From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: *another false accusation by nyikos* (was Re: A forgery by Adrienne Regard?!?!?!?!? (was: Stipu..))
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 20:08:36 GMT

In article <nyikos.720735358@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1cjte2INN4fj@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Oct27.160808.11344@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> >>I missed this one.
> 
> Which "one", Dean?  Are you still missing it?
> 
> >>  Did this stupid, blustering fool,
> 
> I see you disavowing your earlier retraction of your claim that I am 
> stupid.  Since you have reinstated your claim, I would like to see
> the evidence that caused the new change of heart.
This posting of yours is it, babe.
> 
> >> this
> >>set theory expert who just announced in another post yet
> >>again that he has a PhD really say this stuff? 
> 
> Which stuff, Dean?  Why did you delete all the evidence to back up
> your statement, yet again?

Dear stupid, blustering fool.  DId you happen to notice that
you were posting a response to a response?  Are you still,
even after making an ass of yourself by accusing Adrienne Regard
of saying something that a different poster said, unable to
figure out how to read attributions?  One would hope that
a man with a PhD might be able to figure out that I had no
control over what Adrienne deleted.  Did you really earn a
PhD or did you buy one, Peter?  My posting was about your
false accusation against Adrienne, in which you accused her based
on your inability to read something simple like the attributions.
Instead of apologizing for accusing her of forgery, you follow
it by accusing me of deleting the evidence, when it wasn't
my posting.

Stupid, blustering fool?  Yoohoo!  You listening?  I think it's
time for your newsreader to go down again so you can avoid
admitting your mistakes again.

> >Yup.
> 
> >But really, don't be too hard on the jerk.  He's got such a blistering
> >crush in me that he can't sit down.
> 
> Adrienne, if you want to fantasize that I have a crush on you, that's 
> your problem, not mine.
> 
> Four months ago you made an offer I could not refuse:
> 
> #>I've been on this net over 7 years, and I've never understood this fetal
> #>worship.  Can you help me?
> 
> Of course this was not directed at me, but few people have tried to 
> accept your offer to be helped except Martin Guerrero and me, and
> Martin did not even know the offer had been made, otherwise he
> might have stuck it out longer.

This is more evidence of what a stupid, blustering fool
you are Peter.  If one reads this posting of yours without my latest
additions one finds that you can't even maintain a coherent line
of thought.  Where this stuff about Adrienne came from is not at 
all clear.  She said you have a crush on her.  You follow with
incoherent ramblings about a posting from last July.  Adrienne
asks a question about fetal worship and you characterize her
request for clarification as an offer from Adrienne.

> 
> Back in July my reaction read in part:
> 
> #I've been on this net for less than 7 days, so please bear with me if
> #I am covering old ground.
> 
> #I'll have to turn this terminal over to someone who shares this with me,
> #so I must be brief now, but I will get back to you.
> 
> #Auf wiedersehen!
> 
> That's German for *au revoir*, "till we meet [via electronic transmission,
> in this case] again."  Let it never be said that I do not try to keep promises.
> 
> >It's a sad thing to see such needy personalities.  Bill, would you 
> >talk to the poor bloke?  Maybe you can do some good in this area....
> 
> >Adrienne Regard
> 
> Are you talking to Overpeck, by any chance?  It just so happens I saved
> a post from him back in July.  Seems I am not the only one who confused
> Bill Overpeck with Phil Buckland.

Where did Adrienne confuse Bill Overpeck with Phil Buckland?  She's
clearly asking Bill Overpeck, who's background in psychology has been
a subject of much discussion around here lately, to help you with
your problems.  Again, you have a problem with coherence.  I think your
newsreader isn't the only thing that has suffered a breakdown lately.
> 
> Post follows my "signature" below.
> 
> 
> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes: >
> In article <1992Jul09.024833.143762@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
>    (Susan Garvin) writes: >>
> 
> >>Let me get this straight - when Adrienne said what she thought
> >>to Phil Buckland, she was really vilifying Bill Overpeck?
> 
> >(psst, Susan, that's 'villifying', per Bill.  The definition: "when anybody
> >says anything, it's a slam against poor ol' Bill".)
> 
> Let's see now.  If we characterize Bill as hypersensitive, he'll look
> foolish and Adrienne's offensive behavior will look normal...hmmm...
> yep, let's do it. 
> 
> >Actually, I think I ended up on Bill's shit list about a year ago when
> >I actually agreed with him on something:  That one should not make broad
> >assumptions about persons one has not met.  Since that date, he's been
> >*very* *touchy*.  
> 
> Perhaps it's because you continue to make such assumptions despite your 
> alleged agreement.
> 
> >My opinions are all personal attacks.  My arguments are
> >all ad hominem.  My disagreement is an afront to his beliefs.
> >
> >Ain't life hard.
> 
> Is this intended to imply that I'm petty?  Imperceptive?  A whiner? 
>  
> You continue to live up to your image, Adrienne.  
> 
> Bill

This addition of yours, Peter, just goes to show you haven't the
foggiest notion of what you are talking about.  Clearly Adrienne
did not confuse Phil  and Bill, but the part of the posting that
would make this clearer is missing.  All this proves is that
Bill and Adrienne had a heated argument.

You're really losing it Peter.  And thank you for the evidence
that you are stupid.  I notice you don't dispute the statement
that you are a blusterer.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion