, and called Patrick a liar
to his face, as suggested by Patrick.]
 
> >Doug is doing this partly because my newsreader often malfunctions,
> >although you'd never believe it malfunctions if you only followed
> >the posts of Garvin, Humphrey, and Mark Cochran.  
> >
> No PHoney, he's doing it because he's a gibbering sycophant.

Sycophant is hardly the word for someone who fights against the sort
of odds you see below.

> Anybody with the reading comprehension of a third grader is capable of
> spotting DODies lies for themselves.

There's that asinine "reading comprehension" theme again.  How is one
to spot a lie for what it is if all evidence of it being even FALSE
is missing?

> I understand that this makes it
> hard for you, Petey, so maybe we can start labeling them just for you.

Labeling does no good without evidence, and you have yet to give me 
evidence even for a number of audacious claims you have made.
 
> >Doug is not a psychotic.  On the other hand, this "Mendacity" series is 
> >slowly accumulating evidence that Susan *may* be a sociopath.
> >
> And what qualifies you to determine that DODie is not psychotic?
> Here's a clue PHoney...
> That's a medical diagnosis you're making,

Here I stand corrected.  I should have said: "I have not seen an iota
of evidence that Doug is psychotic."  

BTW "idiot" is also a medical diagnosis, but that does not inhibit you
from using the word despite your dearth of medical knowledge, evidenced
by your inability to get straight the difference between digoxin and
digitalis even on the *second* try, whereas a dictionary could have
helped you distinguish them on the *first* try.

> it has nothing to do with
> topology. Your credibility has reached a vanishingly small total...

I don't need a weatherman to tell me which way the wind blows.

[about Garvin:]
 
> >newsgroup to take charges of her mendacity at all seriously, while a tiny
> >smidgin of evidence from her, or even her "good-as-her-bond" word appears
> >enough to satisfy:
> >
> Your definitions above are sadly lacking Petey.
> But what can we expect from a person who calls himself Pro-Life while
> at the same time supporting the efforts of a group which is directly
> responsible for the deaths of children by preventing them from
> receiving their transplants.

I challenged this claim in "Mark Cochran, Meet Hans Jonas," and it occurs
to me that I was not thorough enough even there:  as I recall, it was
the *parents* of Baby Teresa who took the case to court in order to
get the Florida law about brain death and murder overturned.
 
> >Mark Cochran   Keith Cochran   Patrick Humphrey  Dean Kaflowitz
> >Steve Novak   Steven Mezias  JH Woodyatt  Jim Keegan   Brian Kauffman
> >Dan King   Mark Ira Kauffman   drieux   Larry Margolis   Chris Lyman
> >Ron Bense   Lefty   Gordon Storga ...
> >
> >not to mention:
> >
> >Adrienne Regard   Sarah McCabe  Muriel Nelson   Kathi Mills  Heather
> >rocker    Teddi  Linda Birmingham  

{Note added Jan. 28: to the top list add Robert Johnston, Galen Hekhuis,
Eric Marsh, Scott Safier, J. T. Stein, and "The Doge",
to the bottom list add Suzanne-Lucia Demitrio.  Gordon Storga and JH
Woodyatt have been restored, even though they were taken off a similar
list earlier, because the list you see above is meant to fit Marcus's
description below.}

[There has been a lot of speculation about why I have separated the men
from the women in the two lists above, all of it off by a country mile.
For a tiny little hint, see what I say about Suzanne below.]

> Now then, lets compare this list of people who find Susan credible
> with the list of those who find PHoney credible.
> 
> DODie
> 
> Pretty damn short list there...

You are new to talk.abortion, Mark, but I would have thought that even
you would pick up on the fact that Suzanne Forgach finds me far more
credible than she does Susan Garvin.  You can read more about her
and how she was instrumental in my commitment to talk.abortion on
HERE I STAND, Part 1.

My natural instincts for siding with the underdog has caused me to
put aside my pro-choice instincts [except for the Menstrual Extraction
threads] and ally myself with Suzanne as much as I can.  I'm glad to
have the support of Doug in this, even though he is still not willing
to commit himself to supporting pre-viability laws restricting abortion.

There are other people who find me credible, but all this is really
beside the point and like dust in the wind compared to the quotation
which forms part of my new .sig below.  It's a long one, so I'll only
bring it out on special occasions.

*****************
* Peter Nyikos **
********************************************************************
* SOCRATES: I praised you at first, Polus, for being a rhetorician *
*   	rather than a reasoner.  And this, as I suppose, is the    *
* 	sort of argument with which you fancy that a child might   *
* 	refute me...But, my good friend, where is the refutation?  *
* 	I cannot admit a word which you have been saying.          *
* POLUS: That is because you will not; for surely you must think   *
*	as I do.                                                   *
* SOCRATES: Not so, my simple friend, but because you will refute  *
*	after the manner which rhetoricians practice in courts of  *
*	law.  For there the one party think that they refute the   *
*	other when they bring forth a number of witnesses of good  *
*	repute in proof of their allegations, and their adversary  *
*	has only a single one or none at all.  But this kind of    *
*	proof is of no value where truth is the aim; a man may     *
*	often be sworn down by a multitude of false witnesses who  *
*	have a great air of respectability.  And in this argument  *
*       nearly every one, Athenian and stranger alike, would be on *
*	your side, if you should bring witnesses in disproof of my *
*	statement;--you may, if you will, summon...the whole house *
*	of Pericles, or any other great Athenian family whom you   *
*	choose;--they will all agree with you: I only am left and  *
*	cannot agree, for you do not convince me; although you may *
*	produce many false witnesses against me, in the hope of    *
*	depriving me of my inheritance, which is the truth.  But I *
*	consider that nothing worth speaking of will have been     *
*	effected by me unless I make you the one witness of my     *
*	words; nor by you, unless you make me the one witness of   *
*	of yours; no matter about the rest of the world.           *
*		    --from Plato's "Gorgias," Jowett translation   *
********************************************************************



Newsgroups: talk.abortion