What is true?
Galen Hekhuis
jerk, and often came to wrong conclusions, pompous as hell, but I
always assumed that deep inside there was a truthful sort. Then after
years of silence a cretin emerges claiming that I emailed Peter
Nyikos. You can see that I would conclude that Peter was being
impersonated. But maybe Peter Nyikos was a liar all along and I was
just too stupid to see it. So there you have it. Either I'm too
blind and stupid to have noticed Nyikos' earlier duplicity, or Peter
Nyikos, professor of mathematics, is being impersonated. There are
several reasons to assume the stupidity is mine. Although email and
that sort of stuff can be spoofed, his headers and responses would
indicate that he is who he says he is, and though the style could have
been imitated by carefully researching earlier posts, nyikos2 is every
bit as pompous and arrogant as Peter. Then again, there are some
things which give you pause. Both Oopsey and nyikos2 are given to
lying about email, among other things, have they ever been
photographed together? Can a math professor be so estranged from his
campus computer science department that he asks basic networking
questions in an abortion newsgroup?
I've had to deal with being stupid before, after all, I thought MS-DOS
was just a "flash in the pan" and that CP/M was going to rule the
world, but that is easier to handle than the thought that Peter has
been this dishonest all along and I just didn't notice it.
elizabeth
What is an online identity, something I have thought about over the
years.
Since I will never, nor do I want to, ever meet most of the people who
post in here, I suppose what their actual, meat puppet being doesn't
matter to me, and they don't concern me the way people I know IRL . ..
that's one of the reasons I use only my name online, it's easier that
way.
You lose track of your own words if you keep changing handles and
personas. Kinda creepy.
> I had assumed Peter Nyikos was a basically honest person. He was a
> jerk, and often came to wrong conclusions, pompous as hell, but I
> always assumed that deep inside there was a truthful sort. Then after
> years of silence a cretin emerges claiming that I emailed Peter
> Nyikos.
fauxNy just doesn't make rational sense, is unable to provide
documentation, as a real academic would. He simply hasn't the chops
to pull of the identity of an actual, tenured math professor .. .
although the Unibomber demonstrated that mathematicians aren't immune
to madness. Then there was that movie, A Beautiful Mind, so maybe
mathematicians are all borderline loonies.
> You can see that I would conclude that Peter was being
> impersonated. But maybe Peter Nyikos was a liar all along and I was
> just too stupid to see it. So there you have it. Either I'm too
> blind and stupid to have noticed Nyikos' earlier duplicity, or Peter
> Nyikos, professor of mathematics, is being impersonated. There are
> several reasons to assume the stupidity is mine. Although email and
> that sort of stuff can be spoofed, his headers and responses would
> indicate that he is who he says he is, and though the style could have
> been imitated by carefully researching earlier posts, nyikos2 is every
> bit as pompous and arrogant as Peter. Then again, there are some
> things which give you pause. Both Oopsey and nyikos2 are given to
> lying about email, among other things, have they ever been
> photographed together? Can a math professor be so estranged from his
> campus computer science department that he asks basic networking
> questions in an abortion newsgroup?
Bingo. If he's online at a uni, he's got access to the best CS dweebs
around.
> I've had to deal with being stupid before, after all, I thought MS-DOS
> was just a "flash in the pan" and that CP/M was going to rule the
> world, but that is easier to handle than the thought that Peter has
> been this dishonest all along and I just didn't notice it.
I vote for imposter.
james g. keegan jr.
Galen Hekhuis <ghek...@earthlink.net> wrote:
i have changed my earlier opinion that the person posting as peter
nyikos is the same peter nyikos who posted here more than a decade ago.
there are far too many inconsistencies for it to be the same person. the
inconsistencies include writing style, apparent intelligence, ethics,
general awareness of things ranging from news to the internet. the
original peter nyikos would *never* allow himself to be outsmarted so
many times and by so many people. this current person is a buffoon.
i wouldn't be surprised if the impostor were female.
--
"Note: NOWHERE...and I'll repeat..NOWHERE do you see me mentioning the New York Times. " --scumbag heishman posting as Ospre...@hotmail.com in news:9a845215-1896-47e0-acb9-fca427f2c...@x38g2000yqj.googlegroups.com
apprently forgetting he had previously written:
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have been warned." -- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com> in news:2rCdnZNy7LA...@comcast.com
noauth
>I had assumed Peter Nyikos was a basically honest person. He was a
> jerk, and often came to wrong conclusions, pompous as hell, but I
> always assumed that deep inside there was a truthful sort. Then after
> years of silence a cretin emerges claiming that I emailed Peter
> Nyikos. You can see that I would conclude that Peter was being
> impersonated. But maybe Peter Nyikos was a liar all along and I was
> just too stupid to see it. So there you have it. Either I'm too
> blind and stupid to have noticed Nyikos' earlier duplicity, or Peter
> Nyikos, professor of mathematics, is being impersonated. There are
> several reasons to assume the stupidity is mine. Although email and
> that sort of stuff can be spoofed, his headers and responses would
> indicate that he is who he says he is, and though the style could have
> been imitated by carefully researching earlier posts, nyikos2 is every
> bit as pompous and arrogant as Peter. Then again, there are some
> things which give you pause. Both Oopsey and nyikos2 are given to
> lying about email, among other things, have they ever been
> photographed together? Can a math professor be so estranged from his
> campus computer science department that he asks basic networking
> questions in an abortion newsgroup?
>
> I've had to deal with being stupid before, after all, I thought MS-DOS
> was just a "flash in the pan" and that CP/M was going to rule the
> world, but that is easier to handle than the thought that Peter has
> been this dishonest all along and I just didn't notice it.
Perhaps you're half-right, Galen. You *are* stupid - too stupid to recognize that Peter treated you with more respect than you deserved. Others will not repeat Peter's mistake.
james g. keegan jr.
noauth <an...@remailer.gabrix.ath.cx> wrote:
osprey, is that you? it really doesn't matter, i guess. anonymous
cowards are all the same.
as for your remark, how can readers know you were even around when peter
nyiko was posting?
william mosco
I disagree. You have yet to show evidence. This isn't evidence, it's
you assuming your opinion matters.
The above is a rant, with no documentation or examples provided.
>the
> original peter nyikos would *never* allow himself to be outsmarted so
> many times and by so many people. this current person is a buffoon.
>
> i wouldn't be surprised if the impostor were female.
Why would you say that??
james g. keegan jr.
<ee51c9ae-d2b4-468c...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
you're lying again william, although you have no credibility and no one
believes you.
>
> > the
> > original peter nyikos would *never* allow himself to be outsmarted so
> > many times and by so many people. this current person is a buffoon.
> >
>
> > i wouldn't be surprised if the impostor were female.
>
> Why would you say that??
read the posts to which you respond before responding, william.
Nomen Nescio
The truth is, only a few of the dimmer wits in this newsgroup believe YOU, Keegan.
james g. keegan jr.
Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
but no one believes you.
pnyikos
> In article
> <ee51c9ae-d2b4-468c-9294-fe54ecaff...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,> > > In article <k56c45ps1b7p7iqmfsg8he5f0c1mdd9...@4ax.com>,
> > > Galen Hekhuis <ghekh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > I had assumed Peter Nyikos was a basically honest person. He was a
> > > > jerk, and often came to wrong conclusions, pompous as hell, but I
> > > > always assumed that deep inside there was a truthful sort.
The truthfulness was right out front for everyone to see. Nobody ever
documented a deliberate lie by my the whole time I've posted to
Usenet--back then (1992-1997 on talk.abortion) or now (since November
of last year).
>>>> Then after
> > > > years of silence a cretin emerges claiming that I emailed Peter
> > > > Nyikos. You can see that I would conclude that Peter was being
> > > > impersonated.
No, because that despicable liar Galen did send me several e-mails
whose existence he wishes to deny.
>>>> But maybe Peter Nyikos was a liar all along and I was
> > > > just too stupid to see it. So there you have it. Either I'm too
> > > > blind and stupid to have noticed Nyikos' earlier duplicity, or Peter
> > > > Nyikos, professor of mathematics, is being impersonated.
A gigantic GIGO right there.
>>>>There are
> > > > several reasons to assume the stupidity is mine. Although email and
> > > > that sort of stuff can be spoofed, his headers and responses would
> > > > indicate that he is who he says he is, and though the style could have
> > > > been imitated by carefully researching earlier posts, nyikos2 is every
> > > > bit as pompous and arrogant as Peter. Then again, there are some
> > > > things which give you pause. Both Oopsey and nyikos2 are given to
> > > > lying about email, among other things, have they ever been
> > > > photographed together? Can a math professor be so estranged from his
> > > > campus computer science department that he asks basic networking
> > > > questions in an abortion newsgroup?
>
> > > > I've had to deal with being stupid before, after all, I thought MS-DOS
> > > > was just a "flash in the pan" and that CP/M was going to rule the
> > > > world, but that is easier to handle than the thought that Peter has
> > > > been this dishonest all along and I just didn't notice it.
>
> > > i have changed my earlier opinion that the person posting as peter
> > > nyikos is the same peter nyikos who posted here more than a decade ago.
> > > there are far too many inconsistencies for it to be the same person.
Keegan and Galen have given up trying to even describe the alleged
inconsistencies, and Keegan is resorting to one piece of GIGO after
another--at least 7 times so far.
the
> > > inconsistencies include writing style, apparent intelligence, ethics,
> > > general awareness of things ranging from news to the internet.
Utter bilge.
> > I disagree. You have yet to show evidence. This isn't evidence, it's
> > you assuming your opinion matters.
>
> > The above is a rant, with no documentation or examples provided.
>
> you're lying again william, although you have no credibility and no one
> believes you.
>
Now THAT is a lie, Jim, because I believe him, and I think sexkitten
would also.
Bill Mosco has plenty of credibility, in the sense of believability.
Nobody has ever caught him in a deliberate lie (as opposed to an
honest mistake or an obvious joke) to my knowledge--and we go back a
long way, all the way back to 1993, I believe; if not, then I remember
him from 1994 for sure.
Contrast that with all the lies you've told, Jimbo, including the
three above. I've reposted a flagrant lie of yours several times in
which you supported multiple lies by Fischer and Spartakus in followup
to Osprey, thereby making you a pro-liar twice over.
I'm prepared to repost that lie as many times as necessary; each time,
I will replace more and more attribution marks with numbers in
parentheses, so that more and more of it will show up in Google
without people having to click on "Show quoted text".
> > > the
> > > original peter nyikos would *never* allow himself to be outsmarted so
> > > many times and by so many people. this current person is a buffoon.
>
> > > i wouldn't be surprised if the impostor were female.
>
> > Why would you say that??
>
> read the posts to which you respond before responding, william.
In other words, Jimbo, your "wouldn't be surprised" was pure hot air.
The last time you were able to supply documentation for me on
something, you were so eager to do it that you even offered to do it
if I would agree to stop posting for 30 days.
Strange thing--even that turned out to be a total dud, and Tom S. has
egg on his face as a result, having posted some bizarre gibberish
about me leaving him in "the chain" but deleting...[something I did
NOT delete when I did reply to him].
Peter Nyikos
Peter Nyikos
Peter Nyikos
Ray Fischer
>> > > > I had assumed Peter Nyikos was a basically honest person. �He was a
>> > > > jerk, and often came to wrong conclusions, pompous as hell, but I
>> > > > always assumed that deep inside there was a truthful sort.
>
>The truthfulness was right out front for everyone to see. Nobody ever
>documented a deliberate lie by my the whole time I've posted to
>Usenet--back then (1992-1997 on talk.abortion) or now (since November
>of last year).
You are a liar. Proof of your lies has been documented repeatedly.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
pnyikos
> I had assumed Peter Nyikos was a basically honest person.
Really? I'll have to look back at the meager supply of posts by you
in 1992-1997 that I saved, and the ones in Google that are still
accessible. Imagine, I found only one thread in the whole of 1994
that went with "Galen Hekhuis" or your old address,
g...@galen.med.Virginia.EDU using Google Advanced Search and I could
almost swear I saw you participate in more than one thread that year.
Are you the one who taught Osprey how to block posts in Google? ;-)
> He was a
> jerk, and often came to wrong conclusions, pompous as hell, but I
> always assumed that deep inside there was a truthful sort.
You were looking at me through TSAKC-colored glasses. By the way, you
never did reveal what that stood for, did you?>
> Then after
> years of silence a cretin emerges claiming that I emailed Peter
> Nyikos.
"cretin"? You never did take those glasses off, I see.
> You can see that I would conclude that Peter was being
> impersonated.
Au contraire, I thought you were sincere in wondering whether I was
the real Peter Nyikos and I thought I'd jog your memory the way I
jogged Bill Mosco's memory by quoting from an e-mail I sent him back
there. Apparently his memory is better than yours--or maybe you are
just lying about how you don't recall sending me an e-mail.
I note how you, Black Weasel that you are, never actually came out in
this post and claimed that this bit about you e-mailing me WAS a lie.
You only indulge in massive innuendo to that effect:
> But maybe Peter Nyikos was a liar all along and I was
> just too stupid to see it. So there you have it.
More innuendo and misdirection. And still more:
> Either I'm too
> blind and stupid to have noticed Nyikos' earlier duplicity,
Well, Galen, I still haven't found the e-mail I was referring to, but
I HAVE found one e-mail you sent me, and here it is:
=============== begin included e-mail
From g...@galen.med.virginia.edu Wed Oct 26 17:38:10 1994
Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by
milo.math.scarolina.edu (4.1\
/6.0s-FWP);
id AA17884; Wed, 26 Oct 94 17:38:10 EDT
Received: from galen.med.virginia.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id
aa16053;
26 Oct 94 17:38 EDT
Received: (from gjh@localhost) by galen.med.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6)
id RAA90389\
for nyi...@math.scarolina.edu; Wed, 26 Oct 1994 17:38:02 -0400
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 17:38:02 -0400
From: "Galen J. Hekhuis" <g...@galen.med.virginia.edu>
Message-Id: <1994102621...@galen.med.Virginia.EDU>
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.3 5/22/91)
To: Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.scarolina.edu>
Subject: Re: Kelly post entered in dumb-off contest
Status: RO
Got it -- thanks.
--
Galen Hekhuis Np.D. g...@virginia.edu
[X] Plays well with others
====================== end of included e-mail
There was a dumb-off contest going on, with people submitting posts to
you (and perhaps one or two others--I forget) exemplifying dumbness of
one sort or another. In my next post to this thread I'll show readers
(will you be one of them?) the Kevin Kelly post that I submitted to
you as one entry. I also submitted a Keegan post but I haven't yet
found an acknowledgment from you about having received that one.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> Can a math professor be so estranged from his
> campus computer science department that he asks basic networking
> questions in an abortion newsgroup?
Computer science is in a different building about 15 minutes walk from
my office. They are part of the College of Engineering while
Mathematics is part of the mis-named College of Arts and Sciences.
Imagine, they don't even include Music among the Arts.
> I've had to deal with being stupid before, after all, I thought MS-DOS
> was just a "flash in the pan" and that CP/M was going to rule the
> world, but that is easier to handle than the thought that Peter has
> been this dishonest all along and I just didn't notice it.
I've been totally honest all along and you can say anything you want
about the empty set.
Here's the CC of a post to which your very brief thanks was the reply:
======================= begin included e-mail
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Kelly post entered in dumb-off contest
References: <941014231...@milo.math.scarolina.edu> <37ncpb
$r...@vixen.cso.uiu\
c.edu> <941019201...@milo.math.scarolina.edu> <3876fp
$9...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu\
>
CC: g...@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
When you see the number of lines in this post, Galen, you'll
understand
why I am not including the whole thing, but only the relevant
portions.
If you hurry, you can still find the whole post on the "Timex" thread
(exact Subject: below), or I can e-mail you a copy if you wish.
Kelly asserts dishonesty by me, posts the "evidence" and does not
realize
just how perfectly what I say matches what he did.
_______________________begin top of post______________________
Path: usceast!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!
ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!kkelly
~From: kke...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kevin kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
~Subject: Re: The Timex Assertion (New! Improved!)
Date: 21 Oct 1994 01:45:29 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 388
Message-ID: <3876fp$9...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
References: <941014231...@milo.math.scarolina.edu> <37ncpb
$r...@vixen.cso.uiu\
c.edu> <941019201...@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Peter Nyikos (nyi...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote:
: kke...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kevin kelly) writes:
: >Peter Nyikos (nyi...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote:
: >: Newsgroups: talk.abortion
: >: Subject: Re: The Timex Assertion (New! Improved!)
: >: References: <141309Z...@anon.penet.fi>
<941012183...@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
<37hej8$j...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
<941013135...@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
<37kjk5$j...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
: >: kke...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kevin kelly) writes:
: >:
: >: > Peter Nyikos (nyi...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote:
: >: > : kke...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kevin kelly) writes:
: >: > : >In <941012183...@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, Peter
Nyikos (nyi...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote:
: >: > : >: > Perhaps a fairer assertion
: >: > : >: >would be "If you like the Timex Assertion, you'll love
_The Silent Sc\
ream_".
: >: > : >: Almost equally unfair. Why should any pro-lifer love the
sight of
: >: > : >: an unborn child, arguably capable of feeling pain, torn
apart?
: >: > : >: I think a fairer assertion would be, "If you like the
Timex Assertion,
: >: > : >: you'll react to _The Silent Scream_ the way a Jew or a non-
anti-Semitic
: >: > : >: Christian might react to a film about what happened at
Auschwitz."
: >: And of course, a commentary on the nozzles which the Jews were
told were
: >: shower nozzles but really emitted poison gas is quite relevant
: >: to such a film, just as details about fetal development are
important
: >: to _The Silent Scream_
: [personal reaction by Kelly to unspecified film(s?) about the
Holocaust,
: deleted.]
More of your dishonest paraphrasing. Tsk Tsk. Here's what I actually
said
and you deleted and replaced with your dishonesty:
"Really? I have seen films of the death camps. I didn't need
commentray to
react to the horror seen on the screen. I didn't need to be prompted
on
how to react to the film. No one had to hold up models. No one had to
tell me I should be horrified. I came to the conclusion all by
myself."
It spoke right to your point and your paraphrasing is clearly
dishonest.
Thanks for proving yet again that you are a dishonest man and that
your
paraphrasing can't be trusted.
-------------------------------end of relevant
portion___________________
To make matters even more interesting, when I pointed out Kelly's
dumbness to him, he stuck by his guns and tried to obfuscate, but
that only added to the dumbness of what he is saying here. You
can check it out on the same thread.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
==================== end of included post
Note to comparative newcomers: Kevin Kelly was James Keegan's sidekick
for the longest time, and then he disappeared after I stopped posting
to talk.abortion in 1997. A year or two later, Mark Pundurs told me
in e-mail that he disappeared after having "defended the
indefensible." Unfortunately, I neglected to ask Mark for details,
and to this day I don't know what he had been referring to.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Jun 27, 7:25 am, Galen Hekhuis <ghekh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Then after
> > years of silence a cretin emerges claiming that I emailed Peter
> > Nyikos.
And I did, as documented a few minutes ago to this thread.
> fauxNy just doesn't make rational sense,
Au contraire, I am much more rational than you, as I explained in a
recent post where I contrasted my idea of evidence with yours.
> is unable to provide
> documentation, as a real academic would.
Tbat is a bare-faced lie. I've provided documentation for innumerable
things just in the past month.
> Then there was that movie, A Beautiful Mind, so maybe
> mathematicians are all borderline loonies.
An actual loony like you is in no position to judge such things.
>> Can a math professor be so estranged from his
> > campus computer science department that he asks basic networking
> > questions in an abortion newsgroup?
Much more time-consuming than asking it in Usenet. I had good reason
to think the people I was addressing knew the answers, but they pulled
the old "do your own research" routine on me.
Besides, the questions generally have to do with things that would
help document claims of adversaries; if they had nothing to hide, one
would think they'd gladly give the information.
And now, eat your heart out over the following documentation--another
post I entered in that dumb-off contest:
==================== begin included e-mail
From nyikos Wed Dec 28 13:57:48 1994
Received: by milo.math.scarolina.edu (4.1/6.0s-FWP);
id AA26083; Wed, 28 Dec 94 13:57:46 EST
From: Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.scarolina.edu>
Message-Id: <941228185...@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
Subject: Keegan post for dumb-off
To: g...@galen.med.Virginia.EDU
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 13:57:45 -0500 (EST)
Cc: nyikos (Peter Nyikos)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 5508
Status: RO
This one isn't CC'd to the nominee since Keegan has barred me
from his mailbox, and I am not e-mailing anyone whom
I know to have done so. [I used to do that from time to time
in the past, but ceased after my final CC to Nora Peal.]
This one is, I admit, a matter of taste. Keegan makes claims
about me lying and contradicting myself but nothing he says
supports these claims in any intelligible way, and his claim of a
self-contradiction by me is patently false since he is confusing
`speaking up' with `apologizing'.
In the next paragraph he added, he confused "email" with "posts" in
`supporting' a claim of lying.
Whether this is sufficiently dumb to be a winner, I leave it up
to you and the other judges (hopefully not the empty set) to
determine.
________________________begin included post_________________________
~From: kee...@helios.acm.rpi.edu (james g. keegan jr.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The cowardly side of Peter Nyikos
Date: 8 Nov 1994 23:25:42 GMT
Organization: t.s.a.k.c.
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <39p1dm$9...@usenet.rpi.edu>
References: <39bip2$h...@goodnews.globalcom.net> <39h19l
$g...@usenet.rpi.edu> <39m84\
i$f...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: helios.acm.rpi.edu
Xref: usceast talk.abortion:56546 alt.abortion.inequity:17200 alt.rush-
limbaugh:33\
746
Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
: kee...@helios.acm.rpi.edu (james g. keegan jr.) writes:
: >In article <39bip2$h...@goodnews.globalcom.net>, <bo...@cos.com>
wrote:
: >: It has been almost a week since I asked Nyikos for an apology
: >: or explanation of why he slandered my wife. She does not post
: >: to nor read from usenet, she has made no comment here regarding
: >: Nyikos.
:
: >i suspect it will be far more than a week before PHoney
: >apologizes. eternity, perhaps.
:
: Correct, for once. Why apologize for something that never took
place?
are you claiming that bob is lying?
: >: So Screwtape, are you going to run off and hide again?
: ^^^^^^
:
: The highlighted word turns this into a lie. It is Blackshaw who
: has hidden from me in the past, not vice versa.
given your infamous and repeatred absences, most whcu
seem to happen when you are faced with much pressure
reagrding your misrepresentaitons, i believe most
readers who are familiar with bob and who are familiar
with you haev formed an opinion.
: >i suspect that is exactly what he will do.
:
: >: Come oh gutless worm, speak up.
:
: >i predict you'll be waiting a long time.
:
: Incorrect. I spoke up even before Keegan posted this.
make up your mind. in your first paragraph (remember to
delete it when you reply), you contradicted what you
just stated.
: >PHoney's cravenly conduct is clearly obvious in this
: >and other threads. just look at the old flamewar over
: >PHoney's harassment of nora peal via email.
:
: There was NONE until my CC of a week or so ago.
you are lying. there were many, many posts,
: Nora said she did not want CC's of things she was not involved
: in. After she said that, I desisted and have desisted to this day.
you are lying again. she said she didn't want you
sending her e-mail.
: Then she changed her tune, pretending she had banned all CC's, and
: I respected that NEW ban until about a week ago.
you are not telling the trugh, again.
: # now, (even
: >he doesn't seem to dare to deny what happened) he
: >claims he doesn't remember that he promised he's stop.
:
: Keegan may be confusing a prediction with a promise. I may have
: predicted I would not e-mail Nora, but I expected no concessions
: from anyone in return for desisting from e-mailing her, and got
: none as far as I can tell.
i am referring to your repeated statements that you
would finally honor nora's requests and stop harassing
her with your email.
that you would misrepresent events here says much about
you.
: And btw I am not breaking my "promise" not to follow-up to Keegan
: in
:
: The Keegan dude has pushed me over the edge :-)
:
: because the "promise" only had to do with not following up directly
: to posts where Keegan is directly following up to me
i don't know of a single person who believed your
promise.
____________________________end included post_________________________
Some comments not relevant to the "dumbness" aspect:
FTR, everything I say above is true. Nora did give out those CC bans
as I said, and the fact that she LATER also said she did not want
any e-mail from me, does not contradict this.
And those "notorious" absences of mine were either announced well in
advance (and often postponed PRECISELY because I was under
heavy attack) or were due to netserver malfunction. The fact
that I was under heavy attack at some of those times is neither
here nor there because I am under heavy attack *most* of the time
I am posting! and often for alleged "misrepresentations".
And I never used these absences to evade any issues. What usually
happens is that people tease me for hiding behind my netserver and
then decline, and in many cases refuse, to tell me what it was that
I was allegedly hiding from. I even pressured Mark Cochran to come
up with an example once after he teased me about this, telling other
networkers "no fair answering Mark's question for him. He's a big boy
who is able to answer questions all by himself."
Mark never gave a specific example even after that, just talked in
general terms about "embarrassing" posts.
Wishing a happy new year,
Peter Nyikos
================== end of included e-mail to Galen
pnyikos
Actions--or, in this case, lack of them--speak louder than words. You
haven't even described an alleged lie by me here, let alone documented
something you call a lie, let alone actually tried to argue that it IS
a lie.
You've done this kind of TbBA so often, I think I'll just copy the
above paragraph and repost it every time you try this stunt--and keep
a running total of how often I use it.
I suppose you'll accuse me of paranoia for doing this. But in
reality, it's just a way of undermining your credibility.
It must be great, having Keegan, Spartakus, Humphrey, and Hekhuis on
your side. Just think, if you were more isolated, you would not only
have lost ALL your credibility long ago, you would actually have to
SUPPORT insults like the one you've just made.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> "Galen Hekhuis" <ghekh...@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:k56c45ps1b7p7iqmf...@4ax.com...
> > I've had to deal with being stupid before, after all, I thought MS-DOS
> > was just a "flash in the pan" and that CP/M was going to rule the
> > world, but that is easier to handle than the thought that Peter has
> > been this dishonest all along and I just didn't notice it.
>
> Perhaps you're half-right, Galen. You *are* stupid - too stupid to recognize that Peter treated you with more respect than you deserved. Others will not repeat Peter's mistake.
Nor will I repeat it. In fact, I think a lot of Galen's changed
perception of me is simply due to the fact that I DID treat him with
more respect until some time in December, and since then I have
decided that being nice to him is just playing the sucker. And he
certainly seems to go by the cynical, perverse adage: "never give a
sucker an even break."
So now, and always (unless Galen does a Saul -> Paul type conversion)
the kid gloves are off where Galen is concerned, and he's so self-
righteous that this translates in his perverse mind to dishonesty,
being a jerk, etc.
Peter Nyikos
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
<20accbe1-0305-4978...@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 1:21�pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 7:25�am, Galen Hekhuis <ghekh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>�Then after
> > > years of silence a cretin emerges claiming that I emailed Peter
> > > Nyikos.
>
> And I did, as documented a few minutes ago to this thread.
you are not galen. idiot.
james g. keegan jr.
<647b86d9-a180-43a8...@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
[...]
> Note to comparative newcomers: Kevin Kelly was James Keegan's sidekick
> for the longest time, and then he disappeared after I stopped posting
> to talk.abortion in 1997.
kelly didn't disappear. i spoke with him the other day.
james g. keegan jr.
<71f499f2-dc42-4a3a...@q11g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
[..]
> Contrast that with all the lies you've told, Jimbo, including the
> three above. I've reposted a flagrant lie of yours several times in
> which you supported multiple lies by Fischer and Spartakus in followup
> to Osprey, thereby making you a pro-liar twice over.
you are lying and have yet to support your false claim above.
i agree that you haev repeated it several times. the thing is, repeating
your lies, doesn;t make them true.
>
> I'm prepared to repost that lie as many times as necessary; each time,
try once.
> I will replace more and more attribution marks
is that the only way you can forge a lie allegedly from me?
show my alleged "lie" in a complete post. then prove i lied.
*smirk*
Ray Fischer
>On Jul 3, 11:52�am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos �<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> > > > I had assumed Peter Nyikos was a basically honest person. �He was a
>> >> > > > jerk, and often came to wrong conclusions, pompous as hell, but I
>> >> > > > always assumed that deep inside there was a truthful sort.
>>
>> >The truthfulness was right out front for everyone to see. �Nobody ever
>> >documented a deliberate lie by my the whole time I've posted to
>> >Usenet--back then (1992-1997 on talk.abortion) or now (since November
>> >of last year).
>>
>> You are a liar. �Proof of your lies has been documented repeatedly.
>
>Actions--or, in this case, lack of them--speak louder than words. You
>haven't even described an alleged lie by me here,
Your claim that a fetus with Down's syndrome is "healthy". That is an
unambigous lie, especially when you repeat it and try to justify it.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Jun 27, 10:25�am, Galen Hekhuis <ghekh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>�Can a math professor be so estranged from his
>> campus computer science department that he asks basic networking
>> questions in an abortion newsgroup? �
>
>Computer science is in a different building about 15 minutes walk from
>my office.
Unless you're not Peter Nyikos and are just referring to an
easily-available map of the campus.
>> I've had to deal with being stupid before, after all, I thought MS-DOS
>> was just a "flash in the pan" and that CP/M was going to rule the
>> world, but that is easier to handle than the thought that Peter has
>> been this dishonest all along and I just didn't notice it.
>
>I've been totally honest all along
Liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net