The Nuttiest Professor
Galen Hekhuis
professor at USC. He also posts to alt/talk abortion and is aware
that several readers have concluded it must be someone doing a forgery
of Nyikos. Peter himself is to blame for much of the confusion, as he
tried out stuff like "nyikos2" before settling (for now) on "pnyikos."
He also used several different software packages and/or computers, as
sometimes he would sign a post and then the software would also append
his name so it would show up twice, stuff like that. Things such as
those have made many people, myself included, very wary of this new
"Peter's" claims. Others think that Peter is showing signs of some
kind of progressive dementia, perhaps Alzheimer's. I think it's
both. Peter is being forged, and he is well aware of it, but denies
it to keep some sort of "plausible deniability." If he is ever
confronted with a past post, he can claim something like: "I never
wrote any of that. You know, people kept trying to tell me I was being
forged, I guess they were right." Of course he isn't going to admit
it because then he would have to do something about it. Personally, I
also think he suffered some rather severe trauma, which would explain
his posting "break" and why he now seems more bitter, more creepy,
than he ever was before. Then again, it may just be the result of
beginning Alzheimer's. Of course, this is all just speculation, and
Peter Nyikos may indeed by a well-liked and highly respected professor
at the University of South Carolina, but Peter is likely to claim this
is some sort of slanderous accusation or something.
But whatever his true identity, if this guy is even half as computer
illiterate as he claims he is, he probably has reams and files of
material cluttering his desk on, uh, his "enemies" in a Usenet
newsgroup. Being the self-imagined dragon slayer of alt.abortion, he
constantly regales readers with stories about how nasty and evilly
cunning his adversaries are, so's to try to inflate his victory when
he "vanquishes" them. Except he also often claims how easy it is to
defeat them, and never realizes the contradiction. He demands people
identify themselves to his satisfaction, he demands that people tell
him where they work, he demands all kinds of stuff. He's been told
time and time again that this is not a classroom, and he is certainly
not the teacher in any event. He's just another pompous,
self-important nut who boasts about his achievements ("I'm a shoo-in
for Professor Emeritus" Blah Blah Blah)and thinks the world revolves
around him.
james g. keegan jr.
Galen Hekhuis <ghek...@earthlink.net> wrote:
it is certainly possible that the real peter nyikos is "allowing"
someone else to post from his account. if, for example, that person were
osprey, then there would be a rational explanation for such low level,
unintelligent posts to appear under nyikos' name. it would also explain
why some of his posts seem to be written by more than one person.
if you look at a few dozen posts from the person posting as peter
nyikos, you'd see that person complaining about others doing exactly the
same things that he is doing. that's very much like osprey.
> But whatever his true identity, if this guy is even half as computer
> illiterate as he claims he is, he probably has reams and files of
> material cluttering his desk on, uh, his "enemies" in a Usenet
> newsgroup. Being the self-imagined dragon slayer of alt.abortion, he
> constantly regales readers with stories about how nasty and evilly
> cunning his adversaries are, so's to try to inflate his victory when
> he "vanquishes" them. Except he also often claims how easy it is to
> defeat them, and never realizes the contradiction.
classic osprey. particularly the part about never realizing the
contradiction
> He demands people identify themselves to his satisfaction, he demands
> that people tell him where they work, he demands all kinds of stuff.
> He's been told time and time again that this is not a classroom, and
> he is certainly not the teacher in any event. He's just another
> pompous, self-important nut who boasts about his achievements ("I'm a
> shoo-in for Professor Emeritus" Blah Blah Blah)and thinks the world
> revolves around him.
you, if instead of one person posting with the name peter nyikos, if it
were three, or four it would explain the seeming erratic behavior as
will as the flashes from educated to not educated and outright stupidity.
Galen Hekhuis
It is incredibly easy to do so. Maybe some of his posts are the
result of some class project he's got going.
>if you look at a few dozen posts from the person posting as peter
>nyikos, you'd see that person complaining about others doing exactly the
>same things that he is doing. that's very much like osprey.
We better hadn't speculate. You know how crabby he gets when people
question his identity.
>> But whatever his true identity, if this guy is even half as computer
>> illiterate as he claims he is, he probably has reams and files of
>> material cluttering his desk on, uh, his "enemies" in a Usenet
>> newsgroup. Being the self-imagined dragon slayer of alt.abortion, he
>> constantly regales readers with stories about how nasty and evilly
>> cunning his adversaries are, so's to try to inflate his victory when
>> he "vanquishes" them. Except he also often claims how easy it is to
>> defeat them, and never realizes the contradiction.
>
>
>classic osprey. particularly the part about never realizing the
>contradiction
Osprey doesn't do lists near as well as the new Peter. Maybe someone
is forging Peter in an Osprey style, just to throw us off. But again,
we shouldn't be speculating about Peter like this, you know how
irritated he gets.
>> He demands people identify themselves to his satisfaction, he demands
>> that people tell him where they work, he demands all kinds of stuff.
>> He's been told time and time again that this is not a classroom, and
>> he is certainly not the teacher in any event. He's just another
>> pompous, self-important nut who boasts about his achievements ("I'm a
>> shoo-in for Professor Emeritus" Blah Blah Blah)and thinks the world
>> revolves around him.
>
>
>you, if instead of one person posting with the name peter nyikos, if it
>were three, or four it would explain the seeming erratic behavior as
>will as the flashes from educated to not educated and outright stupidity.
?
james g. keegan jr.
Galen Hekhuis <ghek...@earthlink.net> wrote:
i doubt that he's allow his students to make such a fool of him. there
could well have been a lot of that ging on without this.
> >if you look at a few dozen posts from the person posting as peter
> >nyikos, you'd see that person complaining about others doing exactly the
> >same things that he is doing. that's very much like osprey.
>
> We better hadn't speculate. You know how crabby he gets when people
> question his identity.
i'm not sure that "crabby" is the right word but i know that when i
challenge his lies, he responds with some form of sexual projection. he
probably doesn't realize it's projection.
>
> >> But whatever his true identity, if this guy is even half as computer
> >> illiterate as he claims he is, he probably has reams and files of
> >> material cluttering his desk on, uh, his "enemies" in a Usenet
> >> newsgroup. Being the self-imagined dragon slayer of alt.abortion, he
> >> constantly regales readers with stories about how nasty and evilly
> >> cunning his adversaries are, so's to try to inflate his victory when
> >> he "vanquishes" them. Except he also often claims how easy it is to
> >> defeat them, and never realizes the contradiction.
> >
> >
> >classic osprey. particularly the part about never realizing the
> >contradiction
>
> Osprey doesn't do lists near as well as the new Peter. Maybe someone
> is forging Peter in an Osprey style, just to throw us off. But again,
> we shouldn't be speculating about Peter like this, you know how
> irritated he gets.
i disagree. when osprey arrived in the abortion newsgroups, he did some
lists bit he was mocked so severely for doing so that he stopped, with
some exceptions when he clearly couldn't control himself.
gosh. i hope whoever it is doesn't get irritated.
pnyikos
> This much is known for sure.
There is a "comet" named Galen Hekhuis who keeps popping into the
abortion newsgroups at odd intervals (and has been doing so since I
first started posting in 1992, but his absences seem to be getting
longer and his presences shorter) and has absolutely no qualms about
making baseless accusations.
For instance, he has accused Bill Mosco of condoning torture despite
Mosco's clear distinction between torture and enhanced interrogation
techniques.
This same Galen Hekhuis has shown a callous indifference to the
agonies of unborn at 22+ weeks being torn limb from limb while still
alive, in D&E abortions, at a stage where prematurely born infants
have shown acute signs of distress when stuck with pins.
He is such a moral degenerate that he even claims to speak for the
unborn. Repeatedly.
> There is a Peter Nyikos who is a math
> professor at USC. He also posts to alt/talk abortion and is aware
> that several readers have concluded it must be someone doing a forgery
> of Nyikos.
CLAIMED to conclude. And you are the charter member of this shady
group.
> Peter himself is to blame for much of the confusion, as he
> tried out stuff like "nyikos2" before settling (for now) on "pnyikos."
Liar. The "confusion" long predated this change, and what's more, I
explained the change publicly. It was not my doing at all, but
imposed on me by Google.
> He also used several different software packages and/or computers,
I've been using Google exclusively for posting since my return from a
7+ year break to Usenet.
As for different computers -- how frivolous can you get?
> sometimes he would sign a post and then the software would also append
> his name so it would show up twice, stuff like that.
Ignorance is your strong suit. The reason my name shows up more often
than once, from time to time, is that I scroll up after signing,
realizing that there was something I ought to double check, and then I
get involved in revising what I wrote, and then when I get to the end,
my signature is below the uncomfortably small window that Google
allots, and I absent-mindedly fail to look at the margin to see if the
thingy that one scrolls with is all the way to the bottom.
> Things such as those
I once said that your style was very different from that of a Black
Knight, and that is true, but I hereby make a slight revision of what
I said then: if one wants to put a name to your style,
"*Frivolous* Black Weasel" is as good as any.
>have made many people, myself included, very wary of this new
> "Peter's" claims. Others think that Peter is showing signs of some
> kind of progressive dementia, perhaps Alzheimer's.
Allies of yours CLAIM to think it as a substitute for actually dealing
with my points.
> I think it's both.
.01% on Fischer's Irony Meter, which takes the true reading and
subtracts it from 100%.
Just look at the way you next contradict what you said up there:
>Peter is being forged, and he is well aware of it,
Have you gone completely bananas?
>but denies
> it to keep some sort of "plausible deniability." If he is ever
> confronted with a past post, he can claim something like: "I never
> wrote any of that.
I've been confronted with past posts and done nothing of the sort,
turkey. It's YOUR style to claim such things. You falsely accused me
of lying about you having sent me e-mail, and then I posted not only
one you sent me, but also the e-mail that I sent you to which it was a
reply.
You disappeared from the thread rather than lie through your teeth as
follows:
"You know, people kept trying to tell me I was being
> forged, I guess they were right."
>Of course, this is all just speculation, and
...and I don't think you believe any of it yourself. The rest of the
Seven Musketeers post shamelessly, you post like someone who lost even
his capacity for shame years ago.
> Peter Nyikos may indeed by a well-liked and highly respected professor
> at the University of South Carolina, but Peter is likely to claim this
> is some sort of slanderous accusation or something.
>
> But whatever his true identity, if this guy is even half as computer
> illiterate as he claims he is, he probably has reams and files of
> material cluttering his desk on, uh, his "enemies" in a Usenet
> newsgroup.
You have chosen to make yourself my enemy, beginning with a vile
comment in 1992 about Thorazine when I juxtaposed your LIE that you
speak for the unborn with a statement by Steve Novak that falsely
accused me of characterizing the unborn in a certain way.
I laughed it off, only to realize later
(1) that self-deprecating humor is totally lost on moral degenerates
like yourself and
(2) that this behavior was not an aberration but coming from the very
core and depth of your being.
>Being the self-imagined dragon slayer of alt.abortion, he
> constantly regales readers with stories about how nasty and evilly
> cunning his adversaries are, so's to try to inflate his victory when
> he "vanquishes" them. Except he also often claims how easy it is to
> defeat them, and never realizes the contradiction.
I'm calling your bluff. Post three examples, with valid message-id,s
of my having made that claim.
Remember, liar, you said "often". I could be a lot harder on you, you
know.
Peter Nyikos
Galen Hekhuis
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Dec 9, 6:32 pm, Galen Hekhuis <ghekh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> This much is known for sure.
>
>There is a "comet" named Galen Hekhuis who keeps popping into the
>abortion newsgroups at odd intervals (and has been doing so since I
>first started posting in 1992, but his absences seem to be getting
>longer and his presences shorter) and has absolutely no qualms about
>making baseless accusations.
"Comet"? Whatever. For several years I have been helping to moderate
another newsgroup. I haven't been gone, I just post less frequently
now, I still read a fair amount. Rather than whine about not having
time to post like Peter does, I just don't post.
>For instance, he has accused Bill Mosco of condoning torture despite
>Mosco's clear distinction between torture and enhanced interrogation
>techniques.
I still do. I consider "enhanced interrogation techniques" often to
be nothing more than a euphemism for "torture."
>This same Galen Hekhuis has shown a callous indifference to the
>agonies of unborn at 22+ weeks being torn limb from limb while still
>alive, in D&E abortions, at a stage where prematurely born infants
>have shown acute signs of distress when stuck with pins.
I used to work for the medical school at the University of Virginia
(it's called the Health Sciences Center or something like that today,
they've changed the name since I was there). My father was a medical
doctor, my mother was a nurse. I probably know more doctors and
nurses on a first name basis than Peter has even seen in his entire
life. I will continue to show callous indifference to virtually all
of Peter's fantasies.
>He is such a moral degenerate that he even claims to speak for the
>unborn. Repeatedly.
I repeatedly claim to speak for the Unborn *with as much authority as
others* who claim to speak for the Unborn. Sorry if I haven't made
that clear enough for Peter. It is usually after someone claims that
the Unborn just want to be born, or whines about their needing a
spokesman.
> > There is a Peter Nyikos who is a math
>> professor at USC. He also posts to alt/talk abortion and is aware
>> that several readers have concluded it must be someone doing a forgery
>> of Nyikos.
>
>CLAIMED to conclude.
And you know this how?
> And you are the charter member of this shady
>group.
I've never even met nor emailed over half the group that I'm supposed
to be in. As for the others, we probably haven't exchanged over a
thousand words between us, and that's over the last 20 years or so!
>> Peter himself is to blame for much of the confusion, as he
>> tried out stuff like "nyikos2" before settling (for now) on "pnyikos."
>
>Liar. The "confusion" long predated this change, and what's more, I
>explained the change publicly. It was not my doing at all, but
>imposed on me by Google.
Or so you claim to have concluded. See how that works?
>> He also used several different software packages and/or computers,
>
>I've been using Google exclusively for posting since my return from a
>7+ year break to Usenet.
Peter, Google is not a single computer, nor do you use the same
machine each time you log on, although it probably appears the same to
you.
>As for different computers -- how frivolous can you get?
>
>> sometimes he would sign a post and then the software would also append
>> his name so it would show up twice, stuff like that.
>
>Ignorance is your strong suit. The reason my name shows up more often
>than once, from time to time, is that I scroll up after signing,
>realizing that there was something I ought to double check, and then I
>get involved in revising what I wrote, and then when I get to the end,
>my signature is below the uncomfortably small window that Google
>allots, and I absent-mindedly fail to look at the margin to see if the
>thingy that one scrolls with is all the way to the bottom.
Whatever. I didn't include Peter's claimed explanation in my
speculation. So sue me.
> > Things such as those
>
>I once said that your style was very different from that of a Black
>Knight, and that is true, but I hereby make a slight revision of what
>I said then: if one wants to put a name to your style,
>"*Frivolous* Black Weasel" is as good as any.
Whatever you do, just please *don't* throw me in that briar patch.
>>have made many people, myself included, very wary of this new
>> "Peter's" claims. Others think that Peter is showing signs of some
>> kind of progressive dementia, perhaps Alzheimer's.
>
>Allies of yours CLAIM to think it as a substitute for actually dealing
>with my points.
With you, it must be difficult to find a hat which fits them properly.
<rimshot>
>> I think it's both.
>
>.01% on Fischer's Irony Meter, which takes the true reading and
>subtracts it from 100%.
Huh?
>Just look at the way you next contradict what you said up there:
>
>>Peter is being forged, and he is well aware of it,
>
>Have you gone completely bananas?
If so, what does that say about you?
>>but denies
>> it to keep some sort of "plausible deniability." If he is ever
>> confronted with a past post, he can claim something like: "I never
>> wrote any of that.
>
>I've been confronted with past posts and done nothing of the sort,
>turkey. It's YOUR style to claim such things. You falsely accused me
>of lying about you having sent me e-mail, and then I posted not only
>one you sent me, but also the e-mail that I sent you to which it was a
>reply.
This steams me more than anything else. Peter not only claims to have
posted private email, he almost boasts about it. In my book, someone
who posts private email is lower than whale shit on the bottom of the
ocean. I used to be sysadmin for three Unix boxes, and I know (and I
suspect Peter does too) that the log files for those machines (that
would have handled the email) have long been discarded or overwritten.
Even if such logs could be produced, it still wouldn't prove anything,
as I ran the hang gliding email list (among other things) back then. I
would acknowledge comments on past articles in the digest, requests to
be added/removed from the list, that sort of thing. DJR signed up at
one point (I suppose to try to harass me, but he never did anything).
Nyikos may well have email from me. I used to get upwards of 300
emails in a day, I may not have noticed him. In addition, any email
to postm...@a.number.of.machines would have gotten a note from me.
What he doesn't have, and what he will never be able to prove, is that
the content of those emails contained any conciliatory language
concerning the rights of women vis-a-vis abortion.
Anytime anyone posts private email think of them as nasty, stinking,
lying, sacks of liquid crap. I had allowed myself to forget just what
a scumbucket this Peter Nyikos is.
Ray Fischer
>> This much is known for sure.
>
>There is a "comet" named Galen Hekhuis who keeps popping into the
>abortion newsgroups at odd intervals (and has been doing so since I
>first started posting in 1992, but his absences seem to be getting
>longer and his presences shorter) and has absolutely no qualms about
>making baseless accusations.
Just like you. Well, no. You really do that sort of thing while he
does not. So I guess what we have here is another example of you
projecting your own sleazy actions onto others.
>For instance, he has accused Bill Mosco of condoning torture despite
>Mosco's clear distinction between torture and enhanced interrogation
>techniques.
It takes an ammoral person to argue that simply calling torture an
"enhanced interrogation technique" really does mean that it's not
torture.
In fact I could demonstrate: Peter Nyikos is on parole for rape and
is a registered sex offender. That's not a lie, it's simply an
"enhanced criticism technique".
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Lefty
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:18:47 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
> >I've been confronted with past posts and done nothing of the sort,
> >turkey. It's YOUR style to claim such things. You falsely accused me
> >of lying about you having sent me e-mail, and then I posted not only
> >one you sent me, but also the e-mail that I sent you to which it was a
> >reply.
> This steams me more than anything else. Peter not only claims to have
> posted private email, he almost boasts about it. In my book, someone
> who posts private email is lower than whale shit on the bottom of the
> ocean. I used to be sysadmin for three Unix boxes, and I know (and I
> suspect Peter does too) that the log files for those machines (that
> would have handled the email) have long been discarded or overwritten.
> Even if such logs could be produced, it still wouldn't prove anything,
> as I ran the hang gliding email list (among other things) back then. I
> would acknowledge comments on past articles in the digest, requests to
> be added/removed from the list, that sort of thing. DJR signed up at
> one point (I suppose to try to harass me, but he never did anything).
> Nyikos may well have email from me. I used to get upwards of 300
> emails in a day, I may not have noticed him. In addition, any email
> to postmas...@a.number.of.machines would have gotten a note from me.
> What he doesn't have, and what he will never be able to prove, is that
> the content of those emails contained any conciliatory language
> concerning the rights of women vis-a-vis abortion.
>
> Anytime anyone posts private email think of them as nasty, stinking,
> lying, sacks of liquid crap. I had allowed myself to forget just what
> a scumbucket this Peter Nyikos is.
I agree that it's fundamentally unethical to post emails without
permission from the author. Mind you, a person who harasses and
threatens you via email has no right to expect his/her privacy will be
preserved, so there are circumstances where I'd say it's okay.
In the situation you describe, it's the kind of thing only obsessed
whackjobs do, the sort one needs to be careful of lest they become
stalkers.
The Chief Instigator
> On Dec 10, 12:33?pm, Galen Hekhuis <ghekh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:18:47 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
>
>> >I've been confronted with past posts and done nothing of the sort,
>> >of lying about you having sent me e-mail, and then I posted not only
>> >one you sent me, but also the e-mail that I sent you to which it was a
>> >reply.
>
>> posted private email, he almost boasts about it. ?In my book, someone
>> who posts private email is lower than whale shit on the bottom of the
>> suspect Peter does too) that the log files for those machines ?(that
>> would have handled the email) have long been discarded or overwritten.
>> Even if such logs could be produced, it still wouldn't prove anything,
>> as I ran the hang gliding email list (among other things) back then. I
>> would acknowledge comments on past articles in the digest, requests to
>> one point (I suppose to try to harass me, but he never did anything).
>> emails in a day, I may not have noticed him. ?In addition, any email
>> to postmas...@a.number.of.machines ?would have gotten a note from me.
>> What he doesn't have, and what he will never be able to prove, is that
>> the content of those emails contained any conciliatory language
>> concerning the rights of women vis-a-vis abortion.
>>
>> Anytime anyone posts private email think of them as nasty, stinking,
>> a scumbucket this Peter Nyikos is.
>
> I agree that it's fundamentally unethical to post emails without
> permission from the author. Mind you, a person who harasses and threatens
> you via email has no right to expect his/her privacy will be preserved, so
> there are circumstances where I'd say it's okay. In the situation you
> describe, it's the kind of thing only obsessed whackjobs do, the sort one
> needs to be careful of lest they become stalkers.
I can relate to Galen's experience, as DJR actually tried to confront me at
my work...but he didn't bother to notice when my workday was when he decided
to do just that. In the summer, I was on third watch, and the first notice
I got was a call from my employers' police department one late July
afternoon eighteen years ago, asking if I'd seen him. I told the officer
that he was a potential problem, and RUPD steered him around campus until he
gave up, and the last anyone saw of him was him trudging up South Main,
presumably towards the Greyhound station about three miles away, after
having hitch-hiked all the way there from Raleigh. (Actually, he
re-surfaced on a website around the turn of the millennium, but he'd changed
his "profession" to philosopher. His website was gone a year or so later,
and if he's still alive, no one knows.)
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 3, Houston 2 (OT, December 4)
NEXT GAME: Friday, December 11 vs. Peoria, 7:35
james g. keegan jr.
Galen Hekhuis <ghek...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[...]
> This steams me more than anything else. Peter not only claims to have
> posted private email, he almost boasts about it. In my book, someone
> who posts private email is lower than whale shit on the bottom of the
> ocean. I used to be sysadmin for three Unix boxes, and I know (and I
> suspect Peter does too) that the log files for those machines (that
> would have handled the email) have long been discarded or overwritten.
> Even if such logs could be produced, it still wouldn't prove anything,
> as I ran the hang gliding email list (among other things) back then. I
> would acknowledge comments on past articles in the digest, requests to
> be added/removed from the list, that sort of thing. DJR signed up at
> one point (I suppose to try to harass me, but he never did anything).
> Nyikos may well have email from me. I used to get upwards of 300
> emails in a day, I may not have noticed him. In addition, any email
> to postm...@a.number.of.machines would have gotten a note from me.
> What he doesn't have, and what he will never be able to prove, is that
> the content of those emails contained any conciliatory language
> concerning the rights of women vis-a-vis abortion.
>
> Anytime anyone posts private email think of them as nasty, stinking,
> lying, sacks of liquid crap. I had allowed myself to forget just what
> a scumbucket this Peter Nyikos is.
as spartacus reminded me some time ago, i too had mellowed as to what a
scumabll peter nyikos was.
pnyikos
He accused me of lying about him having sent me an e-mail. Does that
not bother you?
> Mind you, a person who harasses and
> threatens you via email has no right to expect his/her privacy will be
> preserved, so there are circumstances where I'd say it's okay.
> In the situation you describe, it's the kind of thing only obsessed
> whackjobs do, the sort one needs to be careful of lest they become
> stalkers.
YOur logic defies analysis.
Peter Nyikos
elizabeth
Well . .. .
> I agree that it's fundamentally unethical to post emails without
> permission from the author.
I always let it be known that I *will* make public any email sent to
me, esp unsolicited email!
> Mind you, a person who harasses and
> threatens you via email has no right to expect his/her privacy will be
> preserved, so there are circumstances where I'd say it's okay.
Yup.
> In the situation you describe, it's the kind of thing only obsessed
> whackjobs do, the sort one needs to be careful of lest they become
> stalkers.- Hide quoted text -
Stalkers can be cured only by death.
> - Show quoted text -
Galen Hekhuis
Any email? I would guess that you don't post emails from relatives or
close friends. Someone who is capable of accessing Usenet and email
must understand the difference, and knows that email is sent to a
particular person (or group) and that newsgroups are the appropriate
venue for widespread address. Besides, by posting the email, you
confirm that you have not only paid attention to it but have also
devoted enough time to it to post about it. If you just ignore it the
sender probably won't know if you got it or not.
But even if the sender doesn't know the difference between email and
newsgroups, you do. It's not how bad the sender is, it's who you are.
Publishing email says far more about the person who publishes it than
it does about the email sender.
>> Mind you, a person who harasses and
>> threatens you via email has no right to expect his/her privacy will be
>> preserved, so there are circumstances where I'd say it's okay.
>
>Yup.
Threatening or harassing mail, be it email or traditional mail,
probably has no expectation of privacy in a legal sense, still, I see
no reason to acknowledge receipt.
elizabeth
hmmm . ...
> >I always let it be known that I *will* make public any email sent to
> >me, esp unsolicited email!
>
> Any email? I would guess that you don't post emails from relatives or
> close friends.
I try not to use email for contacting relatives or close friends.
> Someone who is capable of accessing Usenet and email
> must understand the difference, and knows that email is sent to a
> particular person (or group) and that newsgroups are the appropriate
> venue for widespread address.
Well, years ago, I hit the wrong button and sent email accidentally,
and learned not to do that.
> Besides, by posting the email, you
> confirm that you have not only paid attention to it but have also
> devoted enough time to it to post about it. If you just ignore it the
> sender probably won't know if you got it or not.
Oh, the usual spam gets dumped accordingly, but if people send me shit
I don't like, a la Oopsey, I make sure that it won't happen again.
> But even if the sender doesn't know the difference between email and
> newsgroups, you do. It's not how bad the sender is, it's who you are.
Oopsey knew the difference, since I'd already told him more than once
not to contact me.
> Publishing email says far more about the person who publishes it than
> it does about the email sender.
That depends on who is the sendee!
> >> Mind you, a person who harasses and
> >> threatens you via email has no right to expect his/her privacy will be
> >> preserved, so there are circumstances where I'd say it's okay.
>
> >Yup.
>
> Threatening or harassing mail, be it email or traditional mail,
> probably has no expectation of privacy in a legal sense, still, I see
> no reason to acknowledge receipt.
>
it helps if the ISP has copies.
>
> >> In the situation you describe, it's the kind of thing only obsessed
> >> whackjobs do, the sort one needs to be careful of lest they become
> >> stalkers.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >Stalkers can be cured only by death.
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Galen Hekhuis
Are you saying that you'd post it if they did happen to contact you
that way? What would be the point?
>> �Someone who is capable of accessing Usenet and email
>> must understand the difference, and knows that email is sent to a
>> particular person (or group) and that newsgroups are the appropriate
>> venue for widespread address.
>
>Well, years ago, I hit the wrong button and sent email accidentally,
>and learned not to do that.
>
>> �Besides, by posting the email, you
>> confirm that you have not only paid attention to it but have also
>> devoted enough time to it to post about it. �If you just ignore it the
>> sender probably won't know if you got it or not.
>
>Oh, the usual spam gets dumped accordingly, but if people send me shit
>I don't like, a la Oopsey, I make sure that it won't happen again.
I just ignore it. By the way, it is possible to post without
revealing your email address.
>> But even if the sender doesn't know the difference between email and
>> newsgroups, you do. �It's not how bad the sender is, it's who you are.
>
>Oopsey knew the difference, since I'd already told him more than once
>not to contact me.
>
>> Publishing email says far more about the person who publishes it than
>> it does about the email sender.
>
>That depends on who is the sendee!
Not really. If it is a really nasty, foul message, you've just
broadcast it worldwide, with full knowledge about what it is. Foo on
the sender and double foo on you for broadcasting it! If it's no
biggie, then why bother posting it?
>> >> Mind you, a person who harasses and
>> >> threatens you via email has no right to expect his/her privacy will be
>> >> preserved, so there are circumstances where I'd say it's okay.
>>
>> >Yup.
>>
>> Threatening or harassing mail, be it email or traditional mail,
>> probably has no expectation of privacy in a legal sense, still, I see
>> no reason to acknowledge receipt.
>>
>it helps if the ISP has copies.
Uh, you could just forward the message to them. Besides, you can make
copies the message you received.
Ray Fischer
>> I agree that it's fundamentally unethical to post emails without
>> permission from the author.
>
>I always let it be known that I *will* make public any email sent to
>me, esp unsolicited email!
This is a good occasion for me to state that any email sent to me I
will consider to be my property to do with as I wish. If you want to
send me private information you had better get my agreement first.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Galen Hekhuis
That isn't a bad thing to remember anytime you send email. Once sent,
it belongs to the recipient, not the sender. I still think someone
who posts email is a dolt, just as I think someone who would torture a
potted plant would be a jerk. Hey, it's yours and it's legal and all,
but why do it?
james g. keegan jr.
> On Dec 9, 6:32 pm, Galen Hekhuis <ghekh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> This much is known for sure.
>
> There is a "comet" named Galen Hekhuis who keeps popping into the
> abortion newsgroups at odd intervals (and has been doing so since I
> first started posting in 1992, but his absences seem to be getting
> longer and his presences shorter) and has absolutely no qualms about
> making baseless accusations.
>
> For instance, he has accused Bill Mosco of condoning torture despite
> Mosco's clear distinction between torture and enhanced interrogation
> techniques.
mosco has repeatedly defended torture, sometimes using the "enhanced
interrogation" excuse in some of his defenses. he has also simply
denied all of the reports and direct testimony of tose who were
tortured or who observed it. i believe you know that and decided to try
to smear galen regardless.
you are a sociopath who regularly posts lies and false allegations.
james g. keegan jr.
> On Dec 10, 12:33�pm, Galen Hekhuis <ghekh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[...]
>>
>> Anytime anyone posts private email think of them as nasty, stinking,
>> lying, sacks of liquid crap. �I had allowed myself to forget just what
>> a scumbucket this Peter Nyikos is.
>
> I agree that it's fundamentally unethical to post emails without
> permission from the author. Mind you, a person who harasses and
> threatens you via email has no right to expect his/her privacy will be
> preserved, so there are circumstances where I'd say it's okay.
> In the situation you describe, it's the kind of thing only obsessed
> whackjobs do, the sort one needs to be careful of lest they become
> stalkers.
in the early days of usenet newsgroups, there was a clear, conceptual
distinction between posts and emails. without question, it was
considered a scumball action to post email. as time passed, i think the
distinctions became less clear. threats, attempts at intimidation,
harrassment, sexual or other coupled with the huge change in the type
of person using the net may have resulted in situations where the right
thing to do *is* to post email. i don't like the idea of doing so, in
part because there is no methodology for newsgroup readers to varify
that the email was actually sent.
james g. keegan jr.
> On Dec 10, 3:16�pm, Lefty <leftydr...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> I agree that it's fundamentally unethical to post emails without
>> permission from the author.
>
> He accused me of lying about him having sent me an e-mail. Does that
> not bother you?
i haven't seen a single instance of someone accusing you of lying where
the accusation wasn't accurate.
Galen Hekhuis
There is no way in the world I can prove that I did not send Peter
Nyikos email, in fact, as I've noted, I may well have. What can never
be proven is the content of the emails. (Well, maybe, if you were to
impound the sendee's computer, and found a copy of the indentical
email in a "sent" folder or something.) Posting email, especially old
email, is almost always a "who do you believe" situation. As Keegan
points out, there is no way for the reader to verify any of the
information. Posting email is simply an appeal to mob or popular
opinion, there is nothing that can be proven either true or false. It
can be a smear that absolutly cannot be disproven.
If nothing else, consider that *you*, the reader, might someday have
someone claim to have received email from you praising NAMBLA or some
such organization. Not only that, they post said alleged email from
you, complete with headers and all. There is absolutly nothing you
can do to prove yourself innocent, the only thing you can possibly do
is deny it. The one-way bomb throwing possible with this kind of
argument makes it particularily disgusting, and so are the people that
use it.
pnyikos
> it is certainly possible that the real peter nyikos is "allowing"
> someone else to post from his account.
I have never let anyone else post from the account I have with
Google. And Keegan is being just plain dumb here. If he wants to
convince people that the person posting from that account is not "the
real peter nyikos" then why would he think the account belongs to "the
real peter nyikos" in the first place?
if, for example, that person were
> osprey, then there would be a rational explanation for such low level,
> unintelligent posts to appear under nyikos' name. it would also explain
> why some of his posts seem to be written by more than one person.
>
> if you look at a few dozen posts from the person posting as peter
> nyikos, you'd see that person complaining about others doing exactly the
> same things that he is doing.
This is an example of the dirty debating trick known as:
The One Shade of Gray Meltdown, which consists of
seizing upon one or a few common features in order to portray
disparate things as though they were the same. Sometimes
the features are so abstract that they aren't even mentioned.
For example, the mentioning of a possibility might
get painted as though it were an implication that the
possibility is the only correct one, or even as though
it were an outright assertion to that effect.
And here is another example on the very next line:
> that's very much like osprey.
It's even more like the Seven Musketeers, who regularly indulge in
another dirty debating trick:
The Pre-emptive Peremptory Ploy, which can be a one-shot thing or it
can be
frequently employed for a long time until the payoff comes.
The preliminary step(s) consist[s] of making a carefully chosen,
unsupported (and usually unsupportable) accusation about a person--
call him/her X-- of which the accuser (or someone the accused is in
good with) is (or is expected to be) grossly guilty.
The payoff comes when the grossly guilty party earns the accusation,
Person X points it out, and then the accuser claims that Person X is
indulging in a Pee Wee Hermanism, or projecting, or hitting some high
score on "the irony meter". [Back in the 90's it was more commonly
called the "the irony-o-meter".]
Galen Hekhuis wrote: :
> > he constantly regales readers with stories about how nasty and evilly
> > cunning his adversaries are, so's to try to inflate his victory when
> > he "vanquishes" them.
Galen is here melting down people in two disparate categories into One
Shade of Gray:
(1) those like Lynda Wilson, whom I NOT call cunning and whom I DID
vanquish, with
(2) people like the Cozy Clique members, NONE of whom I have ever
claimed victory over [although Ray Fischer has massively
misrepresented simple statements of mine as claiming victory when he
does the same kind of "claiming" in something like 90% of his follow-
ups to me] and most of whom ARE evilly cunning
> > Except he also often claims how easy it is to
> > defeat them, and never realizes the contradiction.
The only person of whom I claimed that is Lynda Wilson, and there is
no contradiction except in the brain of inimitable joker Galen
Hekhuis. I posted a few jokes of his, some of which were posted to
this thread, to a new thread titled:
"Recent jokes of Galen compared with some oldies but goodies"
>
> classic osprey. particularly the part about never realizing the
> contradiction
Classic "elizabeth," especially the "classic osprey" part, altough
"elizabeth" usually misspells it.
> > He demands people identify themselves to his satisfaction,
False. I just point out their hypocrisy in joining in the scam Galen
cooked up and others have signed into [figuratively speaking] that I
am supposedly not who I say I am.
> >he demands
> > that people tell him where they work, he demands all kinds of stuff.
Since I've never demanded that anyone tell me where [s]he works, I can
only conclude that Galen is telling another one of his jokes--a rather
lame one, at that.
> > He's been told time and time again that this is not a classroom, and
> > he is certainly not the teacher
This last bit is an example of the dirty debating trick known as:
The Phantom Error Correction Scam. This consists of
lecturing someone as though one were correcting an error of
the one being lectured. Often accompanied by unsupported
assertions like "________ clearly doesn't understand that..."
or "__________ is obviously ignorant of the fact that...".
Often, the lecture is on a brand new theme that had never
been mentioned before by the person being lectured to.
> you, if instead of one person posting with the name peter nyikos, if it
> were three, or four it would explain the seeming erratic behavior as
> will as the flashes from educated to not educated and outright stupidity.
The foregoing paragraph is an easy and worthless substitute for Keegan
finally getting down to supporting the claims he makes there with
anything other than "garbage in, garbage out". I've lost track of how
many times I've called him out on this kind of GIGO, but it must be
approaching 40 if it hasn't already passed it.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:18:47 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
>
> >On Dec 9, 6:32 pm, Galen Hekhuis <ghekh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> This much is known for sure.
> >For instance, he has accused Bill Mosco of condoning torture despite
> >Mosco's clear distinction between torture and enhanced interrogation
> >techniques.
>
> I still do. I consider "enhanced interrogation techniques" often to
> be nothing more than a euphemism for "torture."
I note the weasel word "often". Just which techniques are you and
Mosco in disagreement about as to what is torture and what is not?
And please don't just say "waterboarding" is included. Tell me
whether you consider waterboarding within the guidelines mentioned in
the following website to be torture.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/28/despite-reports-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-waterboarded-times/
> >This same Galen Hekhuis has shown a callous indifference to the
> >agonies of unborn at 22+ weeks being torn limb from limb while still
> >alive, in D&E abortions, at a stage where prematurely born infants
> >have shown acute signs of distress when stuck with pins.
>
> I used to work for the medical school at the University of Virginia
[further details about Galen's life deleted]
What is the relevance of what you posted of your life story to what I
said, you Frivolous Black Weasel?
> >He is such a moral degenerate that he even claims to speak for the
> >unborn. Repeatedly.
In response to this, you cracked a joke which I've talked about on a
thread I set up,
"Recent jokes of Galen compared with some oldies but goodies" [joke
deleted]
> > > There is a Peter Nyikos who is a math
> >> professor at USC. He also posts to alt/talk abortion and is aware
> >> that several readers have concluded it must be someone doing a forgery
> >> of Nyikos.
>
> >CLAIMED to conclude.
>
> And you know this how?
>
> > And you are the charter member of this shady
> >group.
>
> I've never even met nor emailed over half the group that I'm supposed
> to be in. As for the others, we probably haven't exchanged over a
> thousand words between us, and that's over the last 20 years or so!
>
> >> Peter himself is to blame for much of the confusion, as he
> >> tried out stuff like "nyikos2" before settling (for now) on "pnyikos."
>
> >Liar. The "confusion" long predated this change, and what's more, I
> >explained the change publicly. It was not my doing at all, but
> >imposed on me by Google.
>
> Or so you claim to have concluded.
Stop feigning amnesia about how I responded the first time you tried
to make a mountain out of this molehill. I gave you plenty of details
which led to the conclusion, and nobody disputed either the details or
the logic IIRC.
>See how that works?
Yes, you've just cracked another joke.
> >> He also used several different software packages and/or computers,
>
> >I've been using Google exclusively for posting since my return from a
> >7+ year break to Usenet.
>
> Peter, Google is not a single computer,
Google's software package is the only one I've used, twit.
>nor do you use the same
> machine each time you log on, although it probably appears the same to
> you.
Did the following comment go over your head...?
> >As for different computers -- how frivolous can you get?
...or are you just trying to show everyone HOW frivolous you can get?
> >>have made many people, myself included, very wary of this new
> >> "Peter's" claims. Others think that Peter is showing signs of some
> >> kind of progressive dementia, perhaps Alzheimer's.
>
> >Allies of yours CLAIM to think it as a substitute for actually dealing
> >with my points.
>
> With you, it must be difficult to find a hat which fits them properly.
Nah, there are plenty of hats: "Black Knight," "One of the
Incorrigibles", "Musketeer," etc. and some people wear several of
them. Each hat comes with a set of specifications as to what one must
do for it to fit properly.
> >> I think it's both.
>
> >.01% on Fischer's Irony Meter, which takes the true reading and
> >subtracts it from 100%.
>
> Huh?
Judging from the way you bragged [by your standards for me] about
helping to moderate another newsgroup, you should have no trouble
figuring out what I meant from the way Fischer uses the irony meter.
If you can't, maybe you should enlist the help of Lefty. He has shown
an uncommon sensitivity to the way the word "Just" can totally
transform the connotations of a sentence, and maybe he can use it to
make a more fair moderator out of you.
He is far less sensitive to the connotations of the things he says,
but as long as he doesn't participate in the posting himself, he
should be a help to you.
> >Just look at the way you next contradict what you said up there:
>
> >>Peter is being forged, and he is well aware of it,
>
> >Have you gone completely bananas?
>
> If so, what does that say about you?
Your question is a no-brainer. If YOU go bananas to the extent of
actually believing your know such things about me, that fact says
NOTHING about me.
> >>but denies
> >> it to keep some sort of "plausible deniability." If he is ever
> >> confronted with a past post, he can claim something like: "I never
> >> wrote any of that.
>
> >I've been confronted with past posts and done nothing of the sort,
> >turkey. It's YOUR style to claim such things.
The remainder of your post was dealt with on the thread I set up
today. See above for the title.
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
<6f453616-f1de-4bb0...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Dec 9, 8:01 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > it is certainly possible that the real peter nyikos is "allowing"
> > someone else to post from his account.
>
> I have never let anyone else post from the account I have with
> Google.
the word of a prpven liar like you isn't particularly compelling.
Galen Hekhuis
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Dec 10, 12:33 pm, Galen Hekhuis <ghekh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:18:47 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
>>
>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Dec 9, 6:32 pm, Galen Hekhuis <ghekh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >> This much is known for sure.
>
>> >For instance, he has accused Bill Mosco of condoning torture despite
>> >Mosco's clear distinction between torture and enhanced interrogation
>> >techniques.
>>
>> I still do. I consider "enhanced interrogation techniques" often to
>> be nothing more than a euphemism for "torture."
>
>I note the weasel word "often". Just which techniques are you and
>Mosco in disagreement about as to what is torture and what is not?
>
>And please don't just say "waterboarding" is included. Tell me
>whether you consider waterboarding within the guidelines mentioned in
>the following website to be torture.
>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/28/despite-reports-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-waterboarded-times/
I believe we not only waterboarded people, we used other forms of
torture as well. We are obligated by the Constitution of the United
States to undertake a serious investigation.
>> >This same Galen Hekhuis has shown a callous indifference to the
>> >agonies of unborn at 22+ weeks being torn limb from limb while still
>> >alive, in D&E abortions, at a stage where prematurely born infants
>> >have shown acute signs of distress when stuck with pins.
>>
>> I used to work for the medical school at the University of Virginia
>
>[further details about Galen's life deleted]
>
>What is the relevance of what you posted of your life story to what I
>said, you Frivolous Black Weasel?
To try to impress you with the fact that I have known far more about
what goes on in day-to-day medicine than you ever will.
Did I bring this up before? I'm sure you've got plenty of stuff to
cite. Wait, I probably *emailed* you about it. Yeah, that's the
ticket.
>...
pnyikos
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:53:19 -0500, james g. keegan jr.
>
>
>
> >On 2009-12-10 15:16:52 -0500, Lefty <leftydr...@netscape.net> said:
>
> >> On Dec 10, 12:33 pm, Galen Hekhuis <ghekh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >[...]
>
> >>> Anytime anyone posts private email think of them as nasty, stinking,
> >>> lying, sacks of liquid crap. I had allowed myself to forget just what
> >>> a scumbucket this Peter Nyikos is.
>
> >> I agree that it's fundamentally unethical to post emails without
> >> permission from the author. Mind you, a person who harasses and
> >> threatens you via email has no right to expect his/her privacy will be
> >> preserved, so there are circumstances where I'd say it's okay.
As I said to Lefty in direct follow-up to where he wrote this, the
"logic" in the following sentence of his defies analysis:
> >> In the situation you describe, it's the kind of thing only obsessed
> >> whackjobs do, the sort one needs to be careful of lest they become
> >> stalkers.
> >in the early days of usenet newsgroups, there was a clear, conceptual
> >distinction between posts and emails. without question, it was
> >considered a scumball action to post email. as time passed, i think the
> >distinctions became less clear. threats, attempts at intimidation,
> >harrassment, sexual or other coupled with the huge change in the type
> >of person using the net may have resulted in situations where the right
> >thing to do *is* to post email.
Yes. I wonder when the transition took place.
> There is no way in the world I can prove that I did not send Peter
> Nyikos email, in fact, as I've noted, I may well have. What can never
> be proven is the content of the emails. (Well, maybe, if you were to
> impound the sendee's computer, and found a copy of the indentical
> email in a "sent" folder or something.) Posting email, especially old
> email, is almost always a "who do you believe" situation. As Keegan
> points out, there is no way for the reader to verify any of the
> information.
I posted it in the following thread to protect myself against your
merciless attack on me in the same thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/browse_thread/thread/df5e2330e3ce204f/4cf8e6ddf53932a5
and I've reposted it, for much the same reason, to the thread you set
up just yesterday:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/browse_thread/thread/97343731a55c8f19#
I don't expect you to acknowledge that I've proven that you sent me e-
mail, but I think any reasonable adult will stop indulging in
innuendo, or falsely claiming outright, that you never sent me e-mail.
>Posting email is simply an appeal to mob or popular
> opinion, there is nothing that can be proven either true or false. It
> can be a smear that absolutly cannot be disproven.
If you think I smeared you by posting "Got it -- thanks. " the only
way you can justify it is that you consider refutations of malicious
and false accusations by you to be "smears".
> If nothing else, consider that *you*, the reader, might someday have
> someone claim to have received email from you praising NAMBLA or some
> such organization. Not only that, they post said alleged email from
> you, complete with headers and all. There is absolutly nothing you
> can do to prove yourself innocent, the only thing you can possibly do
> is deny it. The one-way bomb throwing possible with this kind of
> argument makes it particularily disgusting, and so are the people that
> use it.
This much is true. But it is completely irrelevant to the case in
point.
I wonder whether Lefty has the courage to return to this thread and
explain his "logic" about it which I said "your logic defies
analysis."
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Galen Hekhuis <ghekh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> This much is known for sure.
>
> >There is a "comet" named Galen Hekhuis who keeps popping into the
> >abortion newsgroups at odd intervals (and has been doing so since I
> >first started posting in 1992, but his absences seem to be getting
> >longer and his presences shorter) and has absolutely no qualms about
> >making baseless accusations.
>
> Just like you. Well, no. You really do that sort of thing while he
> does not. So I guess what we have here is another example of you
> projecting your own sleazy actions onto others.
>
> >For instance, he has accused Bill Mosco of condoning torture despite
> >Mosco's clear distinction between torture and enhanced interrogation
> >techniques.
>
> It takes an ammoral person to argue that simply calling torture an
> "enhanced interrogation technique" really does mean that it's not
> torture.
It also takes an amoral person to pretend that the above sentence
refutes what I said. To do that, one would have to look at the actual
things Mosco puts under that label, and argue that they constitute
torture. From what I've seen of his posts on this matter, I believe
he refers to the following:
The Justice Department memos described the maximum
allowed use of the waterboard on any detainee,
based on tactical training given to U.S. troops to resist
interrogations:
-- Five days of use in one month, with no more than two "sessions" in
a day;
-- Up to six applications (something like a dunk) lasting more than 10
seconds but less than 40 seconds per session;
-- 12 minutes of total "water application" in a 24-hour period
> In fact I could demonstrate:
Fischer has repeatedly dodged the question of whether he has pressured
one or more women to have abortions, and also the question of whether
he approved, disapproved, was indifferent to, or is in suspended
judgment over what attitude to take about the forced abortion of an
Italian girl, despite the fact that he repeatedly posted on the thread
where this abortion was discussed, and used the thread as a soapbox
for his attacks on pro-lifers.
That is not a lie. It is an enhanced report of an inconvenient (for
Fischer) truth.
Now look at the sleazy "demonstration" Scumbag Fischer cooked up:
> Peter Nyikos is on parole for rape and
> is a registered sex offender. That's not a lie, it's simply an
> "enhanced criticism technique".
Too bad you didn't wrap all of your lies about Mosco and me in this
kind of sleazy "plausible deniability" package--only some of them.
But then, there is no reasonable way to doubt that you think it is
perfectly moral of YOU to lie, or of Keegan or Spartakus or the rest
of your allies to lie. The wonder is that you wrap up ANY of your
lies in the kind of package in which you've wrapped this last pair of
lies.
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
<cf26dd89-fddb-46cd...@t42g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 10:51 am, Galen Hekhuis <ghekh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:53:19 -0500, james g. keegan jr.
> > >in the early days of usenet newsgroups, there was a clear, conceptual
> > >distinction between posts and emails. without question, it was
> > >considered a scumball action to post email. as time passed, i think the
> > >distinctions became less clear. threats, attempts at intimidation,
> > >harrassment, sexual or other coupled with the huge change in the type
> > >of person using the net may have resulted in situations where the right
> > >thing to do *is* to post email.
>
> Yes. I wonder when the transition took place.
>
> > There is no way in the world I can prove that I did not send Peter
> > Nyikos email, in fact, as I've noted, I may well have. What can never
> > be proven is the content of the emails. (Well, maybe, if you were to
> > impound the sendee's computer, and found a copy of the indentical
> > email in a "sent" folder or something.) Posting email, especially old
> > email, is almost always a "who do you believe" situation. As Keegan
> > points out, there is no way for the reader to verify any of the
> > information.
>
> I posted it in the following thread
that is another false claim
you posted what you asserted to be email from galen without a shred of
evidence to support your claim.
the word of a well-known liar like you is not sufficient.
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 10, 1:17 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > Galen Hekhuis <ghekh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >> This much is known for sure.
>>
>> >There is a "comet" named Galen Hekhuis who keeps popping into the
>> >abortion newsgroups at odd intervals (and has been doing so since I
>> >first started posting in 1992, but his absences seem to be getting
>> >longer and his presences shorter) and has absolutely no qualms about
>> >making baseless accusations.
>>
>> Just like you. Well, no. You really do that sort of thing while he
>> does not. So I guess what we have here is another example of you
>> projecting your own sleazy actions onto others.
>>
>> >For instance, he has accused Bill Mosco of condoning torture despite
>> >Mosco's clear distinction between torture and enhanced interrogation
>> >techniques.
>>
>> It takes an ammoral person to argue that simply calling torture an
>> "enhanced interrogation technique" really does mean that it's not
>> torture.
>
>It also takes an amoral person to pretend that the above sentence
>refutes what I said.
Your bloated ego is wholly insuffcient to give your claims any
credibility. That fact that Mosco is willing to lie does not make
fair criticism of his politics a lie.
> To do that, one would have to look at the actual
Blah, blah, blah.
Now you're rationalizing torture in order to defened mosco. There
apparently is nothing you won't do in order to further your hate.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Dr. Michael Mancini
james g. keegan jr. <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-EE0F55...@news.individual.net...
Ah...once again, the pot is calling the kettle black.
--Dr. Michael Mancini
Dr. Michael Mancini
Dr. Michael Mancini <don...@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:ae0db$4b3aefaf$6211a844$10...@ALLTEL.NET...
james g. keegan jr.
"Dr. Michael Mancini" <don...@windstream.net> wrote:
[..]
> Ah...once again, the pot is calling the kettle black.
> --Dr. Michael Mancini
ahh bobby, projection plays a huge role in your psyche, doesn't it?
does the real mancini now you're again impersonating him?
Dr. Michael Mancini
> In article <ae0db$4b3aefaf$6211a844$10...@ALLTEL.NET>,
> "Dr. Michael Mancini" <don...@windstream.net> wrote:
> [..]
> > Ah...once again, the pot is calling the kettle black.
> > --Dr. Michael Mancini
>
>
> ahh bobby, projection plays a huge role in your psyche, doesn't it?
You shoould know all about projection, Junior.
> does the real mancini now you're again impersonating him?
Yes, Thomas Calabro knows. Read the article in the Wall Street Journal. I am
prominently mentioned.
--Dr. Michael Mancini
The Chief Instigator
...and believing that you're more credible is just another of your futile
fantasies, Bobby.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 5, Syracuse 4 (OT, December 28)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, December 30 at Chicago, 7:05
elizabeth
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:55:08 -0800, Dr. Michael Mancini <don...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dr. Michael Mancini <don...@windstream.net> wrote in message
> >news:ae0db$4b3aefaf$6211a844$10...@ALLTEL.NET...
>
> >>news:jgkeegan-EE0F55...@news.individual.net...
> >> > In article
> >> > <6f453616-f1de-4bb0-864f-3247a7f1a...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Dec 9, 8:01 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > it is certainly possible that the real peter nyikos is "allowing"
> >> > > > someone else to post from his account.
>
> >> > > I have never let anyone else post from the account I have with
> >> > > Google.
>
> >> > the word of a prpven liar like you isn't particularly compelling.
>
> >> Ah...once again, the pot is calling the kettle black.
> > Ah...once again, the pot is calling the kettle black.
>
> > --Dr. Michael Mancini
>
> ...and believing that you're more credible is just another of your futile
> fantasies, Bobby.
>
> --
> www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
> LAST GAME: Houston 5, Syracuse 4 (OT, December 28)
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just can't get rid of that fuckwad, can we?
james g. keegan jr.
"Dr. Michael Mancini" <don...@windstream.net> wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jgkeegan-186765...@news.individual.net...
> > In article <ae0db$4b3aefaf$6211a844$10...@ALLTEL.NET>,
> > "Dr. Michael Mancini" <don...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > [..]
> > > Ah...once again, the pot is calling the kettle black.
> > > --Dr. Michael Mancini
> >
> >
> > ahh bobby, projection plays a huge role in your psyche, doesn't it?
>
> You shoould know all about projection,
i've observed your behavior for a long time, bobby.
tell me, does the real mancini know that you are posting using his name
again?
Dr. Michael Mancini
> In article <82918$4b3b8607$6211a844$19...@ALLTEL.NET>,
> "Dr. Michael Mancini" <don...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
> > james g. keegan jr. <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:jgkeegan-186765...@news.individual.net...
> > > In article <ae0db$4b3aefaf$6211a844$10...@ALLTEL.NET>,
> > > "Dr. Michael Mancini" <don...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > [..]
> > > > Ah...once again, the pot is calling the kettle black.
> > > > --Dr. Michael Mancini
> > >
> > >
> > > ahh bobby, projection plays a huge role in your psyche, doesn't it?
> >
> > You shoould know all about projection,
>
> i've observed your behavior for a long time, bobby.
I've told you before, Junior, behavior like that will make hair grow on your
palms. Admit it: you love me, just like Barney the Dinosaur.
> tell me, does the real mancini know that you are posting using his name
> again?
Does the real Keegan know of your lies and misrepresentations?
The Chief Instigator
> On Dec 30, 9:16?am, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:55:08 -0800, Dr. Michael Mancini <don...@windstream.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Dr. Michael Mancini <don...@windstream.net> wrote in message
>> >news:ae0db$4b3aefaf$6211a844$10...@ALLTEL.NET...
>>
>> >> james g. keegan jr. <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:jgkeegan-EE0F55...@news.individual.net...
>> >> > In article
>> >> > <6f453616-f1de-4bb0-864f-3247a7f1a...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> >> > > On Dec 9, 8:01 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > it is certainly possible that the real peter nyikos is "allowing"
>> >> > > > someone else to post from his account.
>>
>> >> > > I have never let anyone else post from the account I have with
>> >> > > Google.
>>
>> >> > the word of a prpven liar like you isn't particularly compelling.
>>
>> >> Ah...once again, the pot is calling the kettle black.
>> > Ah...once again, the pot is calling the kettle black.
>>
>> > --Dr. Michael Mancini
>>
>> ...and believing that you're more credible is just another of your futile
>> fantasies, Bobby.
>>
>> --
>> ? ? ?www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php?(TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? LAST GAME: Houston 5, Syracuse 4 (OT, December 28)
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? NEXT GAME: Wednesday, December 30 at Chicago, 7:05- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Just can't get rid of that fuckwad, can we?
If he's as stupid as the impersonator channeling him, he'll get zapped by
lightning, sooner or later.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
james g. keegan jr.
"Dr. Michael Mancini" <don...@windstream.net> wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > tell me, does the real mancini know that you are posting using his name
> > again?
>
> Does the real Keegan know of your lies and misrepresentations?
evasion noted.
how long do you think you'll last using mancini's name this time, bobby?
Dr. Michael Mancini
james g. keegan jr. <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-E1BDBA...@news.individual.net...
Liar, liar, pants on fire!
> you posted what you asserted to be email from galen without a shred of
> evidence to support your claim.
Where's YOUR evidence to prove that he's a liar, Junior. Oh, sorry, I
forgot. You don't have any.
> the word of a well-known liar like you is not sufficient.
But the word of a well-known idiot moroon as yourself is? What a dumbarse!
Ray Fischer
No, your practice is to call anyone a liar if you can't refute their claim.
Mancini <don...@windstream.net in <743dd$4b3c0b6f$6211a844$78...@ALLTEL.NET>
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Dr. Michael Mancini
I wonder how long you'll continue to lie and misrepresent, Junior.
Ray Fischer
>james g. keegan jr. <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>I wonder how long you'll continue to lie and misrepresent, Junior.
You can't debate someone, so you simply call them a liar to hide your
weakness and fear. What a failure you really are,
Mancini in <537e9$4b3af6d7$6211a844$31...@ALLTEL.NET>
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Dr. Michael Mancini
Ray Fischer <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4b3d5c92$0$1601$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Now you're sounding more like Keegan. Are you becoming senile or paranoid in
your old age?
Dr. Michael Mancini
That's a mature reply.
> Now you're rationalizing torture in order to defened mosco. There
> apparently is nothing you won't do in order to further your hate.
Torture is trying to make sense out of one of your mindless posts.
james g. keegan jr.
"Dr. Michael Mancini" <don...@windstream.net> wrote:
> Ray Fischer <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:4b3d5c92$0$1601$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> > No, your practice is to call anyone a liar if you can't
> > refute their claim.
>
> Now you're sounding more like Keegan. Are you becoming senile or paranoid in
> your old age?
ha ha. i can picture you shaking in fear as you sense them closing in on
you again, bobby. are you afraid that this time will be worse than the
last?
Ray Fischer
Those are your words, moron. Why did you leave off the attribution?
Stupidity or dishonesty?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Galen Hekhuis
It can't be proven, not one way or the other. The logs have been
erased or overwritten years ago, if the machines even still exist.
At the time, I worked for the University of Virginia medical school as
a laboratory instrument maker. I had an AT&T 3B2 on my desk
(actually the machine was on a shelf nearby, I only had the terminal
on my desk), a Kaypro II, a Mac SE, and an AT&T 6300. I had one of
the few rooms where Unix(TM), CP/M, AppleDOS and MS-DOS was spoken
fluently. Some other department (anatomy, I think) named their
machines "Galen," as in "Galen" for their 3B15, and "Galen1-6"for the
smaller 3B2s, as you might expect, I wanted (and got) an account on
their 3B15 for reasons that should be obvious.
I told you that so I could tell you this: I knew a lot about what I
was doing with computers then, and "galen" should NOT appear in the
path of my emails at the time. Oh, for sure I had an account on
"galen," which I used for reading and posting news, but not for
email. As I recall, the newsreader they had installed on "galen"
didn't have a convenient way to "respond to poster via email" like so
many newsreaders do today, you had to "shell out," then fire up the
local mailer, etc. I did it a few times, I knew how, but I didn't do
it very often and certainly not to acknowledge some submission. It
was just too much of a pill to do. All my email was forwarded to my
"dale" account. I ran a program on it that checked for new email
every ten minutes or so. My address at the time was g...@virginia.edu,
but even the machine "virginia" (which was a virtual machine, but
that's another story), forwarded my mail to my "dale" account. Every
account did. Even if someone had responded by email to the path in my
posting (and not my email address) the mail still would have wound up
in my "dale" inbox, and any response would have had "dale" in the
path.
What Peter Nyikos appears to have done is taken header info from one
of my postings and used it to construct the email he posted. I don't
know why.
Dr. Michael Mancini
Okay, riddle me this, Ray? Why does Keegan continue to babble about "the
person posting as Peter Nyikos" yet he has yet to say who that person is?
Because he is LYING, that's why.
Ray Fischer
>> >james g. keegan jr. <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> how long do you think you'll last using mancini's name this time,
>bobby?
>> >
>> >I wonder how long you'll continue to lie and misrepresent, Junior.
>>
>> You can't debate someone, so you simply call them a liar to hide your
>> weakness and fear. What a failure you really are,
>> Mancini in <537e9$4b3af6d7$6211a844$31...@ALLTEL.NET>
>
>Okay, riddle me this, Ray?
No.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Spartakus
> Okay, riddle me this, Ray? Why does Keegan continue to babble about
> "the person posting as Peter Nyikos" yet he has yet to say who that
> person is? Because he is LYING, that's why.
No one would want his name associated with an embarrassing logical
blunder such as you just made. Why are you sullying the real Dr.
Michael Mancini's good name with your displays of stupidity?
james g. keegan jr.
<6c77ec5e-e11c-44de...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Spartakus <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
when bobby coyle posts as "Dr. Michael Mancini," stupidity is the least
of the issues. i suspect bobby was obsessed with the real mancini before
he was obsessed with keith cochran and now, of course, me.
too bat he never met ooopsy.
elizabeth
wrote:
> Ray Fischer <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4b3db550$0$1659$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>
> > Dr. Michael Mancini <don...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > >> how long do you think you'll last using mancini's name this time,
> bobby?
>
> > >I wonder how long you'll continue to lie and misrepresent, Junior.
>
> > You can't debate someone, so you simply call them a liar to hide your
> > weakness and fear. What a failure you really are,
>
> Okay, riddle me this, Ray? Why does Keegan continue to babble about "the
> person posting as Peter Nyikos" yet he has yet to say who that person is?
> Because he is LYING, that's why.
Oh, oopsey, do you really think you're fooling anyone? But yourself,
of course.
james g. keegan jr.
<8283c353-c9cc-4d5d...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
elizabeth <efra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
even though bobby (coyle's) question is sufficiently illiterate to be
referred to as an ooopsy, it's highly unlikely that heishman posted it.
bobby coyle is a sociopathic, homophobic (denial?) racist but he is far
more literate and smarter than ooopsy, in my opinion.
elizabeth
> In article
> <8283c353-c9cc-4d5d-9671-c3cad464d...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, most sentient creatures are more intelligent than Oopsey.
Spartakus
> <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > bobby coyle is a sociopathic, homophobic (denial?) racist but he
> > is far more literate and smarter than ooopsy, in my opinion.
> Well, most sentient creatures are more intelligent than Oopsey.
Even tomatoes!