Papa Jack Uphold Truce
Papa Jack
M. Grey de Shirland wrote:
>
> Christopher Lyman <chr...@legarto.minn.net> wrote:
> >Ray Fischer <r...@netcom.com> wrote:
=================================================================
>># Chris Lyman <chr...@plonk.net> wrote:
>># >C'mon, I thought we had a truce, PJ...
=================================================================
>># Ray Fischer <r...@netcom.com> wrote:
>># But it's clear that PJ doesn't think there's a truce.
=================================================================
>>Christopher Lyman <chr...@legarto.minn.net> wrote:
>>Wrt to PJ's dealings with me, you're absolutely right. All but one
>>of his posts since last Sunday have dealt with that lupine insult
>>which I sent his way *before* the truce. He's ignoring his own
>>suggestion to "turn the other cheek" too.
=================================================================
> MINXS wrote:
> Do you think that if everyone publicly abandoned the truce and
> behaved as badly as possible you-know-who would go away again?
> Please?
> Papa Jack has a LOT to answer for if you ask me.
=================================================================
Papa Jack laughs:
But, MINXS, no one really asked you.
You publically opposed the whole concept of a truce since the
first day. As you said:
No thanks. By the way, while I don't believe for one
second in your sincerity, if it was a good idea I would
probably go along. I think it's silly, so I won't.
Ray, as expected, also refused to try the truce proposal.
Now the two of you have since tried your best to sabotage the
idea and claim violations that are simply not there.
Chris joins you out of spite because I simply won't reply to him --
except to remind him that he called me a "dog fucker." Are you
suggesting that I MUST respond to Chris?
Do you REALLY feel that offended by my humerous comparison of you
to Lucy in the comic strip Peanuts? Do you have that little of
a sense of humor?
--
{ Papa Jack
{
{ http://www.express-news.net/papajack
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
men are created equal; that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that
among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness." --Thomas Jefferson
Christopher Lyman
Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> wrote:
[--whatever--]
PJ, since you were so insistent on dealing with the issue of allegations
of canine intercourse, I find it most intriguing that you completely
ducked the issue of your calling Mark Cochran "Mark Cocksucker".
Your subject line is a lie as far as I'm concerned.
--
Chris Lyman | home: chr...@minn.net | work: chris...@stpaul.gov
"To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk."
-- Thomas Edison
M. Grey de Shirland
Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> wrote:
Hmmmm. It looks like Papa Jack isn't exactly clued-in about what's
going on here...or it could just be that he thinks everything is about
HIM, HIM, HIM.
M. Grey de Shirland
nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> writes:
>>M. Grey de Shirland wrote:
>>> MINXS wrote:
>>> Do you think that if everyone publicly abandoned the truce and
>>> behaved as badly as possible you-know-who would go away again?
>>> Please?
>Not until I've put in a full seven days. Which means y'all are going
>to have to put up with my insult-free posting until a week from
>today, because I'm taking Saturday and Sunday off, at least where
>talk.abortion is concerned.
>PJ's truce was for seven days and so will mine be.
Okay, but is it or isn't it true that you returned here because of it?
I'm confused.
>>Ray, as expected, also refused to try the truce proposal.
>>Now the two of you have since tried your best to sabotage the
>>idea and claim violations that are simply not there.
>Now that I've seen your apology to MINXS on another thread,
What thread? What's he apologizing for?
>and what you wrote below,
>I'm waiting to see MINXS response to it before commenting
>any further on this issue.
Who? Where? Is this Tuesday?
>>Chris joins you out of spite because I simply won't reply to him --
>>except to remind him that he called me a "dog fucker." Are you
>>suggesting that I MUST respond to Chris?
>What's there to respond to?
Aren't you (Peter) waiting for my response to it?
>>Do you REALLY feel that offended by my humerous comparison of you
>>to Lucy in the comic strip Peanuts? Do you have that little of
>>a sense of humor?
Or to that?
>What makes you think she was offended at all? She hasn't officially
>appointed Ray as her mouthpiece, has she?
I have no idea what is going on. I'm as clueless as Papa Jack
himself, I admit it.
Chris Lyman
nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
# Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> writes:
# >M. Grey de Shirland wrote:# >>># Chris Lyman <chr...@plonk.net> wrote:
# >>># >C'mon, I thought we had a truce, PJ...
# So did I, Chris--you vis a vis everyone else here, same as PJ,
# same as Bruce, same as me.
# So, why did you say "Well, there goes the truce" in another
# post in followup to me, with NOTHING by me as justification?
Didn't you see my response? We have unfinished business from
last year.
# >>># But it's clear that PJ doesn't think there's a truce.
# Not at all clear. See below.
# >>>Wrt to PJ's dealings with me, you're absolutely right. All but one
# >>>of his posts since last Sunday have dealt with that lupine insult
# >>>which I sent his way *before* the truce.
# Really? All 50 or so of them? Or has he done a lot since Chris
# posted the above?
Well, excuse me, I meant the posts where he was responding to me.
When I wrote the above, there were 8; 7 of them dealt with the
lupine insult.
# >>> He's ignoring his own suggestion to "turn the other cheek" too.
# Chris, I strongly suggest you speak to someone knowledgeable about
# these matters about what "turn the other cheek" was all about.
# My understanding is that it had to do with a gesture like
# that used to challenge people to a duel in more recent times,
# where someone slaps a person with a glove, and not especially
# hard at that.
#
# The idea was not to return insult for insult, nor to accept a
# challenge to a more serious kind of fight.
#
# [In my book, slapping someone on the cheek is a lot more akin
# to spitting on him, than to slugging him.]
Thanks for the history lesson, Peter, but your explanation doesn't
invalidate my observation that Papa Jack is ignoring his own
suggestion to "turn the other cheek"
# >> Do you think that if everyone publicly abandoned the truce and
# >> behaved as badly as possible you-know-who would go away again?
# >> Please?
# Not until I've put in a full seven days. Which means y'all are going
# to have to put up with my insult-free posting until a week from
# today, because I'm taking Saturday and Sunday off, at least where
# talk.abortion is concerned.
Well, as I explained to Minx, your comings and goings aren't related
to other people's bad behavior anyway. They're related to your bad
behavior.
# PJ's truce was for seven days and so will mine be.
Oh, Life be my wild mistress.
[...]
# Now that I've seen your apology to MINXS on another thread,
# and what you wrote below, I'm waiting to see MINXS response
# to it before commenting any further on this issue.
What thread was that, Peter?
# >Chris joins you out of spite because I simply won't reply to him --
# >except to remind him that he called me a "dog fucker." Are you
# >suggesting that I MUST respond to Chris?
# What's there to respond to?
Don't play dumb, Peter.
# >Do you REALLY feel that offended by my humerous comparison of
# >you to Lucy in the comic strip Peanuts? Do you have that little
# >of a sense of humor?
# What makes you think she was offended at all? She hasn't officially
# appointed Ray as her mouthpiece, has she?
I think the Lucy / Charlie Brown analogy is the funniest thing
Papa Jack ever posted, while intending to be funny. Trouble is,
the analogy doesn't really apply. You see, Minx noticed some
serious inconsistencies in Papa Jack's position wrt abortion
following a rape, and she's been trying to get him to acknowledge
those inconsistencies. But he won't. Nor will he acknowledge
the reason why I started calling him a dog fucker.
--
Chris Lyman
If you email me, be sure to change "plonk" to "minn" in my address.
"Give a man a fish and he'll ask for a lemon. Teach a man
to fish and he'll leave work early on Fridays."
Peter Nyikos
Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> writes:
>M. Grey de Shirland wrote:
>>
>> Christopher Lyman <chr...@legarto.minn.net> wrote:
>> >Ray Fischer <r...@netcom.com> wrote:
> =================================================================
>>># Chris Lyman <chr...@plonk.net> wrote:
>>># >C'mon, I thought we had a truce, PJ...
So did I, Chris--you vis a vis everyone else here, same as PJ,
same as Bruce, same as me.
So, why did you say "Well, there goes the truce" in another
post in followup to me, with NOTHING by me as justification?
> =================================================================
>>># Ray Fischer <r...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>># But it's clear that PJ doesn't think there's a truce.
Not at all clear. See below.
> =================================================================
>>>Christopher Lyman <chr...@legarto.minn.net> wrote:
>>>Wrt to PJ's dealings with me, you're absolutely right. All but one
>>>of his posts since last Sunday have dealt with that lupine insult
>>>which I sent his way *before* the truce.
Really? All 50 or so of them? Or has he done a lot since Chris
posted the above?
>>> He's ignoring his own
>>>suggestion to "turn the other cheek" too.
Chris, I strongly suggest you speak to someone knowledgeable about
these matters about what "turn the other cheek" was all about.
My understanding is that it had to do with a gesture like
that used to challenge people to a duel in more recent times, where someone
slaps a person with a glove, and not especially hard at that.
The idea was not to return insult for insult, nor to accept a
challenge to a more serious kind of fight.
[In my book, slapping someone on the cheek is a lot more akin
to spitting on him, than to slugging him.]
> =================================================================
>> MINXS wrote:
>> Do you think that if everyone publicly abandoned the truce and
>> behaved as badly as possible you-know-who would go away again?
>> Please?
Not until I've put in a full seven days. Which means y'all are going
to have to put up with my insult-free posting until a week from
today, because I'm taking Saturday and Sunday off, at least where
talk.abortion is concerned.
PJ's truce was for seven days and so will mine be.
>> Papa Jack has a LOT to answer for if you ask me.
> =================================================================
>Papa Jack laughs:
>But, MINXS, no one really asked you.
>You publically opposed the whole concept of a truce since the
>first day. As you said:
> No thanks. By the way, while I don't believe for one
> second in your sincerity, if it was a good idea I would
> probably go along. I think it's silly, so I won't.
>Ray, as expected, also refused to try the truce proposal.
>Now the two of you have since tried your best to sabotage the
>idea and claim violations that are simply not there.
Now that I've seen your apology to MINXS on another thread,
and what you wrote below,
I'm waiting to see MINXS response to it before commenting
any further on this issue.
>Chris joins you out of spite because I simply won't reply to him --
>except to remind him that he called me a "dog fucker." Are you
>suggesting that I MUST respond to Chris?
What's there to respond to?
>Do you REALLY feel that offended by my humerous comparison of you
>to Lucy in the comic strip Peanuts? Do you have that little of
>a sense of humor?
What makes you think she was offended at all? She hasn't officially
appointed Ray as her mouthpiece, has she?
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Ray Fischer
>> Do you think that if everyone publicly abandoned the truce and
>> behaved as badly as possible you-know-who would go away again?
>> Please?
>
>> Papa Jack has a LOT to answer for if you ask me.
>
>But, MINXS, no one really asked you.
Nor you.
>You publically opposed the whole concept of a truce since the
>first day. As you said:
She din't think you were capable of honoring it.
Neither did I.
Looks like we were proved right.
>Now the two of you have since tried your best to sabotage the
>idea and claim violations that are simply not there.
Of course you claim you haven't been insulting. You're one of the
most flagrant liars posting here.
>Chris joins you out of spite because I simply won't reply to him --
>except to remind him that he called me a "dog fucker.'
And you called Mark a "cocksucker".
> Are you
>suggesting that I MUST respond to Chris?
Don't play stupid, ass. Do you think your childish little games are
blindingly transparent? Do you think that nobody notices that as soon
as you call a "truce" you dredge up old grievances?
--
Ray Fischer "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious
r...@netcom.com encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without
understanding." Louis Brandeis
Peter Nyikos
chr...@plonk.net (Chris Lyman) writes:
>nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
># Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> writes:
># >M. Grey de Shirland wrote:
># >> Christopher Lyman <chr...@legarto.minn.net> wrote:
># >> >Ray Fischer <r...@netcom.com> wrote:
># >>># Chris Lyman <chr...@plonk.net> wrote:
># >>># >C'mon, I thought we had a truce, PJ...
Are you still abiding by it? I saw a post by Keegan in which
he quoted your "rationale" for accusing PJ of bestiality,
and I'm disgusted by it.
># >>> He's ignoring his own suggestion to "turn the other cheek" too.
># Chris, I strongly suggest you speak to someone knowledgeable about
># these matters about what "turn the other cheek" was all about.
># My understanding is that it had to do with a gesture like
># that used to challenge people to a duel in more recent times,
># where someone slaps a person with a glove, and not especially
># hard at that.
>#
># The idea was not to return insult for insult, nor to accept a
># challenge to a more serious kind of fight.
>#
># [In my book, slapping someone on the cheek is a lot more akin
># to spitting on him, than to slugging him.]
>Thanks for the history lesson, Peter, but your explanation doesn't
>invalidate my observation that Papa Jack is ignoring his own
>suggestion to "turn the other cheek"
Nor have you validated it. Quoting your insults when others
show apparent ignorance of their content hardly constitutes an
ignoring of that suggestion.
># >> Do you think that if everyone publicly abandoned the truce and
># >> behaved as badly as possible you-know-who would go away again?
># >> Please?
># Not until I've put in a full seven days. Which means y'all are going
># to have to put up with my insult-free posting until a week from
># today, because I'm taking Saturday and Sunday off, at least where
># talk.abortion is concerned.
>Well, as I explained to Minx,
What follows is a highly subjective and insulting "explanation":
your comings and goings aren't related
>to other people's bad behavior anyway. They're related to your bad
>behavior.
If it had not been for the truce, I would not be posting here
now. That's the bottom line, and your "explanation" is
totally wrong.
If a significant number of people extend the truce, I will
do likewise, either by staying on here now or by abiding by
the truce for a set period of time, when I do return from
my next posting break.
># PJ's truce was for seven days and so will mine be.
>Oh, Life be my wild mistress.
You prefer that I flame you instead?
>[...]
># Now that I've seen your apology to MINXS on another thread,
># and what you wrote below, I'm waiting to see MINXS response
># to it before commenting any further on this issue.
>What thread was that, Peter?
The one on which the Lucy-Charlie Brown comment was originally
made: ABOUT PAPA JACK'S CHALLENGE TO ALL.
># >Chris joins you out of spite because I simply won't reply to him --
># >except to remind him that he called me a "dog fucker." Are you
># >suggesting that I MUST respond to Chris?
># What's there to respond to?
>Don't play dumb, Peter.
I'm not. How about answering the question?
># >Do you REALLY feel that offended by my humerous comparison of
># >you to Lucy in the comic strip Peanuts? Do you have that little
># >of a sense of humor?
># What makes you think she was offended at all? She hasn't officially
># appointed Ray as her mouthpiece, has she?
>I think the Lucy / Charlie Brown analogy is the funniest thing
>Papa Jack ever posted, while intending to be funny. Trouble is,
>the analogy doesn't really apply.
That's not at all clear from what I've seen.
You see, Minx noticed some
>serious inconsistencies in Papa Jack's position wrt abortion
>following a rape, and she's been trying to get him to acknowledge
>those inconsistencies.
Yeah, I've addressed these issues myself. Thing is, PJ
made it sound like he HAS addressed them before only to have
MINXS not engage him properly in discussion after that.
> But he won't. Nor will he acknowledge
>the reason why I started calling him a dog fucker.
Why should he acknowledge it? I read it, and it seemed
indicate an attitude on your part that two wrongs make
a right. Can you convince me otherwise?
Christopher Lyman
Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
# chr...@plonk.net (Chris Lyman) writes:
# >nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
# ># Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> writes:
# ># >M. Grey de Shirland wrote:
# ># >> Christopher Lyman <chr...@legarto.minn.net> wrote:
# ># >> >Ray Fischer <r...@netcom.com> wrote:
# ># >>># Chris Lyman <chr...@plonk.net> wrote:
# ># >>># >C'mon, I thought we had a truce, PJ...
# Are you still abiding by it? I saw a post by Keegan in which
# he quoted your "rationale" for accusing PJ of bestiality,
# and I'm disgusted by it.
I didn't accuse PJ of anything. I asked him a question. Does PJ's
calling Mark Cochran a "cocksucker" disgust you as much as it disgusts
me and other people in this newsgroup?
james g. keegan jr.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 17 Jun 97 19:29:09 GMT, Christopher Lyman <chr...@legarto.minn.net>
wrote:
: Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
[...]
: # Are you still abiding by it? I saw a post by Keegan in which
: # he quoted your "rationale" for accusing PJ of bestiality,
: # and I'm disgusted by it.
:
: I didn't accuse PJ of anything. I asked him a question. Does PJ's
: calling Mark Cochran a "cocksucker" disgust you as much as it disgusts
: me and other people in this newsgroup?
PHoney's comment on my post is a fair measure of his amorality, imo.
he had the opportunity to be critical of something clearly ugly/wrong,
or to simply be silent. instead he redirected that ugliness towards
you by lying about my post. that's PHoney.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBM6frBQw6Xkesnzl9AQFv2AP/SxnBlLLcUSbAg5EAA4HI/JzpVfdx2ntW
HhsGJ3AZQ64efMo4F9Ruki35FxFlcYZhxuwpBtQ+gZYGOJU6wHEppFot/LqSDd4e
3gFN3mazKWKqBrZKn4jxY9z+gtCmgqV+5ZxocsV63+HBhHx8XyfpgOkAeoiTPNgh
HnlqyJxWsNM=
=nno2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Peter Nyikos
jgke...@cris.com (james g. keegan jr.) writes:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>On 17 Jun 97 19:29:09 GMT, Christopher Lyman <chr...@legarto.minn.net>
>wrote:
>: Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>[...]
>: # Are you still abiding by it? I saw a post by Keegan in which
>: # he quoted your "rationale" for accusing PJ of bestiality,
>: # and I'm disgusted by it.
>:
>: I didn't accuse PJ of anything. I asked him a question. Does PJ's
>: calling Mark Cochran a "cocksucker" disgust you as much as it disgusts
>: me and other people in this newsgroup?
Aside from the fact that I don't accuse
anyone of fellatio, etc. unless I personally witness it,
I dislike the vulgar language involved, both the "c...s....." word
and the f... word reproduced below in the interests of accuracy.
For more on this, see my separate reply to Chris.
>PHoney's comment on my post is a fair measure of his amorality, imo.
>he had the opportunity to be critical of something clearly ugly/wrong,
>or to simply be silent. instead he redirected that ugliness towards
>you by lying about my post. that's PHoney.
No lie. I was under the impression that your post provided the "rationale"
for his recent words,
Yeah, but there's a smear campaign going on, all right. Except it's that
dog fucker Papa Jack who is trying to smear Bruce Forest.
--Message-ID: <chrisl-0606...@news.minn.net>
Has he posted a different "rationale" for these?
By the way, Jim, if you have posted ANYTHING on abortion
other than that 1990 post you keep reposting and keep ducking my response to
a repost of, please post it here, to give us all something
on-topic discuss with you. Or post something else, of your
choice, on the topic, please.
Don't you feel that someone as influential in this ng as yourself
would do well to publicly discuss abortion with its participants
from time to time? Don't you want to set a good example for
everyone, especially new participants?
Peter Nyikos
Christopher Lyman <chr...@legarto.minn.net> writes:
>Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
># chr...@plonk.net (Chris Lyman) writes:
># >nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
># ># Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> writes:
># ># >M. Grey de Shirland wrote:
># ># >> Christopher Lyman <chr...@legarto.minn.net> wrote:
># ># >> >Ray Fischer <r...@netcom.com> wrote:
># ># >>># Chris Lyman <chr...@plonk.net> wrote:
># ># >>># >C'mon, I thought we had a truce, PJ...
># Are you still abiding by it? I saw a post by Keegan in which
># he quoted your "rationale" for accusing PJ of bestiality,
># and I'm disgusted by it.
>I didn't accuse PJ of anything. I asked him a question.
True of the post which Keegan reposted, but not of the following
passage:
Yeah, but there's a smear campaign going on, all right. Except it's that
dog fucker Papa Jack who is trying to smear Bruce Forest.
--Message-ID: <chrisl-0606...@news.minn.net>
Do you have a different rationale for this one?
> Does PJ's
>calling Mark Cochran a "cocksucker" disgust you as much as it disgusts
>me and other people in this newsgroup?
I can't speak for you and the other people, but it does disgust me,
as does your comment I've reproduced above, to about the same
extent. I've never accused anyone of fellatio in my life except
one case which I saw with my own eyes. And I've never witnessed
a case of bestiality and so have not accused anyone of it.
james g. keegan jr.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 18 Jun 1997 18:22:22 GMT, nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
: jgke...@cris.com (james g. keegan jr.) writes:
: >On 17 Jun 97 19:29:09 GMT, Christopher Lyman <chr...@legarto.minn.net>
: >wrote:
: >: Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
: >[...]
: >: # Are you still abiding by it? I saw a post by Keegan in which
: >: # he quoted your "rationale" for accusing PJ of bestiality,
: >: # and I'm disgusted by it.
: >:
: >: I didn't accuse PJ of anything. I asked him a question. Does PJ's
: >: calling Mark Cochran a "cocksucker" disgust you as much as it disgusts
: >: me and other people in this newsgroup?
:>
: >PHoney's comment on my post is a fair measure of his amorality, imo.
: >he had the opportunity to be critical of something clearly ugly/wrong,
: >or to simply be silent. instead he redirected that ugliness towards
: >you by lying about my post. that's PHoney.
:
: No lie. I was under the impression that your post provided the
"rationale"
: for his recent words,
your lie is still included above. here, i'll quote it for you. " I saw a post
by Keegan in which he quoted your "rationale" for accusing PJ of bestiality,
and I'm disgusted by it."
given your denial of the obvious, my statement takes on more weight,
doesn't it?
btw, do you know how to search dejanews by author? if you don't, i'll
be happy to explain it to you. if you do, well then you've displayed
another element of your dishonesty, haven't you?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBM6jFrww6Xkesnzl9AQEkgAQAm8SUcO3d8RR38VA3MVOBk61K4gUo3EfN
SS4FBxTR05/fjyS25D8NHzMsXQpMqkgnMrRbWQtkeJhA7+fCBdLrqN4LDdZoaU/B
EucHMeWFnZJIAlqf7YiC7RwzoRVHA0drhtdWqaEJ+ad52UTA/vR16c0s1soLeFvn
aQAuH9sdwUQ=
=yzZH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Oze McCallum
Chris Lyman wrote:
<snip>
> I think the Lucy / Charlie Brown analogy is the funniest thing
> Papa Jack ever posted, while intending to be funny. Trouble is,
> the analogy doesn't really apply. You see, Minx noticed some
> serious inconsistencies in Papa Jack's position wrt abortion
> following a rape, and she's been trying to get him to acknowledge
> those inconsistencies. But he won't. Nor will he acknowledge
> the reason why I started calling him a dog fucker.
>
> --
> Chris Lyman
> If you email me, be sure to change "plonk" to "minn" in my address.
> "Give a man a fish and he'll ask for a lemon. Teach a man
> to fish and he'll leave work early on Fridays."
Why did you start doing that, Chris?
Oze
Peter Nyikos
I don't need this...this is my next to last day of posting here
for perhaps a long time, and here Keegan is accusing me of
lying, when it is actually Lyman who seems to have hoist himself
by his own petard.
jgke...@cris.com (james g. keegan jr.) writes:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>On 18 Jun 1997 18:22:22 GMT, nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>: jgke...@cris.com (james g. keegan jr.) writes:
>: >On 17 Jun 97 19:29:09 GMT, Christopher Lyman <chr...@legarto.minn.net>
>: >wrote:
>: >: Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>: >[...]
>: >: # Are you still abiding by it? I saw a post by Keegan in which
>: >: # he quoted your "rationale" for accusing PJ of bestiality,
>: >: # and I'm disgusted by it.
>: >:
>: >: I didn't accuse PJ of anything.
Jim, how is anyone reading the following post supposed to tell
that Chris is NOT accusing PJ of bestiality in the last line
before the .sig?
=================== begin included post
~From: chr...@plonk.net (Chris Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.support.abortion,soc.rights.human,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: ABOUT BRUCE SMEARING MOTHER TERESA
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 22:11:01 +0000
Organization: Advocates for a Good Night's Sleep
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <chrisl-0606...@news.minn.net>
References: <33983F...@express-news.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup-277.minn.net
X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.2.0b6
Papa Jack is being his usual dishonest self here. Susan Mitchell was
the one who first posted the revelations about Mother Theresa. A bit
of checking revealed that Susan was very probably telling the truth.
I mean, even _Lancet_, a world-famous and nearly universally respected
medical journal publishes information that MT doesn't give her patients
(many of whom are dying) anything stronger than aspirin, well, that's
pretty hard to refute. And, as a matter of fact, nobody has made a serious
attempt to refute this allegation, to the best of my knowledge.
Yeah, but there's a smear campaign going on, all right. Except it's that
dog fucker Papa Jack who is trying to smear Bruce Forest.
--
Chris Lyman
If you email me, be sure to change "plonk" to "minn" in my address.
"Give a man a fish and he'll ask for a lemon. Teach a man
to fish and he'll leave work early on Fridays."
=================== end of included post
>: >PHoney's comment on my post is a fair measure of his amorality, imo.
I am a highly moral person, and nothing Keegan writes here
should cast doubt on that.
>: >he had the opportunity to be critical of something clearly ugly/wrong,
>: >or to simply be silent. instead he redirected that ugliness towards
>: >you by lying about my post. that's PHoney.
>:
>: No lie. I was under the impression that your post provided the
>"rationale"
>: for his recent words,
I still believe this is correct, except that "included" is
more accurate than "provided":
> So, in *direct* response to Papa Jack's crude, obscene and homophobic
> assault on talk.abortion readers' sensibilities, I asked the following:
>
> "There is a rumor going around that you fuck dogs, PJ. Is there
> anything to that? Can people call you a dogfucker on the basis
> of this rumor?"
>
> Of course, this "rumor" has about as much substance as Papa Jack's
> justification for calling Mark Cochran "Mark Cocksucker", that is
> to say, none.
--words of Lyman from June 12 post <339ff...@steggy.minn.net>
still remaining in Keegan's <5o23f6$343$1...@news.wizvax.net>
>your lie is still included above. here, i'll quote it for you. " I saw a post
>by Keegan in which he quoted your "rationale" for accusing PJ of bestiality,
>and I'm disgusted by it."
Where is the lie in that? And, speaking of lies, why weren't the
last three lines quoted above from Lyman's June 12 post an admission
that he had lied in his June 6 post? Why doesn't this make
Lyman a "self-admitted liar" by Lyman's own standards? Didn't
Lyman hoist himself by his own petard when he wrote, in a June 10
post on CONFESSION OF AN EX-ABORTIONIST,
How can we use a self-admitted liar as a credible source for *anything*?
--<339db...@steggy.minn.net>
By the way, I may owe Papa Jack an apology for putting his obscenity
on the same moral plane as Chris Lyman's: in the Merriam-Webster
dictionary, _Webster's Ninth New Intercollegiate Dictionary_, the
obscenity Papa Jack used is listed, with the notation, "often used
as a general term of abuse". But the dictionary doesn't list
"dogfucker", let alone "dog fucker", as Chris wrote it in the
June 6 post, so it's not at all clear that Chris has such a loophole.
>given your denial of the obvious, my statement takes on more weight,
>doesn't it?
What's the obvious thing I'm supposed to be denying? Chris promised
in a June 9 post to discuss what he wrote in the June 6 post further,
after the truce is over, and he did say in the June 12 post
excerpted above that Papa Jack "wants to discuss canine intercourse"
and that he was falling in line with this alleged wish of Papa Jack's.
Seems to me like he was providing rationale for his June 6 words.
>btw, do you know how to search dejanews by author?
Sure, that's how I found Chris's June 12 post on "Papa Jack
reneges on truce"; btw. I don't see how quoting Chris's words
constitutes reneging on the truce.
if you don't, i'll
>be happy to explain it to you. if you do, well then you've displayed
>another element of your dishonesty, haven't you?
No dishonesty here or elsewhere in what I have written to talk.abortion.
By the way, Jim, I see you deleted my recommendation that you
set a good example for others by discussing abortion from
time to time in these newsgroups. Don't you feel it would be
good for you to spend more time on that and less time on
purely personal discussions on who lied and who did not?
Chris Lyman
nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
# Christopher Lyman <chr...@legarto.minn.net> writes:
# >Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
# ># chr...@plonk.net (Chris Lyman) writes:
# ># >nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
# ># ># Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> writes:
# ># ># >M. Grey de Shirland wrote:
# ># ># >> Christopher Lyman <chr...@legarto.minn.net> wrote:
# ># ># >> >Ray Fischer <r...@netcom.com> wrote:
# ># ># >>># Chris Lyman <chr...@plonk.net> wrote:
# ># ># >>># >C'mon, I thought we had a truce, PJ...
# ># Are you still abiding by it? I saw a post by Keegan in which
# ># he quoted your "rationale" for accusing PJ of bestiality,
# ># and I'm disgusted by it.
# >I didn't accuse PJ of anything. I asked him a question.
#
# True of the post which Keegan reposted, but not of the following
# passage:
# Yeah, but there's a smear campaign going on, all right. Except it's
# that dog fucker Papa Jack who is trying to smear Bruce Forest.
# --Message-ID: <chrisl-0606...@news.minn.net>
# Do you have a different rationale for this one?
Do you agree that Papa Jack was trying to smear Bruce Forest?
# >Does PJ's calling Mark Cochran a "cocksucker" disgust you as much
# >as it disgusts me and other people in this newsgroup?
# I can't speak for you and the other people, but it does disgust me,
# as does your comment I've reproduced above, to about the same
# extent. I've never accused anyone of fellatio in my life except
# one case which I saw with my own eyes. And I've never witnessed
# a case of bestiality and so have not accused anyone of it.
Is this the same Peter Nyikos who told Mark Cochran to read some
post of his and then "go back to doing whatever you do to keep Keith
Cochran sexually satisfied", or words to that effect?
Chris Lyman
Oze McCallum <NoSpam...@ever.com> wrote:
# Chris Lyman wrote:
# > I think the Lucy / Charlie Brown analogy is the funniest thing
# > Papa Jack ever posted, while intending to be funny. Trouble is,
# > the analogy doesn't really apply. You see, Minx noticed some
# > serious inconsistencies in Papa Jack's position wrt abortion
# > following a rape, and she's been trying to get him to acknowledge
# > those inconsistencies. But he won't. Nor will he acknowledge
# > the reason why I started calling him a dog fucker.
# Why did you start doing that, Chris?
Oze, I've explained it in public twice now. It's because PJ will not
apologize to us for calling Mark Cochran "Mark Cocksucker" or for
his innuendo that Osmo Ronkanen is a pedophile. There are other
reasons, but those are the biggies.
Chris Lyman
Chris Lyman
nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
# I don't need this...this is my next to last day of posting here
# for perhaps a long time, and here Keegan is accusing me of
# lying, when it is actually Lyman who seems to have hoist
# himself by his own petard.
Oh spare us, perfesser. All that's going on here is that you are
reverting back to your old form and Jim is calling you on it.
# jgke...@cris.com (james g. keegan jr.) writes:
# >nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
# >: jgke...@cris.com (james g. keegan jr.) writes:
# >: >Christopher Lyman <chr...@legarto.minn.net> wrote:
# >: >: Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
# >: >: # Are you still abiding by it? I saw a post by Keegan in which
# >: >: # he quoted your "rationale" for accusing PJ of bestiality,
# >: >: # and I'm disgusted by it.
# >: >: I didn't accuse PJ of anything.
# Jim, how is anyone reading the following post supposed to tell
# that Chris is NOT accusing PJ of bestiality in the last line
# before the .sig?
Uh, because it doesn't look like an accusation to anyone except
someone with a talent for twisting his adversaries' words?
# =================== begin included post
# ~From: chr...@plonk.net (Chris Lyman)
# Subject: Re: ABOUT BRUCE SMEARING MOTHER TERESA
# Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 22:11:01 +0000
# Message-ID: <chrisl-0606...@news.minn.net>
# References: <33983F...@express-news.net>
#
# Papa Jack is being his usual dishonest self here. Susan Mitchell was
# the one who first posted the revelations about Mother Theresa. A bit
# of checking revealed that Susan was very probably telling the truth.
#
# I mean, even _Lancet_, a world-famous and nearly universally respected
# medical journal publishes information that MT doesn't give her patients
# (many of whom are dying) anything stronger than aspirin, well, that's
# pretty hard to refute. And, as a matter of fact, nobody has made a serious
# attempt to refute this allegation, to the best of my knowledge.
#
# Yeah, but there's a smear campaign going on, all right. Except it's that
# dog fucker Papa Jack who is trying to smear Bruce Forest.
[--.sig deleted and header trimmed--]
# =================== end of included post
# >: >PHoney's comment on my post is a fair measure of his amorality, imo.
# I am a highly moral person, and nothing Keegan writes here
# should cast doubt on that.
Quit trying to pull the wool over people's eyes, Nyikos. You've left a swath
of immoral actions and attitudes a mile wide in this and other newsgroups.
# >: >he had the opportunity to be critical of something clearly ugly/wrong,
# >: >or to simply be silent. instead he redirected that ugliness towards
# >: >you by lying about my post. that's PHoney.
# >: No lie.
Nyikos, are you aware that the above two words make a colloquialism
which means "That's for sure", or "You aren't kidding".
# > I was under the impression that your post provided the "rationale"
# >: for his recent words,
No, you stupid, stupid man, *I* explained my rationale (no double
quotes necessary) at least twice. If you choose not to read them,
that is your problem.
# I still believe this is correct, except that "included" is
# more accurate than "provided":
# > So, in *direct* response to Papa Jack's crude, obscene and homophobic
# > assault on talk.abortion readers' sensibilities, I asked the following:
# >
# > "There is a rumor going around that you fuck dogs, PJ. Is there
# > anything to that? Can people call you a dogfucker on the basis
# > of this rumor?"
# >
# > Of course, this "rumor" has about as much substance as Papa Jack's
# > justification for calling Mark Cochran "Mark Cocksucker", that is
# > to say, none.
# --words of Lyman from June 12 post <339ff...@steggy.minn.net>
# still remaining in Keegan's <5o23f6$343$1...@news.wizvax.net>
# >your lie is still included above. here, i'll quote it for you. " I saw
# >a post by Keegan in which he quoted your "rationale" for accusing
# >PJ of bestiality, and I'm disgusted by it."
# Where is the lie in that? And, speaking of lies, why weren't the
# last three lines quoted above from Lyman's June 12 post an admission
# that he had lied in his June 6 post?
Uh, because I didn't make any statements proporting to be factual
which I knew to be false?
# Why doesn't this make Lyman a "self-admitted liar" by Lyman's own
# standards?
Uh, because I didn't make any statements proporting to be factual
which I knew to be false?
# Didn't Lyman hoist himself by his own petard when he wrote, in a
# June 10 post on CONFESSION OF AN EX-ABORTIONIST,
#
# How can we use a self-admitted liar as a credible source for
# *anything*? --<339db...@steggy.minn.net>
No. Happy now?
# By the way, I may owe Papa Jack an apology for putting his obscenity
# on the same moral plane as Chris Lyman's: in the Merriam-Webster
# dictionary, _Webster's Ninth New Intercollegiate Dictionary_, the
# obscenity Papa Jack used is listed, with the notation, "often used
# as a general term of abuse". But the dictionary doesn't list
# "dogfucker", let alone "dog fucker", as Chris wrote it in the
# June 6 post, so it's not at all clear that Chris has such a loophole.
My apology for the dog fucker remarks is available to all who ask,
save one. When are you going to ask Papa Jack for an apology for
insinuating that Osmo Ronkanen is a pedophile and for calling Mark
Cochran "Mark Cocksucker"?
# >given your denial of the obvious, my statement takes on more weight,
# >doesn't it?
# What's the obvious thing I'm supposed to be denying? Chris promised
# in a June 9 post to discuss what he wrote in the June 6 post further,
# after the truce is over, and he did say in the June 12 post excerpted
# above that Papa Jack "wants to discuss canine intercourse"
# and that he was falling in line with this alleged wish of Papa Jack's.
That's because Papa Jack complained about or otherwise drew attention
to his being called a "dog fucker" 7 times out of the 8 times he responded
to me up to that moment.
# Seems to me like he was providing rationale for his June 6 words.
# >btw, do you know how to search dejanews by author?
# Sure, that's how I found Chris's June 12 post on "Papa Jack
# reneges on truce"; btw. I don't see how quoting Chris's words
# constitutes reneging on the truce.
Because part of Papa Jack's commitment was to ignore insults, at least
until the truce was over. The fact is, he couldn't go 24 hours without
reneging on his commitment.
# >if you don't, i'll be happy to explain it to you. if you do, well then
# >you've displayed another element of your dishonesty, haven't you?
# No dishonesty here or elsewhere in what I have written to talk.abortion.
Getting forgetful in your old age, Nyikos? There's evidence of your
dishonesty in the very post I'm responding to here.
# By the way, Jim, I see you deleted my recommendation that you
# set a good example for others by discussing abortion from
# time to time in these newsgroups. Don't you feel it would be
# good for you to spend more time on that and less time on
# purely personal discussions on who lied and who did not?
The irony is priceless.
james g. keegan jr.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 20 Jun 1997 16:23:57 GMT, nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
: I don't need this...this is my next to last day of posting here
: for perhaps a long time, and here Keegan is accusing me of
: lying, when it is actually Lyman who seems to have hoist himself
: by his own petard.
i see you are lying in defense of your previous lie. how
predictable.
really PHoney, you post for a short while, get caught in so many
false claims that you are forced to leave the newsgroup(s) for a while,
and then you return months later and repeat the same cycle.
do you think you're fooling anyone?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBM6yizgw6Xkesnzl9AQFuVQQAoAWukGxE6Jp6zPlF0RsBsLgZ3BaP+Qtv
h70fvzYjjvYPqFnBoz8C4mgaO9QK2clvBUVfu0DWbPouBDJIIQi6jjh/cMz6g+3h
vXAIrwydMHf76sO2da8Gjk+J32/tSbeDTtUjZH7eAUo1BLx9ATdzIbQJgjWnXM4z
dnUf+h+/1EY=
=NWZv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Peter Nyikos
I don't see why anyone would be misled by Lyman's antics into
thinking that I am the dishonest one, but then, this is talk.abortion,
where James Keegan rounded up about 40 votes for
putting his fellow pro-choicer Kevin Darcy, a far more sensible
and honest person than himself, into the Council of Net.Idiots,
a thing of Keegan's invention as far as I or the people who
voted Keegan to the same council know.
chr...@plonk.net (Chris Lyman) writes:
>nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
># jgke...@cris.com (james g. keegan jr.) writes:
># >nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
># >: jgke...@cris.com (james g. keegan jr.) writes:
># >: >Christopher Lyman <chr...@legarto.minn.net> wrote:
># >: >: Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
># >: >: # Are you still abiding by it? I saw a post by Keegan in which
># >: >: # he quoted your "rationale" for accusing PJ of bestiality,
># >: >: # and I'm disgusted by it.
># >: >: I didn't accuse PJ of anything.
># Jim, how is anyone reading the following post supposed to tell
># that Chris is NOT accusing PJ of bestiality in the last line
># before the .sig?
>Uh, because it doesn't look like an accusation to anyone except
>someone with a talent for twisting his adversaries' words?
Nonsense. The last two lines left in by you from the post
below LITERALLY characterize PJ as someone who has had
intercourse with dogs.
># =================== begin included post
># ~From: chr...@plonk.net (Chris Lyman)
># Subject: Re: ABOUT BRUCE SMEARING MOTHER TERESA
># Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 22:11:01 +0000
># Message-ID: <chrisl-0606...@news.minn.net>
># References: <33983F...@express-news.net>
>#
># Papa Jack is being his usual dishonest self here. Susan Mitchell was
># the one who first posted the revelations about Mother Theresa. A bit
># of checking revealed that Susan was very probably telling the truth.
>#
># I mean, even _Lancet_, a world-famous and nearly universally respected
># medical journal publishes information that MT doesn't give her patients
># (many of whom are dying) anything stronger than aspirin, well, that's
># pretty hard to refute. And, as a matter of fact, nobody has made a serious
># attempt to refute this allegation, to the best of my knowledge.
>#
># Yeah, but there's a smear campaign going on, all right. Except it's that
># dog fucker Papa Jack who is trying to smear Bruce Forest.
>[--.sig deleted and header trimmed--]
># =================== end of included post
Analogy: a sentence which includes the phrase, "...it's that self-admitted
liar Bernard Nathanson who..." accuses Bernard Nathanson just as surely
as a sentence which reads, "Bernard Nathanson is a self-admitted liar."
By the way, I disagree with all aspects of your sentence. You
deleted EVERYTHING in Papa Jack's post and put in a bunch of
stuff that LOOKS as though it were refuting things Papa Jack
said, but have nothing to do with the post to which you
were following up. The only "smear campaign" of which I know
was a bunch of back-and-forth between PJ and Bruce in which
Bruce accused PJ of antisemitism just because PJ put "religion"
in quotes in reference to Bruce.
FYI, Bruce's "religion" is atheism. He is culturally a Jew,
but that's another issue entirely.
># >: >PHoney's comment on my post is a fair measure of his amorality, imo.
># I am a highly moral person, and nothing Keegan writes here
># should cast doubt on that.
>Quit trying to pull the wool over people's eyes, Nyikos. You've left a swath
>of immoral actions and attitudes a mile wide in this and other newsgroups.
You are confusing immorality with breaches of etiquette. Your label
of PJ as "dog fucker" is addressed by the commandment,
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" {Exodus
which is morally binding on Christians, one of which I am and one
of which you claim to be. I know of no Christian moral precept which
even remotely resembles ANY part of the following:
Thou shalt not ask anyone who hath made thee a fisting
offer whether he is infected with a deadly communicable disease,
even if he hath made publick statements that strongly
suggest he is infected with that very disease, and even
if he hath accused thee of being a coward and a hypocrite
for turning his fisting offer down.
Yet my post in which I violated that "commandment" is the one
for which I have received more vehement and more
numerous denunciations, in this very newsgroup, than
for anything else I have ever written. Numerous people, including
Steve Matheson, who were puzzled by the denunciations, were unable
to get any answers for just WHAT was so immoral about the post,
or why it was being singled out for special treatment when hundreds
of other posts could just as well be singled out for that kind
of criticism. All Steve got was the usual evasive formula,
`If you can't see it, I can't explain it to you'.
Granted, I did post three carelessly worded lines which, when
ripped out of context, seem to be accusing Keith Cochran of
endangering others with the deadly disease; but when the context
(which hardly any of my accusers
would post) of the next dozen lines was added, it was clear that
I was making no such accusation, and indeed I reiterated my
belief that Keith would have backed off if anyone had actually accepted
one of his fisting offers. I asked Keith whether it was true
that he would have backed off; of course, he never replied to that.
On the other hand, the post containing YOUR offending lines
about PJ (see above) does not provide ANY context which would
undermine the clear-cut, unambiguous labeling of PJ as someone
who has had intercourse with canines.
># >: >he had the opportunity to be critical of something clearly ugly/wrong,
># >: >or to simply be silent. instead he redirected that ugliness towards
># >: >you by lying about my post. that's PHoney.
I, of course, was not lying at all, and indicated that with:
># > I was under the impression that your post provided the "rationale"
># >: for his recent words,
>No, you stupid, stupid man, *I* explained my rationale (no double
>quotes necessary) at least twice.
Your "No" should be a "Yes", since you are merely explaining why
my impression was correct. You said it to Oze too: you were
doing it in retaliation for PJ refusing to apologize to Mark
Cochran for something you recount below, and to Osmo Ronkanen
for something else you recount below. All of which tends to confirm what I
suspected (and you deleted the part of my post where I voiced
this suspicions) that you pinned your label on PJ in an
attitude of "two wrongs make a right".
># I still believe this is correct, except that "included" is
># more accurate than "provided":
>
># > So, in *direct* response to Papa Jack's crude, obscene and homophobic
># > assault on talk.abortion readers' sensibilities, I asked the following:
># >
># > "There is a rumor going around that you fuck dogs, PJ. Is there
># > anything to that? Can people call you a dogfucker on the basis
># > of this rumor?"
># >
># > Of course, this "rumor" has about as much substance as Papa Jack's
># > justification for calling Mark Cochran "Mark Cocksucker", that is
># > to say, none.
># --words of Lyman from June 12 post <339ff...@steggy.minn.net>
># still remaining in Keegan's <5o23f6$343$1...@news.wizvax.net>
NB: The last three lines make it clear that your rationale for
your bestiality-label for PJ was NOT the alleged rumor but rather
PJ's own label for Mark Cochran.
># >your lie is still included above. here, i'll quote it for you. " I saw
># >a post by Keegan in which he quoted your "rationale" for accusing
># >PJ of bestiality, and I'm disgusted by it."
># Where is the lie in that? And, speaking of lies, why weren't the
># last three lines quoted above from Lyman's June 12 post an admission
># that he had lied in his June 6 post?
>Uh, because I didn't make any statements proporting to be factual
>which I knew to be false?
Fallacious thinking. You characterized PJ as a "dog fucker"
and later admitted there was no substance to the rumor that
he was one. The fact that you did not write a formal
sentence whose sole content was that PJ was one, is irrelevant.
Re-read my analogy above if you have trouble understanding
this.
># Why doesn't this make Lyman a "self-admitted liar" by Lyman's own
># standards?
>Uh, because I didn't make any statements proporting to be factual
>which I knew to be false?
There's that fallacy again. What guarantee have you that
people will not chance upon your June 6 post years hence,
in Deja News or in some permanent archive like the one _Time_
magazine said was being set up for Usenet, and get the
wrong impression about Papa Jack from it? Oh, sure, lots
of them will probably assume you were bullshitting, but
others, knowing what weird people post to talk.abortion
from time to time, might decide Papa Jack had *some*
unhealthy attachment to dogs, like some people who
make the news for keeping dozens of cats or dogs in various
states of bad health.
Peter Nyikos
Well, I have a little time this evening to tie up a few more loose
ends. Here is the post of Lyman's that has been the focus of
controversy between us on this thread. This time, rather than
talking about the false characterization of Papa Jack in the
last line of the text, I am focusing on the on the other claims
Lyman makes in order to set the stage for his final sentence.
># ~From: chr...@plonk.net (Chris Lyman)
># Subject: Re: ABOUT BRUCE SMEARING MOTHER TERESA
># Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 22:11:01 +0000
># Message-ID: <chrisl-0606...@news.minn.net>
># References: <33983F...@express-news.net>
>#
># Papa Jack is being his usual dishonest self here. Susan Mitchell was
># the one who first posted the revelations about Mother Theresa.
Papa Jack never claimed Bruce was the first to post them, and
I have my doubts about these alleged "revelations". Bruce uncritically
repeated and even embellished Susan Mitchell's undocumented claims.
I'd like to see documentation for the claim that Mother Teresa has
*denied* painkillers to suffering patients, and that the city of
Bronx actually agreed to pay for an elevator and its installation
in a house her sisters wanted to use. Mitchell made this claim,
and Bruce embellished it to claim that she is opposed to providing
elevators for sick people. But what I've read about this is that
she and her sisters routinely *carry* patients up stairs, and the
Bronx authorities simply insisted that there must be an elevator
in the building *without* agreeing to pay all expenses connected
with one.
A bit
># of checking revealed that Susan was very probably telling the truth.
>#
># I mean, even _Lancet_, a world-famous and nearly universally respected
># medical journal publishes information that MT doesn't give her patients
># (many of whom are dying) anything stronger than aspirin,
The Lancet article NOWHERE mentioned aspirin, only applies to one
clinic in Calcutta, and has this to say:
Finally, how competent are the sisters at managing pain?
On a short visit I could not judge the power of their
spiritual approach, but I was disturbed to learn that
their formulary includes no strong analgesics.
--Robin Fox in _The Lancet_, Sept. 17, 1994, p. 808
Robin Fox does not explain whether her statement means that suffering
patients are *never* given "strong analgesics" or whether it only
means that the Calcutta facility is not routinely stocked with them. And NO
mention is made of her facilities in other parts of the world,
where strong analgesics are probably easier to come by, in this
context. Also, "strong" is not explained; I wonder whether
Robin Fox considers anything less potent than morphine to be
a "strong analgesic".
># well, that's
># pretty hard to refute. And, as a matter of fact, nobody has made a serious
># attempt to refute this allegation, to the best of my knowledge.
The support for it is extremely tenuous; not only is the wording
of the article very different from what Bruce wrote, but it
closes with some personal remarks by Robin Fox about
how she would prefer a traditional hospice to Mother Teresa's,
without even saying whether such hospices exist in Calcutta.
The article was clearly an opinion piece, almost like a letter
to the editor, and was not among the scientific peer-reviewed articles
of _The Lancet_.
Now we come to Lyman's punch line:
># Yeah, but there's a smear campaign going on, all right. Except it's that
># dog fucker Papa Jack who is trying to smear Bruce Forest.
All Papa Jack did was accuse Bruce of smearing Mother Teresa, and
it does look like Bruce went off half-cocked. Certainly Bruce's following
words, in reference to Mother Teresa allegedly denying
pain killers to suffering patients, were completely uncalled for:
Painful piles means you are being kissed by Jesus? Where exactly?
--Subject: About Bruce smearing Mother Teresa
Date: June 6, 1997
When I mentioned that I often have large and painful piles in
connection with Keith Cochran's fisting offer to me,
all I got from Chris's allies was a lot of catcalls
about how gross it is for me to post about them, and
a stupid fantasy by Lyman ally Scott Safier about how "King PHoney" loves
to expound on his piles.
But I would be most surprised if any of them, Chris included, would say
anything really critical Bruce for what he wrote about piles and Jesus.
By the way, I wrote some more about the Lancet article on:
Subject: Mother Teresa renews her plea
Message-ID: <5ou7ch$b...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>
earlier today. Chris gets mentioned there in passing.