Keegan and the definition of plagiarism
pnyikos
claimed in the 17th post that an article by Frank Rich, which began
the same thread, was a sign that he, Keegan, could *formulate*
intelligent thoughts or opinions. He has repeatedly run away from the
documentation that he did this, while alleging that the original
article exonerates him of plagiarism.
The following reply to a post by him includes part of the
documentation, and shows how that allegation is at best a dubious one.
On May 7, 11:04 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <adff1a11-8244-4fab-8dd5-11dfe490c...@d19g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On May 4, 2:49 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <b39b2420-3d1f-4973-91a6-d71ad2f04...@u3g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Sparks <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 3, 4:53 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Sparks <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Do you have the ability to formulate an intellectual thought
> > > > > > or opinion on the topic under discussion? I don't think I've
> > > > > > seen one from you yet.
> > > > > will you leave the newsgroup forever if i repost one of your
> > > > > replies to just such an article?
> > > > No, there's no reason for me to leave talk.politics.misc.
> > > > > otherwise let's just agree you got caught lying again.
> > > > No, my comment was accurate.
> > > you proved you were lying in the same post you made your claim.
> > > you can run away from yoru false claim or deal with it.
> > You have yet to demonstrate that it is false
> you're lying. a repost of the original article has already been made.
You have just now confirmed that the thing you claimed to be
an example of you *formulating* an intelligent opinion really is the
original article that began this thread, which had NOTHING formulated
by you in it--unless you are a ghost writer for Frank Rich.
You have repeatedly run away from the suggestion that you are a ghost
writer for him, but unless you really are one, your claim conforms to
the dictionary definition of plagiarism.
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
<abdbf812-cc68-464c...@b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On the thread, "If Only Arizona Were the Real Problem," Keegan
> claimed
the liar posting as peter nyikos falsely accused me of plagiarizing an
article by frank rich which was posted in its entirety and properly
cited.
the nyikos persona has been lying ever since in a defensive mode
intended to cover-up his libel.
even worse for the person posting as peter nyikos, he so often posts
with a university of south carolina signature block that some could
reasonable conclude that the university was equally responsible for the
libel.
even a street-smart person would have been wise enough to humbly
apologize for the sick, psychotic false claim and never mention it again
in the hopes that it would go away.
even a stupid person would have taken the my advice to him posted
several times and consulted with the university's legal staff.
instead the person posting as peter nyikos is still lying about his
libelous claim
shades of ooopsy. what happens next.
pnyikos
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On the thread, "If Only Arizona Were the Real Problem," Keegan
> > claimed
....something of whose description Keegan is so deathly afraid that he
dare not even let the readers who have killfiled me and not him know
what it was, hence his cutting me off in mid-sentence.
> the liar posting as peter nyikos falsely accused me of plagiarizing an
> article by frank rich
I accused you of meeting the dictionary definition of plagiarism by
claiming, in post 17 of a thread, that post 1 of the thread shows that
you are able to formulate intellectual opinions or ideas.
But post 1 contains NO words that are identifiably from you, so the
only way you can fail to meet the dictionary definition of plagiarism
is by claiming to have been the ghost writer of a nontrivial part of
Rich's article.
[bluffing interspersed with lies by keegan, and with an utterly
ridiculous claim that a street-wise person would do something that is
absolutely suicidal in the abortion newsgroups, deleted]
Peter Nyikos
Spartakus
> On the thread, "If Only Arizona Were the Real Problem," Keegan
> claimed in the 17th post that an article by Frank Rich, which began
> the same thread, was a sign that he, Keegan, could *formulate*
> intelligent thoughts or opinions. He has repeatedly run away from
> the documentation that he did this, while alleging that the original
> article exonerates him of plagiarism.
[...]
> You have just now confirmed that the thing you claimed to be
> an example of you *formulating* an intelligent opinion really is
> the original article that began this thread, which had NOTHING
> formulated by you in it--unless you are a ghost writer for Frank
> Rich.
>
> You have repeatedly run away from the suggestion that you are
> a ghost writer for him, but unless you really are one, your claim
> conforms to the dictionary definition of plagiarism.
Well then, if such a definition exists, then we are all plagiarists.
That is to say, according to this definition that the perfesser claims
to exist, any time we read an opinion piece that presents facts that
prompt us to change our opinions about issues or current events, and
we actually change our opinions accordingly, we are plagiarizing.
Corollary: opinion pieces that present facts that change our opinions
about issues or current events are invitations to plagiarize, and
therefore the writers of such pieces have no cause for complaint.
Otoh, charges of plagiarism are serious matters in the academic and
literary worlds. If no such definition exists, the perfesser has
libeled Keegan, who is himself an author. Which do you suppose is
most likely?
james g. keegan jr.
<73fae2da-a606-40e5...@u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 3:24 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > the liar posting as peter nyikos falsely accused me of plagiarizing an
> > article by frank rich which was posted in its entirety and
> > properly cited.
> >
> > the nyikos persona has been lying ever since in a defensive mode
> > intended to cover-up his libel.
> >
> > even worse for the person posting as peter nyikos, he so often posts
> > with a university of south carolina signature block that some could
> > reasonable conclude that the university was equally responsible for the
> > libel.
> >
> > even a street-smart person would have been wise enough to humbly
> > apologize for the sick, psychotic false claim and never mention it again
> > in the hopes that it would go away.
> >
> > even a stupid person would have taken the my advice to him posted
> > several times and consulted with the university's legal staff.
> >
> > instead the person posting as peter nyikos is still lying about his
> > libelous claim
> >
> > shades of ooopsy. what happens next
> >
> I accused you of meeting the dictionary definition of plagiarism
i cut your post after your first lie whoever you are.
i think we should bring this particular malicious lie of yours to it's
natural end. since you have repeatedly declined to informally seek
advice from the university counsel, i'll be happy to do so for you and
provide them with a few dizen instances of your using the university
signature block as well as a few dozen posts where you repeat your
malicious libel. in that way, your words, your posts can speak quite
loudly for themselves and there can be no equivocating. i could have
done this some time ago, of course, but i thought it was silly to put
you in a difficult spot for such an obvious and well known lie of yours.
but you let your ego get in the way and not only failed to retract and
apologize but you actually continue to repeat your lie.
that's simply unacceptable behavior.
you have a few days to pull yourself together.
james g. keegan jr.
<e94d34cc-4f79-4a01...@w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Spartakus <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
the poor, silly person posting as peter nyikos has had every opportunity
to get some informal advice from counsel at the university of south
carolina. he has declined preferring to make up new definitions to cover
up his sick, libelous actions. i think he has gone far over the line. of
course i sought counsel before i suggested he do so. he has painted
himself into a corner and it' highly unlikely he'll get out without
paying a price.
Ray Fischer
>On the thread, "If Only Arizona Were the Real Problem," Keegan
Obsess much, lunatic?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>> the liar posting as peter nyikos falsely accused me of plagiarizing an
>> article by frank rich
>
>I accused you of meeting the dictionary definition of plagiarism by
>claiming, in post 17 of a thread, that post 1 of the thread shows that
>you are able to formulate intellectual opinions or ideas.
That's a pathetic bit of weaselly dishonesty even for a pathetic weasel
like you.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Spartakus
> the poor, silly person posting as peter nyikos has had every opportunity
> to get some informal advice from counsel at the university of south
> carolina. he has declined preferring to make up new definitions to cover
> up his sick, libelous actions. i think he has gone far over the line. of
> course i sought counsel before i suggested he do so. he has painted
> himself into a corner and it' highly unlikely he'll get out without
> paying a price.
He's also had every opportunity to withdraw his intemperate
accusations. Too much ego; too little brains.
james g. keegan jr.
<11a6cb78-e2dd-47f1...@o28g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Spartakus <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
sadly for him/her, that is the case.
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On the thread, "If Only Arizona Were the Real Problem," Keegan
> > claimed in the 17th post that an article by Frank Rich, which began
> > the same thread, was a sign that he, Keegan, could *formulate*
> > intelligent thoughts or opinions. He has repeatedly run away from
> > the documentation that he did this, while alleging that the original
> > article exonerates him of plagiarism.
>
> [...]
The following words of mine were addressed to Keegan, whose words
occupied space now gone except for the [...].
> > You have just now confirmed that the thing you claimed to be
> > an example of you *formulating* an intelligent opinion really is
> > the original article that began this thread, which had NOTHING
> > formulated by you in it--unless you are a ghost writer for Frank
> > Rich.
>
> > You have repeatedly run away from the suggestion that you are
> > a ghost writer for him, but unless you really are one, your claim
> > conforms to the dictionary definition of plagiarism.
>
> Well then, if such a definition exists, then we are all plagiarists.
"To present as new and original
an idea derived from an existing source."
--Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary,
a Merriam-Webster dictionary
It fits Keegan perfectly--note the match between "formulate" and "new
and original"-- but I've never indulged in that kind of behavior.
So once again, Spartakus, your flair for sounding authoritative
actually involves you in saying something you don't know about, like
when you pontificated on jury nullification.
> That is to say, according to this definition that the perfesser claims
> to exist,
You pretend to read my mind about the definition I have in mind?
> any time we read an opinion piece that presents facts that
> prompt us to change our opinions about issues or current events, and
> we actually change our opinions accordingly, we are plagiarizing.
Keep pontificating yourself deeper into the hole you've dug, turkey.
> Corollary: opinion pieces that present facts that change our opinions
> about issues or current events are invitations to plagiarize, and
> therefore the writers of such pieces have no cause for complaint.
Deeper and deeper...
> Otoh, charges of plagiarism are serious matters in the academic and
> literary worlds. If no such definition exists, the perfesser has
> libeled Keegan, who is himself an author.
But not of the article which he claimed was proof that he could
formulate an intellectual idea or opinion.
> Which do you suppose is
> most likely?
What is most likely is that once again, you don't know what the hell
you are talking about.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On the thread, "If Only Arizona Were the Real Problem," Keegan
>
> Obsess much, lunatic?
Keegan has really gone off the deep end with his manic hintings of
lawsuits, and you accuse ME of obsessing about HIM? From what I heard
about Rasmussen, even he had a better case against Humphrey than
Keegan has against me.
Keegan's case against me is even weaker than that of Lynda Wilson, who
threatened me in public with a lawsuit, and I countered with so much
evidence that I was NOT libeling her that she quit the abortion
newsgroups, never to return while I was there.
She got almost no support from the likes of you and Keegan, because I
warned everyone that if she dared to sue me, I would hit her with a
counter-suit for frivolous lawsuit, and anyone who supported her would
be sued as an accessory before or after the fact, as the case may be.
The same would happen if Keegan or one of his henchmen or henchwomen
dared to sue me now. I have a personal friend who is not only a
lawyer, but he taught law for many years at the police academy here,
and I'm confident he'd take on my case *pro bono* if I were ever sued
by Keegan, etc. and he saw the evidence on my side. He's done that
sort of thing for me in the past, in a traffic case, and the case
against me was dropped.
Peter Nyikos
Spartakus
> > > You have just now confirmed that the thing you claimed to be
> > > an example of you *formulating* an intelligent opinion really is
> > > the original article that began this thread, which had NOTHING
> > > formulated by you in it--unless you are a ghost writer for Frank
> > > Rich.
> > >
> > > You have repeatedly run away from the suggestion that you are
> > > a ghost writer for him, but unless you really are one, your claim
> > > conforms to the dictionary definition of plagiarism.
> > Well then, if such a definition exists, then we are all plagiarists.
> "To present as new and original
> an idea derived from an existing source."
> --Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary,
> a Merriam-Webster dictionary
>
> It fits Keegan perfectly--note the match between "formulate" and "new
> and original"-- but I've never indulged in that kind of behavior.
No it doesn't. Keegan never represented Rich's ideas as his own. Why
are you lying about such an easily checked fact???
> So once again, Spartakus, your flair for sounding authoritative
> actually involves you in saying something you don't know about,
> like when you pontificated on jury nullification.
Ha ha! You didn't read the instructions that came with the petard on
which you are now hoisted, did you?
> > That is to say, according to this definition that the perfesser claims
> > to exist,
> You pretend to read my mind about the definition I have in mind?
I reverse-engineered a hypothetical definition of plagiarism that fit
the facts regarding Keegan and Frank Rich's opinion piece. That's
because the facts don't fit the definition of plagiarism you posted,
or any other definition that I am aware of.
> > any time we read an opinion piece that presents facts that
> > prompt us to change our opinions about issues or current events,
> > and we actually change our opinions accordingly, we are plagiarizing.
> Keep pontificating yourself deeper into the hole you've dug, turkey.
Your bluster won't pull you out of the hole you've dug for yourself.
> > Corollary: opinion pieces that present facts that change our opinions
> > about issues or current events are invitations to plagiarize, and
> > therefore the writers of such pieces have no cause for complaint.
> Deeper and deeper...
You're in a hole that you can't get out of, and you're still digging!
> > Otoh, charges of plagiarism are serious matters in the academic
> > and literary worlds. If no such definition exists, the perfesser has
> > libeled Keegan, who is himself an author.
> But not of the article which he claimed was proof that he could
> formulate an intellectual idea or opinion.
Food for thought: by your definition of plagiarism, you have
plagiarized Jack Willke, David Reardon, etc.
> > Which do you suppose is most likely?
> What is most likely is that once again, you don't know what the hell
> you are talking about.
Have you consulted your university's attorneys, as you were advised to
do? Or maybe you aren't really Peter Nyikos or employed by the USC.
Whichever way, isn't it time you asked for help in getting out of the
hole you've dug for yourself?
pnyikos
>
>
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 21, 3:24 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article
Now Keegan is running so scared of the truth, he even deleted the
information about what article he is referring to.
> > > the nyikos persona has been lying ever since in a defensive mode
Correction: in offensive mode, as in the first post to this thread.
But Keegan has long lived in a topsy-turvy world.
> > > even worse for the person posting as peter nyikos, he so often posts
> > > with a university of south carolina signature block
There is nothing official about it; it's simply my name, position,
university address, and url for homepage.
> > >that some could
> > > reasonable conclude that the university was equally responsible for the
> > > libel.
"reasonable" only in the alternative universe that Keegan inhabits.
[empty bravado and fox-telling-farmer-how-to-design-henhouse" baloney
by Keegan deleted, to get to the ONLY words of mine he dared to leave
in:]
> > I accused you of meeting the dictionary definition of plagiarism
>
> i cut your post after your first lie whoever you are.
You can't even prove it is false, let alone that it is a lie.
> i think we should bring this particular malicious lie of yours to it's
> natural end.
You'd have even less chance of success at the frivolous lawsuit or
whatever you are hinting at below than Lynda Wilson had in the mid-
nineties. See my reply to your henchman Fischer a few minutes ago.
> since you have repeatedly declined to informally seek
> advice from the university counsel,
I didn't need to, and don't need to now: see my reply to Fischer
again.
> i'll be happy to do so for you and
> provide them with a few dizen instances of your using the university
> signature block
There is no "the" about it, you silly goose. It's a very simple thing
that I put together myself from the most natural and obvious
ingredients.
> as well as a few dozen posts where you repeat your
> malicious libel.
What a transparent bluffer you are! You don't even dare show them to
the people who have killfiled me and not you. You delete like mad lest
they see what this is REALLY all about.
[additional transparent bluffing by Keegan deleted]
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
>
>
>
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On the thread, "If Only Arizona Were the Real Problem," Keegan
> > > claimed in the 17th post that an article by Frank Rich, which began
> > > the same thread, was a sign that he, Keegan, could *formulate*
> > > intelligent thoughts or opinions. He has repeatedly run away from
> > > the documentation that he did this, while alleging that the original
> > > article exonerates him of plagiarism.
>
> > [...]
>
> > > You have just now confirmed that the thing you claimed to be
> > > an example of you *formulating* an intelligent opinion really is
> > > the original article that began this thread, which had NOTHING
> > > formulated by you in it--unless you are a ghost writer for Frank
> > > Rich.
>
> > > You have repeatedly run away from the suggestion that you are
> > > a ghost writer for him, but unless you really are one, your claim
> > > conforms to the dictionary definition of plagiarism.
[...]
> > > Otoh, charges of plagiarism are serious matters in the
> > > academic and literary worlds. If no such definition exists,
> > > the perfesser has libeled Keegan, who is himself an author."
> the
The rest of what you wrote is just a small variation on the bluffing I
called in my previous follow-up to you, Jim. This time I'd like to
address what Spartakus wrote as it pertains to your co-authorship of
whatever book some anonymous poster credited to you.
Of course, the book has nothing to do with the Frank Rich issue that
this thread concerns itself with, but I'm still curious: what book was
that?
You ducked this question when I asked it about a year ago, telling me
to do a Google (or whatever) search. Were you hoping, perhaps, that
such a search would turn up a book written by a different James G.
Keegan, Jr.?
Have you any published work to your credit besides the one alleged
book? I have authored and also co-authored plenty of research
articles, as you can learn from my CV linked at my home page:
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
I suppose your insults are referring to the accusation itself, and not
to the description I give about it here.
If my supposition is WRONG, you are in need of professional help,
unless, as I suspect, you are being insincere.
If my supposition is right, you are simply serving as a cheerleader
for Keegan without any pretense of reasoning in your cheerleading.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> In article
> <11a6cb78-e2dd-47f1-bbb1-58c086273...@o28g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > He's also had every opportunity to withdraw his intemperate
> > accusations. Too much ego; too little brains.
>
> sadly for him/her, that is the case.
Longer Keegan: "I'm OK, you're OK, and anyone who thinks otherwise is
not only not OK, but a pathetic nobody."
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
mark too many after text by Spartakus. The following is the way my
post should have looked.
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote to James Keegan:
> > > > You have just now confirmed that the thing you claimed to be
> > > > an example of you *formulating* an intelligent opinion really is
> > > > the original article that began this thread, which had NOTHING
> > > > formulated by you in it--unless you are a ghost writer for Frank
> > > > Rich.
>
> > > > You have repeatedly run away from the suggestion that you are
> > > > a ghost writer for him, but unless you really are one, your claim
> > > > conforms to the dictionary definition of plagiarism.
> > > Well then, if such a definition exists, then we are all plagiarists.
> > "To present as new and original
> > an idea derived from an existing source."
> > --Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary,
> > a Merriam-Webster dictionary
>
> > It fits Keegan perfectly--note the match between "formulate" and "new
> > and original"-- but I've never indulged in that kind of behavior.
>
> No it doesn't. Keegan never represented Rich's ideas as his own.
Read my last two lines again, in the context of all that appeared in
the first post to this thread. You are here illustrating the subject
of another thread,
"Dirty debating strategy I: TwoPlusTwoEqualsTwoPlusTwoIsm"
[near-contentless babbling by "Spartakus" deleted. His "Food for
thought" was pure TwoPlusTwoEqualsFiveIsm, a theme prominent in George
Orwell's _1984_].
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
<d29d1e74-e2bf-47b0...@t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
sounds like the pretend perfesser is getting very nervous about his
libelous actions.
following the same path as ooopsy, with the sane inevitable result.
james g. keegan jr.
<9faf243e-f5d3-44c3...@c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 9:31 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> > since you have repeatedly declined to informally seek advice from
> > the university counsel, i'll be happy to do so for you and provide
> > them with a few dizen instances of your using the university
> > signature block as well as a few dozen posts where you repeat your
> > malicious libel. in that way, your words, your posts can speak
> > quite loudly for themselves and there can be no equivocating. i
> > could have done this some time ago, of course, but i thought it was
> > silly to put you in a difficult spot for such an obvious and well
> > known lie of yours. but you let your ego get in the way and not
> > only failed to retract and apologize but you actually continue to
> > repeat your lie.
>
> What a transparent bluffer you are!
i don't think even ooopsy was stupid and sufficiently self-destructive
to say something like that.
james g. keegan jr.
<ed893794-f948-4af9...@b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
anther blatant lie coming from the psychotic libeler posting as peter
nyikos.
james g. keegan jr.
<af8a1f29-2de8-4f4d...@z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
your post was cut at your first new lie.
james g. keegan jr.
<bbe0e5a1-536f-485a...@e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> OOps
indeed.
[remainder of lie-filled post deleted]
james g. keegan jr.
<978a1611-b789-44c2...@x27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Spartakus <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote to James Keegan:
>
> > > > You have just now confirmed that the thing you claimed to be
> > > > an example of you *formulating* an intelligent opinion really is
> > > > the original article that began this thread, which had NOTHING
> > > > formulated by you in it--unless you are a ghost writer for Frank
> > > > Rich.
> > > >
> > > > You have repeatedly run away from the suggestion that you are
> > > > a ghost writer for him, but unless you really are one, your claim
> > > > conforms to the dictionary definition of plagiarism.
>
> > > Well then, if such a definition exists, then we are all plagiarists.
>
> > � � "To present as new and original
> > � � �an idea derived from an existing source."
> > � � � � � � --Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary,
> > � � � � � � � a Merriam-Webster dictionary
> >
> > �It fits Keegan perfectly--note the match between "formulate" and "new
> > and original"-- but I've never indulged in that kind of behavior.
>
> No it doesn't. Keegan never represented Rich's ideas as his own. Why
> are you lying about such an easily checked fact???
fear, ego, legal liability for libel, particular. libel posted with the
strong suggestion that it came from the person posting as peter nyikos
representing the university of south carolina which would, of course,
share in the liability.
he/she made a very foolish bluff. actually he went all in on a hand he
cannot win.
james g. keegan jr.
<2439baa8-5312-42a7...@w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 11:45 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote to James Keegan:
> > > > > You have just now confirmed that the thing you claimed to be
> > > > > an example of you *formulating* an intelligent opinion really is
> > > > > the original article that began this thread, which had NOTHING
> > > > > formulated by you in it--unless you are a ghost writer for Frank
> > > > > Rich.
> >
> > > > > You have repeatedly run away from the suggestion that you are
> > > > > a ghost writer for him, but unless you really are one, your claim
> > > > > conforms to the dictionary definition of plagiarism.
> > > > Well then, if such a definition exists, then we are all plagiarists.
> > > "To present as new and original
> > > an idea derived from an existing source."
> > > --Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary,
> > > a Merriam-Webster dictionary
> >
> > > It fits Keegan perfectly--note the match between "formulate" and "new
> > > and original"-- but I've never indulged in that kind of behavior.
> >
> > No it doesn't. Keegan never represented Rich's ideas as his own.
> > Why are you lying about such an easily checked fact???
>
> Read my last two lines again
"Why are you lying about such an easily checked fact???"
Spartakus
Dude, are you trying for an insanity defense?
> [near-contentless babbling by "Spartakus" deleted. His "Food for
> thought" was pure TwoPlusTwoEqualsFiveIsm, a theme prominent
> in George Orwell's _1984_].
Why are you lying about easily checked facts?
Ray Fischer
>On Jun 21, 10:21 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >I accused you of meeting the dictionary definition of plagiarism by
>> >claiming, in post 17 of a thread, that post 1 of the thread shows that
>> >you are able to formulate intellectual opinions or ideas.
>>
>> That's a pathetic bit of weaselly dishonesty even for a pathetic weasel
>> like you.
>
>I suppose your insults are referring to the accusation itself, and not
>to the description I give about it here.
How stupid are you, asshole? Well, given the number of transparent
and malicious lies you have resorted to I'd say "very". But the way
you try to prove a lie above is laughable. As usual you claim that
your bitterness should be accept by everybody is Truth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Jun 21, 10:20 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On the thread, "If Only Arizona Were the Real Problem," Keegan
>>
>> Obsess much, lunatic?
>
>Keegan has really
Shorter version: "Yes"
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
pnyikos
>
>
>
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote to James Keegan:
>
> > > > > You have just now confirmed that the thing you claimed to be
> > > > > an example of you *formulating* an intelligent opinion really is
> > > > > the original article that began this thread, which had NOTHING
> > > > > formulated by you in it--unless you are a ghost writer for Frank
> > > > > Rich.
All through this thread, nobody has bothered to directly challenge the
above statement.
[That's Keegan's cue to come up with some idiocy about how I am
supposedly responding to myself again.]
> > > > > You have repeatedly run away from the suggestion that you are
> > > > > a ghost writer for him, but unless you really are one, your claim
> > > > > conforms to the dictionary definition ofplagiarism.
>
> > > > Well then, if such a definition exists, then we are all plagiarists.
>
> > > "To present as new and original
> > > an idea derived from an existing source."
> > > --Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary,
> > > a Merriam-Webster dictionary
>
> > > It fits Keegan perfectly--note the match between "formulate" and "new
> > > and original"-- but I've never indulged in that kind of behavior.
>
> > No it doesn't. Keegan never represented Rich's ideas as his own. Why
> > are you lying about such an easily checked fact???
There is an old saying that you "can't prove a negative", and yet
Spartakus idiotically claims that this particular negative ("never",
no less!) is an "easily checked fact"!
I suppose Spartakus will hide behind the ambiguity in what he says and
claim that Keegan never said ALL of Rich's ideas are Keegan's own.
But even that fact is hard to check by its very nature--just look at
all the posts Keegan does!
> fear, ego, legal liability for libel, particular.
None of the above, not even "lying about": anyone who bothers to check
what I documented in the first post to this thread will see clearly
what the issue is. Or just look at the first paragraph in the text of
this post I am doing.
However, Google sometimes varies the numbering of posts, and the
numbering I see now for the post that had you replying to Sparks's
claim about believing he'd never seen you formulate an intellectual
thought or opinion is 18, not 17.
Anyway, he was replying to the ONLY OTHER post you'd done to that
thread BESIDES the first one. So that, and your words documented in
the first post to this thread made it clear that you were claiming the
post with the Frank Rich article showed you *formulating* just such
things.
Hence, Spartakus
elizabeth
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote to James Keegan:
> > > > You have just now confirmed that the thing you claimed to be
> > > > an example of you *formulating* an intelligent opinion really is
> > > > the original article that began this thread, which had NOTHING
> > > > formulated by you in it--unless you are a ghost writer for Frank
> > > > Rich.
>
> > > > a ghost writer for him, but unless you really are one, your claim
> > > > conforms to the dictionary definition of plagiarism.
> > > Well then, if such a definition exists, then we are all plagiarists.
> > "To present as new and original
> > an idea derived from an existing source."
> > --Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary,
> > a Merriam-Webster dictionary
>
> > It fits Keegan perfectly--note the match between "formulate" and "new
> > and original"-- but I've never indulged in that kind of behavior.
>
> No it doesn't. Keegan never represented Rich's ideas as his own. Why
> are you lying about such an easily checked fact???
>
> > actually involves you in saying something you don't know about,
> > like when you pontificated on jury nullification.
>
> Ha ha! You didn't read the instructions that came with the petard on
> which you are now hoisted, did you?
>
> > > That is to say, according to this definition that the perfesser claims
> > > to exist,
> > You pretend to read my mind about the definition I have in mind?
>
> I reverse-engineered a hypothetical definition of plagiarism that fit
> the facts regarding Keegan and Frank Rich's opinion piece. That's
> because the facts don't fit the definition of plagiarism you posted,
> or any other definition that I am aware of.
>
> > > any time we read an opinion piece that presents facts that
> > > prompt us to change our opinions about issues or current events,
> > > and we actually change our opinions accordingly, we are plagiarizing.
> > Keep pontificating yourself deeper into the hole you've dug, turkey.
>
> Your bluster won't pull you out of the hole you've dug for yourself.
>
> > > Corollary: opinion pieces that present facts that change our opinions
> > > about issues or current events are invitations to plagiarize, and
> > > therefore the writers of such pieces have no cause for complaint.
> > Deeper and deeper...
>
> You're in a hole that you can't get out of, and you're still digging!
>
> > > and literary worlds. If no such definition exists, the perfesser has
> > > libeled Keegan, who is himself an author.
> > formulate an intellectual idea or opinion.
>
> Food for thought: by your definition of plagiarism, you have
> plagiarized Jack Willke, David Reardon, etc.
>
> > > Which do you suppose is most likely?
> > What is most likely is that once again, you don't know what the hell
> > you are talking about.
Oh, my . ...
> Have you consulted your university's attorneys, as you were advised to
> do?
Oopsey tried that before with the DoC . ..
> Or maybe you aren't really Peter Nyikos or employed by the USC.
Give that man a ceeeegarrr!
> Whichever way, isn't it time you asked for help in getting out of the
> hole you've dug for yourself?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
elizabeth
> OOps--in restoring text I accidentally deleted, I put one attribution
> mark too many after text by Spartakus. The following is the way my
> post should have looked.
OOPSEY did it again . ...
pnyikos
> In article
> <9faf243e-f5d3-44c3-aa08-1fca13a47...@c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 21, 9:31 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > > since you have repeatedly declined to informally seek advice from
> > > the university counsel, i'll be happy to do so for you and provide
> > > them with a few dizen instances of your using the university
> > > signature block as well as a few dozen posts where you repeat your
> > > malicious libel. in that way, your words, your posts can speak
> > > quite loudly for themselves and there can be no equivocating.
As I said and you deleted, you are such a coward that you don't even
let the people who have killfiled me and not you see enough to tell
what the issues are. So why should anyone take seriously your veiled
threat to suddenly show people my posts?
> > > could have done this some time ago, of course, but i thought it was
> > > silly to put you in a difficult spot for such an obvious and well
> > > known lie of yours. but you let your ego get in the way and not
> > > only failed to retract and apologize but you actually continue to
> > > repeat your lie.
>
> > What a transparent bluffer you are!
>
> i don't think even ooopsy was stupid and sufficiently self-destructive
> to say something like that.
Maybe he wasn't clever enough to say something like that. Here is a
reply I did to you on another thread just now, that shows I am not
being self-destructive at all; I've just deleted a few words of mine
which you can see on the original thread, the one with "for shame" in
the original Subject: line.
On Jun 21, 12:27 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <f71b60dc-e4e0-4a67-8f9c-054ec4d53...@r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 18, 11:48 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> [...]
> > > tell readers how many posts you have made using a signature block from
> > > the university of south carolina?
>
> > It isn't FROM the University of South Carolina, it is my own
> > composition giving my name, work address, and home page so people know
> > where to contact me if they--unlike you--are sincerely interested in
> > who I am.
>
> have you spoken to the university attorneys as i twice suggested?
>
> ig you have not, i strongly recommend that you do.
Of course you would. You wouldn't dare sue me, for fear of being hit
by a countersuit for the libel which I exposed in the thread,
"Pathological Liar of the Month (May 2009) -- Keegan". You libeled me
with having defended the sodomy of small children in a thread of fewer
than 30 posts, so it is a simple matter to print out the whole thread
and show that I had done nothing of the sort.
And so, all this talk about me speaking to attorneys, and the veiled
threats [...] is simply a matter of saying, "If you don't waste the
time of the university attorneys, we just might do it for you."
Peter Nyikos:
pnyikos
thread, this time in a way that makes all the text visible.
On the thread, "If Only Arizona Were the Real Problem," Keegan
claimed around the 18th post (his fourth post to that thread)
that an article by Frank Rich, which began
the same thread, was a sign that he, Keegan, could *formulate*
intelligent thoughts or opinions. He has repeatedly run away from the
documentation that he did this, while alleging that the original
article exonerates him of plagiarism.
The following reply to a post by him includes part of the
documentation, and shows how that allegation is at best a dubious one.
On May 7, 11:04 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <adff1a11-8244-4fab-8dd5-11dfe490c...@d19g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On May 4, 2:49 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <b39b2420-3d1f-4973-91a6-d71ad2f04...@u3g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Sparks <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 3, 4:53 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Sparks <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
.
> > > > > > Do you have the ability to formulate an intellectual thought
> > > > > > or opinion on the topic under discussion? I don't think I've
> > > > > > seen one from you yet.
.
> > > > > will you leave the newsgroup forever if i repost one of your
> > > > > replies to just such an article?
.
> > > > No, there's no reason for me to leave talk.politics.misc.
.
> > > > > otherwise let's just agree you got caught lying again.
.
> > > > No, my comment was accurate.
.
> > > you proved you were lying in the same post you made your claim.
> > > you can run away from yoru false claim or deal with it.
.
> > You have yet to demonstrate that it is false
.
> you're lying. a repost of the original article has already been made.
You have just now confirmed that the thing you claimed to include
an example of you *formulating* an intelligent opinion really is the
original article that began this thread, which had NOTHING formulated
by you in it--unless you are a ghost writer for Frank Rich.
You have repeatedly run away from the suggestion that you are a ghost
writer for him, but unless you really are one, your claim conforms to
a Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of plagiarism--one which
I posted in follow-up to Spartakus to this thread after he reverse-
engineered a "definition" which was pure fantasy and enabled him to
make all kinds of ridiculous claims.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote to James Keegan:
> > > > You have just now confirmed that the thing you claimed to be
> > > > an example of you *formulating* an intelligent opinion really is
> > > > the original article that began this thread, which had NOTHING
> > > > formulated by you in it--unless you are a ghost writer for Frank
> > > > Rich.
>
> > > > You have repeatedly run away from the suggestion that you are
> > > > a ghost writer for him, but unless you really are one, your claim
> > > > conforms to the dictionary definition ofplagiarism.
> > > Well then, if such a definition exists, then we are all plagiarists.
> > "To present as new and original
> > an idea derived from an existing source."
> > --Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary,
> > a Merriam-Webster dictionary
>
> > It fits Keegan perfectly--note the match between "formulate" and "new
> > and original"-- but I've never indulged in that kind of behavior.
> I reverse-engineered a hypothetical definition of plagiarism that fit
> the facts regarding Keegan and Frank Rich's opinion piece.
...and which you don't reveal here, because it would have to be
utterly ridiculous, in stark contrast to the Merriam-Webster
definition above.
> > > any time we read an opinion piece that presents facts that
> > > prompt us to change our opinions about issues or current events,
> > > and we actually change our opinions accordingly, we are plagiarizing.
>
> > Keep pontificating yourself deeper into the hole you've dug, turkey.
>
> Your bluster won't pull you out of the hole you've dug for yourself.
The idiocies you spew on the basis of your "hypothetical definition"
are the hole you are digging.
> > > Corollary: opinion pieces that present facts that change our opinions
> > > about issues or current events are invitations to plagiarize, and
> > > therefore the writers of such pieces have no cause for complaint.
[...]
> Food for thought: by your definition of plagiarism, you have
> plagiarized Jack Willke, David Reardon, etc.
Garbage--I never claimed to have presented their ideas as formulated
by me ("original").
> > > Which do you suppose is most likely?
> > What is most likely is that once again, you don't know what the hell
> > you are talking about.
>
> Have you consulted your university's attorneys, as you were advised to
> do? Or maybe you aren't really Peter Nyikos or employed by the USC.
> Whichever way, isn't it time you asked for help in getting out of the
> hole you've dug for yourself?
You were cagey on that "Pathological Liar" thread I mentioned in
follow-up to Keegan. You never directly supported his libel, the way
your good friend Humphrey did. If either one of them is so utterly
reckless as to sue me for libel, they will both be hit by a libel
suit, while you may find yourself distancing yourself from them.
Would you repudiate them as drastically as Keegan and Larry Margolis
repudiated each other in 1993-1994?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > OOps
>
> indeed.
>
> [remainder of lie-filled post deleted]
If it were filled with lies, you would be able to name at least
three.
But that's up to you. You have more serious things to worry about,
including the question of where all the blustering by you and
Spartakus is leading up to. See my previous reply to you, and the one
I did to Spartakus just now.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Jun 21, 10:21 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >I accused you of meeting the dictionary definition ofplagiarismby
> >> >claiming, in post 17 of a thread, that post 1 of the thread shows that
> >> >you are able to formulate intellectual opinions or ideas.
As I said, it might be post 18 instead--but one way or the other
> >> That's a pathetic bit of weaselly dishonesty even for a pathetic weasel
> >> like you.
>
> >I suppose your insults are referring to the accusation itself, and not
> >to the description I give about it here.
>
> [...] As usual you claim that
> your bitterness should be accept by everybody is Truth.
As usual, you attribute claims to me that I never made, even after
your Osprey-level "illiteracy" is corrected to what you intended to
say.
And you also
pnyikos
in Google--
unlike my first repost, where I neglected to do something
extra.
james g. keegan jr.
<fee0698f-555e-4847...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
[...many lies, misrepresentations and cowardly whining on why he/she
shouldn't be held responsible for his/her libel ...]
the first step is to allow the university to read for themselves the
posts of the person posting as peter nyikos who so often uses the
university signature block.
then let's see what happens next
james g. keegan jr.
<6110a1d3-bf69-4da9...@x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 8:21 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > tell readers how many posts you have made using a signature block from
> > > > the university of south carolina?
> >
> > > It isn't FROM the University of South Carolina, it is my own
> > > composition giving my name, work address, and home page so people know
> > > where to contact me if they--unlike you--are sincerely interested in
> > > who I am.
> >
> > have you spoken to the university attorneys as i twice suggested?
> >
> > ig you have not, i strongly recommend that you do.
>
> Of course you would. You wouldn't dare sue me
that was a very stupid response.
as i wrote earlier, "the first step is to allow the university to read
james g. keegan jr.
<8a407bd7-a3df-426a...@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Here is a repost, with slight revisions
good lord!! now the fruitcake is announcing how he rewrites past events.
[...repetitious lies and whining deleted...]
james g. keegan jr.
<f7cf4f08-b6ce-4384...@u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Here is a repost, with slight revisions
wow, the loon is reposting reposts of his earlier lies with revisions.
[...remainder of crazed lies deleted...]
james g. keegan jr.
<79c3626c-f646-486f...@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> But that's up to you. You have more serious things to worry about,
> including the question of where all the blustering by you and
> Spartakus is leading up to
since no one but you has blustered, there is no answer to that question.
if you meant to politely ask my intentions regarding your linking the
university of south carolina to your libel and malicious lies, wait and
see.
Spartakus
> Here is a repost, with slight revisions, of the first post to this
> thread, this time in a way that makes all the text visible.
Nerves.
Spartakus
> > I reverse-engineered a hypothetical definition of plagiarism that
> > fit the facts regarding Keegan and Frank Rich's opinion piece.
> ...and which you don't reveal here, because it would have to be
> utterly ridiculous, in stark contrast to the Merriam-Webster
> definition above.
Yeah, that was my point, brainiac. Your accusation of plagiarism is
utterly ridiculous, since the facts do not fit the Merriam-Webster
definition of plagiarism you cited.
Spartakus
> Here is a repost, with slight revisions, of the first post to this
> thread, this time in a way that should make all the text visible
> in Google--
> unlike my first repost, where I neglected to do something
> extra.
Whoever is responsible for your diet should make you switch to decaf
after 10 AM.
Ray Fischer
>> [...] As usual you claim that
>> your bitterness should be accept by everybody is Truth.
>
>As usual, you attribute claims to me that I never made,
As usual you are a coward and a malicious liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Jun 21, 10:20 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >On the thread, "If Only Arizona Were the Real Problem," Keegan
>
> >> Obsess much, lunatic?
>
> >Keegan has really
>
> Shorter version: "Yes"
The dictionary you are using for the definitions of "obsess" and
"lunatic" is probably only good for propping windows open.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
I think you meant to say "OOpsey"--this way, it looks like you are
still obsessing on Osprey.
[That's the cue for some Musketeer to indulge in One Shade of Gray
Meltdown and claim that if Fischer's dictionary is only good for
propping up windows, then so is mine--ignoring the distinction between
talking about someone who is posting heavily and VERY aggressively to
this thread, and someone who hasn't posted to ANY threads since mid-
November.]
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > I reverse-engineered a hypothetical definition ofplagiarismthat
> > > fit the facts regarding Keegan and Frank Rich's opinion piece.
> > ...and which you don't reveal here, because it would have to be
> > utterly ridiculous, in stark contrast to the Merriam-Webster
> > definition above.
>
> Yeah, that was my point, brainiac.
"Claiming victory"-- Fischer uses this when I do a preamble to
something which he often deletes, when all the preamble does is
explain what I am showing next.
But you don't SHOW anything below, you blatantly assert it:
> Your accusation of plagiarism is
> utterly ridiculous, since the facts do not fit the Merriam-Webster
> definition of plagiarism you cited.
So you allege, but the only "support" you gave was that Keegan
allegedly did not claim Frank Rich's ideas as his own-- which is only
true if you take "Frank Rich's ideas" to include all the ideas in the
whole article.
But what Keegan claimed was that the article was proof that he,
Keegan, was capable of formulating intellectual thoughts or opinions,
and that could refer to only SOME of what Rich wrote, as long as it
included SOME intellectual thought or opinion.
I *told* you to go back and read the dictionary definition and what I
wrote about it, in the context of the original article to this
thread. But it looks like you decided that what you had written
already was enough for you to project your brainiac tendencies onto
me.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> In article
> <6110a1d3-bf69-4da9-bc90-84a47ad3b...@x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 22, 8:21 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > tell readers how many posts you have made using a signature block from
> > > > > the university of south carolina?
>
> > > > It isn't FROM the University of South Carolina, it is my own
> > > > composition giving my name, work address, and home page so people know
> > > > where to contact me if they--unlike you--are sincerely interested in
> > > > who I am.
>
> > > have you spoken to the university attorneys as i twice suggested?
>
> > > ig you have not, i strongly recommend that you do.
>
> > Of course you would. You wouldn't dare sue me
>
> that was a very stupid response.
Threats of a lawsuit became the only reason for consulting university
attorneys once you started blathering about this topic.
You deleted what I wrote about the wasting of time. That's all that
would happen if you send copies of all my posts to the university
attorneys. Waste of their time, not to mention your time, and my time
if they don't just have a good laugh at your idiocy in whining about
me, and chuck the whole thing into their wastebaskets.
> as i wrote earlier, "the first step is to allow the university to read
> for themselves the posts of the person posting as peter nyikos who so
> often uses the university signature block.
They are already allowed to read them, turkey--they have access to
Google same as everyone else in the world who has internet access and
isn't being censored like in the China whose government you probably
admire, for the way you behave in the newsgroups.
I think it's pretty obvious you are indulging in HEAVY censorship for
the readers who don't use Google and who have killfiled me and not
you. You don't even want them to know who has what position on
abortion restrictions, yet you treat the abortion newsgroups as though
they were your fiefdom.
If you'd reveal the name of such killfilers, I might could arrange for
any posts of mine you send university officials to be forwarded to
them.
> then let's see what happens next"
More waste of time, probably.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Jun 22, 12:52 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> [...] As usual you claim that
> >> your bitterness should be accept by everybody is Truth.
>
> >As usual, you attribute claims to me that I never made,
>
> As usual you are a coward and a malicious liar.
As usual, you act like someone whose dictionary is only good for
propping up windows.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> [...many lies, misrepresentations and cowardly whining on why he/she
> shouldn't be held responsible for his/her libel ...]
Keegan was afraid to show any of it to the people who have killfiled
me and not him, and with good reason. I killed several birds with one
stone by my "can't prove a negative" expose of Spartakus's idiocy
"easily checked facts" that he and Keegan went all ga ga over. Here
is how that went:
On Jun 22, 8:33 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <978a1611-b789-44c2-80cc-7653f86f5...@x27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote to James Keegan:
> > > > > You have just now confirmed that the thing you claimed to be
> > > > > an example of you *formulating* an intelligent opinion really is
> > > > > the original article that began this thread, which had NOTHING
> > > > > formulated by you in it--unless you are a ghost writer for Frank
> > > > > Rich.
All through this thread, nobody has bothered to directly challenge the
above statement.
[That's Keegan's cue to come up with some idiocy about how I am
supposedly responding to myself again.]
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
------------------------ end of repost
By the way, Keegan did leave in the message-id, and Google has a way
of letting people know what goes in place of the ellipses it throws
in, so that's how I know which post he was responding to.
[Prediction: now Keegan will start leaving out message-ids of posts
whose content he totally censors, as above]
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
<d579cd25-d773-4eef...@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> The dictionary you are using for the definitions of "obsess" and
> "lunatic" is probably only good for propping windows open.
the corrupt psychotic posting as peter nyikos falls apart again.
james g. keegan jr.
<e0a8b055-ce37-4ddf...@b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 10:09 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Your accusation of plagiarism is
> > utterly ridiculous, since the facts do not fit the Merriam-Webster
> > definition of plagiarism you cited.
>
> So you allege, but the only "support" you gave
you're the one that posted the libel that was demonstrated to be libel
on the first day you posted it. all that has happened since is that you
have continued to lie about it which i think will have a large impact on
the final award.
james g. keegan jr.
<21b958aa-d0ef-45bb...@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 4:50 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <6110a1d3-bf69-4da9-bc90-84a47ad3b...@x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Jun 22, 8:21 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > tell readers how many posts you have made using a signature
> > > > > > block from the university of south carolina?
> >
> > > > > It isn't FROM the University of South Carolina, it is my own
> > > > > composition giving my name, work address, and home page so
> > > > > people know where to contact me if they--unlike you--are
> > > > > sincerely interested in who I am.
> > > >
> > > > have you spoken to the university attorneys as i twice suggested?
> >
> > > > ig you have not, i strongly recommend that you do.
> >
> > > Of course you would. You wouldn't dare sue me
> >
> > that was a very stupid response.
>
> Threats of a lawsuit
there have been and will be no threats.
as i wrote earlier, "the first step is to allow the university to read
for themselves the posts of the person posting as peter nyikos who so
often uses the university signature block.
then let's see what happens next"
james g. keegan jr.
<13291c42-abe0-47ba...@e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 4:44 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <fee0698f-555e-4847-a992-6911ad73d...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > [...many lies, misrepresentations and cowardly whining on why he/she
> > shouldn't be held responsible for his/her libel ...]
>
> Keegan was afraid
i cut your post at your first new lie.
as i wrote earlier, "the first step is to allow the university to read
The Chief Instigator
> On Jun 22, 12:53?pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos ?<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Jun 21, 10:20?pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> pnyikos ?<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >On the thread, ?"If Only Arizona Were the Real Problem," Keegan
>>
>> >> Obsess much, lunatic?
>>
>> >Keegan has really
>>
>> Shorter version: "Yes"
>
> The dictionary you are using for the definitions of "obsess" and
> "lunatic" is probably only good for propping windows open.
>
> Peter Nyikos
If you really believe that, maybe you should see if the Delaware DoC could
take you back.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, TX
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 3, Houston 2 (April 11)
NEXT GAME: The 2010-11 opener vs. TBA, October 8
Ray Fischer
Ray Fischer
>On Jun 22, 10:09 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > > I reverse-engineered a hypothetical definition ofplagiarismthat
>> > > fit the facts regarding Keegan and Frank Rich's opinion piece.
>> > ...and which you don't reveal here, because it would have to be
>> > utterly ridiculous, in stark contrast to the Merriam-Webster
>> > definition above.
>>
>> Yeah, that was my point, brainiac.
>
>"Claiming victory"-- Fischer uses this when I do a preamble to
>something which he often deletes,
Because your "preamble" is usually nothing more than a declaration
of victory preceding bullshit which rarely, if ever, justifies your
presumptive declaration.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Jun 22, 12:53 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Jun 21, 10:20 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >On the thread, "If Only Arizona Were the Real Problem," Keegan
>>
>> >> Obsess much, lunatic?
>>
>> >Keegan has really
>>
>> Shorter version: "Yes"
>
>The dictionary you are using for the definitions of "obsess" and
Blah, blah, blah. More tedious whining.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
elizabeth
> On Jun 22, 2:23 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 21, 9:31 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > OOps--in restoring text I accidentally deleted, I put one attribution
> > > mark too many after text by Spartakus. The following is the way my
> > > post should have looked.
>
> > OOPSEY did it again . ...
>
> I think you meant to say "OOpsey"--this way, it looks like you are
> still obsessing on Osprey.
Oh, no, you're still so obsessed with your perceived enemies that
you're pretending to be someone else .. ..you must've really got
reamed last time you got called in.
elizabeth
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > The dictionary you are using for the definitions of "obsess" and
> > "lunatic" is probably only good for propping windows open.
>
> the corrupt psychotic posting as peter nyikos falls apart again.
It's pretty clear who this fauxNy is.
Should've taken my advice. Oh well. Just be glad you don't have to
interface with this fucktard IRL>
Spartakus
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > I reverse-engineered a hypothetical definition of plagiarism that
> > > > fit the facts regarding Keegan and Frank Rich's opinion piece.
> > > ...and which you don't reveal here, because it would have to be
> > > utterly ridiculous, in stark contrast to the Merriam-Webster
> > > definition above.
> > Yeah, that was my point, brainiac.
> "Claiming victory"-- Fischer uses this when I do a preamble to
> something which he often deletes, when all the preamble does
> is explain what I am showing next.
I wouldn't presume to claim victory - you are struggling with your own
stupidity and losing.
> > Your accusation of plagiarism is utterly ridiculous, since the facts
> > do not fit the Merriam-Webster definition of plagiarism you cited.
> So you allege,
Using evidence you provided as support.
elizabeth
>
>
>
>
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 22, 4:50 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <6110a1d3-bf69-4da9-bc90-84a47ad3b...@x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 22, 8:21 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > tell readers how many posts you have made using a signature
> > > > > > > block from the university of south carolina?
>
> > > > > > It isn't FROM the University of South Carolina, it is my own
> > > > > > composition giving my name, work address, and home page so
> > > > > > people know where to contact me if they--unlike you--are
> > > > > > sincerely interested in who I am.
>
> > > > > have you spoken to the university attorneys as i twice suggested?
>
> > > > > ig you have not, i strongly recommend that you do.
>
> > > > Of course you would. You wouldn't dare sue me
>
> > > that was a very stupid response.
>
> > Threats of a lawsuit
>
> there have been and will be no threats.
>
> as i wrote earlier, "the first step is to allow the university to read
> for themselves the posts of the person posting as peter nyikos who so
> often uses the university signature block.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Probably something like what happened at the DoC ....
The Chief Instigator
> On Jun 23, 10:09?am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Jun 22, 2:23?pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jun 21, 9:31?pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > OOps--in restoring text I accidentally deleted, I put one attribution
>> > > post should have looked.
>>
>> > OOPSEY did it again . ...
>>
>> I think you meant to say "OOpsey"--this way, it looks like you are
>> still obsessing on Osprey.
>
> Oh, no, you're still so obsessed with your perceived enemies that
> you're pretending to be someone else .. ..you must've really got
> reamed last time you got called in.
Reamed, as in sending him to whatever prison system that's holding Wentzky?
(assuming Wentzky's still alive)
james g. keegan jr.
<8a3c3fd9-93e9-478f...@c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
elizabeth <efra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 12:43 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <d579cd25-d773-4eef-9412-71472b4ca...@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > The dictionary you are using for the definitions of "obsess" and
> > > "lunatic" is probably only good for propping windows open.
> >
> > the corrupt psychotic posting as peter nyikos falls apart again.
>
> It's pretty clear who this fauxNy is.
it will soon become even more clear when the university of south
carolina gets involved.
james g. keegan jr.
<37f0401b-b957-431f...@w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
elizabeth <efra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Probably something like what happened at the DoC ....
that is what i expect,
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Jun 22, 10:09 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> > > I reverse-engineered a hypothetical definition ofplagiarismthat
> >> > > fit the facts regarding Keegan and Frank Rich's opinion piece.
> >> > ...and which you don't reveal here, because it would have to be
> >> > utterly ridiculous, in stark contrast to the Merriam-Webster
> >> > definition above.
>
> >> Yeah, that was my point, brainiac.
>
> >"Claiming victory"-- Fischer uses this when I do a preamble to
> >something which he often deletes,
>
> Because your "preamble" is usually nothing more than a declaration
> of victory preceding bullshit
Tnanks for not denying that you often delete what you now dishonestly
claim to be bullshit.
In fact, you live in such a topsy-turvy world that you have no
criticism of Spartakus repeatedly claiming victory by accusing me of
flagrant misdirection, while not only deleting the heart of what I
write, but also failing to even PRETEND to justify his claims of
misdirection.
You were the beneficiary of a shamelessly insincere and dishonest
claim of "Total misdirection." by Spartakus, in the thread
"Pathological Liar of the Month (May 2009) -- Keegan":
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/6b01544e5594365a
Message-ID:
<97162745-4af2-4fbe...@e33g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
the last three symbols before @ are a01
Rather than even PRETENDING to justify his claim of victory, he USED
it as the basis for some more flagantly insincere and totally
unsupported defamations.
And he ran away from that thread when I held his feet to the fire with
the following post, where I also reposted the heart of my post, which
he had shamelessly deleted:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/6a5e1c622db66f99
Message-ID:
<e8a01ceb-1f70-47bd...@x22g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>
the last three symbols before the @ are 976
Spartakus never showed his ugly face again on that thread, even though
it ran to 213 posts, and this feet-to-the-fire post by me came around
a hundred posts earlier.
No wonder you are such an unquestioningly loyal ally of his -- you are
beholden to him for repeatedly prostituting himself on your behalf.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Jun 23, 10:09 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 22, 2:23 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 21, 9:31 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > OOps--in restoring text I accidentally deleted, I put one attribution
> > > > mark too many after text by Spartakus. The following is the way my
> > > > post should have looked.
>
> > > OOPSEY did it again . ...
>
> > I think you meant to say "OOpsey"--this way, it looks like you are
> > still obsessing on Osprey.
>
> Oh, no,
You're still doing it in this post, more kookily than ever:
> you're still so obsessed with your perceived enemies that
> you're pretending to be someone else
Are you addressing your words to someone you think is Osprey? You are
truly a sad case.
> .. ..you must've really got
> reamed last time you got called in.
You keep claiming to be an independent person who thinks for herself,
and that's true to the extent that you freely and independently chose
to cast your lot in with about ten other flagrantly dishonest
leftists.
You could freely and independently stop parasitizing their flagrantly
dishonest attacks on people like me and Osprey and Mosco and Sparks,
but you freely and independently realize that if you started exposing
THEIR dishonesty, you'd be totally isolated in this newsgroup, and
called crazy, insane, etc. by several people for your delusions about
me and Osprey (and sundry other people) being the same person; and
then your feeble taunts about "diagnosing without a license" would get
the raucous laughter they deserve.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > I reverse-engineered a hypothetical definition of plagiarism that
> > > > > fit the facts regarding Keegan and Frank Rich's opinion piece.
> > > > ...and which you don't reveal here, because it would have to be
> > > > utterly ridiculous, in stark contrast to the Merriam-Webster
> > > > definition above.
> > > Yeah, that was my point, brainiac.
> > "Claiming victory"-- Fischer uses this when I do a preamble to
> > something which he often deletes, when all the preamble does
> > is explain what I am showing next.
>
> I wouldn't presume to claim victory - you are struggling with your own
> stupidity and losing.
And here you are again claiming victory, in exactly the style that I
documented for Fischer a short while ago.
> > > Your accusation of plagiarism is utterly ridiculous, since the facts
> > > do not fit the Merriam-Webster definition of plagiarism you cited.
> > So you allege,
>
> Using evidence you provided as support.
Is this supposed to be a description of the following post by you?
---------------- begin repost of earlier post to this thread
Newsgroups: alt.abortion, talk.abortion, talk.politics.misc
From: Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:09:51 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, Jun 22 2010 10:09 pm
Subject: Re: Keegan and the definition of plagiarism
pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > I reverse-engineered a hypothetical definition of plagiarism that
> > fit the facts regarding Keegan and Frank Rich's opinion piece.
> ...and which you don't reveal here, because it would have to be
> utterly ridiculous, in stark contrast to the Merriam-Webster
> definition above.
Yeah, that was my point, brainiac. Your accusation of plagiarism is
utterly ridiculous, since the facts do not fit the Merriam-Webster
definition of plagiarism you cited.
================== end of repost
Since when is deleting a definition, as you did (notice the words
"above") supposed to be "using the definition" to prove that someone's
behavior [also not described] does not fit the definition?????
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:16:04 -0700 (PDT), elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 23, 10:09?am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> On Jun 22, 2:23?pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jun 21, 9:31?pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > OOps--in restoring text I accidentally deleted, I put one attribution
> >> > > mark too many after text by Spartakus. ?The following is the way my
> >> > > post should have looked.
>
> >> > OOPSEY did it again . ...
>
> >> I think you meant to say "OOpsey"--this way, it looks like you are
> >> still obsessing on Osprey.
>
> > Oh, no, you're still so obsessed with your perceived enemies that
> > you're pretending to be someone else .. ..you must've really got
> > reamed last time you got called in.
>
> Reamed, as in sending him to whatever prison system that's holding Wentzky?
> (assuming Wentzky's still alive)
When you say "him" are you referring to Bob "Osprey" Heishman, or to
me?
Or are you also kooky enough to think that we are the same person?
Why didn't you go the whole hog and claim that we are also Wentzky,
posting from jail?
Peter Nyikos
IAAH
> On Jun 23, 11:23 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@prismnet.com>
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:16:04 -0700 (PDT), elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jun 23, 10:09?am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>> On Jun 22, 2:23?pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 21, 9:31?pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>> OOps--in restoring text I accidentally deleted, I put one attribution
>>>>>> mark too many after text by Spartakus. ?The following is the way my
>>>>>> post should have looked.
>>>>> OOPSEY did it again . ...
>>>> I think you meant to say "OOpsey"--this way, it looks like you are
>>>> still obsessing on Osprey.
>>> Oh, no, you're still so obsessed with your perceived enemies that
>>> you're pretending to be someone else .. ..you must've really got
>>> reamed last time you got called in.
>> Reamed, as in sending him to whatever prison system that's holding Wentzky?
>> (assuming Wentzky's still alive)
>
> When you say "him" are you referring to Bob "Osprey" Heishman, or to
> me?
What makes you think that the two of you aren't
basically interchangeable?
--
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is
rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon;
it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and
flies back to its flock to claim victory."
- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
pnyikos
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Jun 23, 11:23 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@prismnet.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:16:04 -0700 (PDT), elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Jun 23, 10:09?am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Jun 22, 2:23?pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 21, 9:31?pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> OOps--in restoring text I accidentally deleted, I put one attribution
> >>>>>> mark too many after text by Spartakus. ?The following is the way my
> >>>>>> post should have looked.
> >>>>> OOPSEY did it again . ...
> >>>> I think you meant to say "OOpsey"--this way, it looks like you are
> >>>> still obsessing on Osprey.
> >>> Oh, no, you're still so obsessed with your perceived enemies that
> >>> you're pretending to be someone else .. ..you must've really got
> >>> reamed last time you got called in.
> >> Reamed, as in sending him to whatever prison system that's holding Wentzky?
> >> (assuming Wentzky's still alive)
>
> > When you say "him" are you referring to Bob "Osprey" Heishman, or to
> > me?
>
> What makes you think that the two of you aren't
> basically interchangeable?
For one thing, I repeatedly criticized him for playing "string-em-out"
in one back-and-forth he did with you.
Your turn: do you think you and Ray Fischer aren't basically
interchangeable?
I never did for Osprey anything like what you did for Fischer, namely
reading into the definition "in favor of legalizing abortion" what
might be termed "in favor of illegalizing forced abortion" just to let
Fischer off the hook, for the umpteenth time, for telling us his
position on forced abortion.
That's the definition of "pro-choice" in the Merriam-Webster
dictionary, and Fischer has NEVER denied using that definition when
proclaiming that he is pro-choice.
Thanks in part to you prostituting yourself for him in the way
described above, he STILL hasn't told us his position on forced
abortion, not even the forced abortion of a 13 year old Italian girl.
That was the subject of a thread to which he contributed about ten
posts, but he was too busy advancing his abortion rights agenda to
express an opinion about that forced abortion.
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
<e376c3f4-5b8a-483c...@r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 11:23 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@prismnet.com>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:16:04 -0700 (PDT), elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Jun 23, 10:09?am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >> On Jun 22, 2:23?pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> > On Jun 21, 9:31?pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> > > OOps--in restoring text I accidentally deleted, I put one
> > >> > > attribution
> > >> > > mark too many after text by Spartakus. ?The following is the way my
> > >> > > post should have looked.
> >
> > >> > OOPSEY did it again . ...
> >
> > >> I think you meant to say "OOpsey"--this way, it looks like you are
> > >> still obsessing on Osprey.
> >
> > > Oh, no, you're still so obsessed with your perceived enemies that
> > > you're pretending to be someone else .. ..you must've really got
> > > reamed last time you got called in.
> >
> > Reamed, as in sending him to whatever prison system that's holding Wentzky?
> > (assuming Wentzky's still alive)
>
> When you say "him" are you referring to Bob "Osprey" Heishman, or to
> me?
you think you;re going to be imprisoned?
james g. keegan jr.
james g. keegan jr.
<a9762f12-3cd6-4522...@t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 11:18 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I reverse-engineered a hypothetical definition of plagiarism that
> > > > > > fit the facts regarding Keegan and Frank Rich's opinion piece.
> > > > > ...and which you don't reveal here, because it would have to be
> > > > > utterly ridiculous, in stark contrast to the Merriam-Webster
> > > > > definition above.
> > > > Yeah, that was my point, brainiac.
> > > "Claiming victory"-- Fischer uses this when I do a preamble to
> > > something which he often deletes, when all the preamble does
> > > is explain what I am showing next.
> >
> > I wouldn't presume to claim victory - you are struggling with your own
> > stupidity and losing.
>
> And here you are again claiming victory
cut your post at your first new lie.
elizabeth
> On Jun 23, 11:16 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 23, 10:09 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 22, 2:23 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 21, 9:31 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > OOps--in restoring text I accidentally deleted, I put one attribution
> > > > > mark too many after text by Spartakus. The following is the way my
> > > > > post should have looked.
>
> > > > OOPSEY did it again . ...
>
> > > I think you meant to say "OOpsey"--this way, it looks like you are
> > > still obsessing on Osprey.
>
> > Oh, no,
Hmmmm . .. .
> You're still doing it in this post, more kookily than ever:
Ya see, Oopsey, it's the little things that give you away.
You were fond of the word "kook" but never saw fauxNy use it until you
went away.
snip
And ya go right for the Oopsey Clause!
> You could freely and independently stop parasitizing their flagrantly
> dishonest attacks on people like me and Osprey and Mosco and Sparks,
> but you freely and independently realize that if you started exposing
> THEIR dishonesty, you'd be totally isolated in this newsgroup, and
> called crazy, insane, etc. by several people for your delusions about
> me and Osprey (and sundry other people) being the same person; and
> then your feeble taunts about "diagnosing without a license" would get
> the raucous laughter they deserve.
>
> Peter Nyikos- Hide quoted text -
IAAH
Yeah, because I don't hold the same views he does.
>
> I never did for Osprey anything like what you did for Fischer, namely
> reading into the definition "in favor of legalizing abortion" what
> might be termed "in favor of illegalizing forced abortion" just to let
> Fischer off the hook, for the umpteenth time, for telling us his
> position on forced abortion.
And where did I do that?
Or was I pointing out that pro-choice doesn't JUST mean
what you wrote up there?
Second Or: is this just another of your bullshit
made-up things?
>
> That's the definition of "pro-choice" in the Merriam-Webster
> dictionary, and Fischer has NEVER denied using that definition when
> proclaiming that he is pro-choice.
He's also not denied that it's NOT the only facet of
what it means.
>
> Thanks in part to you prostituting yourself for him in the way
And there's the usual lies from Nyikos. Still haven't
seen that proof for the libels you spread about me, by
the way.
(That's another reason why you're basically
interchangeable with ol' Fishbreath).
The Chief Instigator
> On Jun 23, 11:23?pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@prismnet.com>
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:16:04 -0700 (PDT), elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Jun 23, 10:09?am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> On Jun 22, 2:23?pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Jun 21, 9:31?pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > OOps--in restoring text I accidentally deleted, I put one attribution
>> >> > > mark too many after text by Spartakus. ?The following is the way my
>> >> > > post should have looked.
>>
>> >> > OOPSEY did it again . ...
>>
>> >> I think you meant to say "OOpsey"--this way, it looks like you are
>> >> still obsessing on Osprey.
>>
>> > Oh, no, you're still so obsessed with your perceived enemies that
>> > reamed last time you got called in.
>>
>> Reamed, as in sending him to whatever prison system that's holding Wentzky?
>> (assuming Wentzky's still alive)
>
> When you say "him" are you referring to Bob "Osprey" Heishman, or to
> me?
You're apparently getting a bit feeble...obviously it was Elizabeth
addressing you. Count the chevrons.
> Or are you also kooky enough to think that we are the same person?
> Why didn't you go the whole hog and claim that we are also Wentzky,
> posting from jail?
>
> Peter Nyikos
You're not doing well at keeping your profession, if anyone at The USC spots
those questions. Heishman's likely continuing his idiocy somewhere, the
farther away the better for both of us.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, TX
Ray Fischer
>On Jun 23, 10:14 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Jun 22, 10:09 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >> > > I reverse-engineered a hypothetical definition ofplagiarismthat
>> >> > > fit the facts regarding Keegan and Frank Rich's opinion piece.
>> >> > ...and which you don't reveal here, because it would have to be
>> >> > utterly ridiculous, in stark contrast to the Merriam-Webster
>> >> > definition above.
>>
>> >> Yeah, that was my point, brainiac.
>>
>> >"Claiming victory"-- Fischer uses this when I do a preamble to
>> >something which he often deletes,
>>
>> Because your "preamble" is usually nothing more than a declaration
>> of victory preceding bullshit
>
>Tnanks for not denying that you often delete what you now dishonestly
>claim to be bullshit.
Failure to document any dishonesty noted.
>In fact, you live in such a topsy-turvy world that you have no
Failure to provide documentation noted.
>You were the beneficiary of a shamelessly insincere and dishonest
Failure to provide documentation noted.
As usual, you have nothing but malicious lies.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
pnyikos
That's not the only thing, not by a long shot; but I figured that a
self-centered, self-important, self-righteous Internet Vandal like
yourself would not care a whit about things that don't impact him in
some way.
> > Your turn: do you think you and Ray Fischer aren't basically
> > interchangeable?
>
> Yeah, because I don't hold the same views he does.
Nor do I hold the same views as Osprey does. For instance, he has
been very unclear in his mind on where he stands wrt. legalization of
abortion, and hardly ever posted on abortion at all in my experience,
whereas I have consistently fought for the same things since 1994, and
they are more stringent than anything I've seen Osprey advocate.
Care to elaborate on where you and Fischer differ with each other?
> > I never did for Osprey anything like what you did for Fischer, namely
> > reading into the definition "in favor of legalizing abortion" what
> > might be termed "in favor of illegalizing forced abortion" just to let
> > Fischer off the hook, for the umpteenth time, for telling us his
> > position on forced abortion.
>
> And where did I do that?
In the thread where you asked, `What's wrong with "favouring
legalization of abortion"? ' as a definition of "pro-choice" in
connection with the issue of whether Fischer was against forced
abortion.
IIRC this was the thread where "Paladin" made a splash before
disappearing from the abortion newsgroups.
> Or was I pointing out that pro-choice doesn't JUST mean
> what you wrote up there?
That came LATER, after you had at first denied that you were insisting
that there HAD to be ONE definition of abortion, just as you are doing
here now with your loaded "pointing out that".
IOW, you did BOTH. And you are implying that you KNOW the people
responsible for the Merriam-Webster dictionaries got the definition of
"pro-choice" wrong, because that's all their definition says--the
thing that you first suggested was an adequate definition:
"favoring the legalization of abortion"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-choice
Will you be writing to the Merriam-Webster people to let them know
they got it wrong?
> Second Or: is this just another of your bullshit
> made-up things?
No, and you seem to be doing a good job of simulating amnesia.
> > That's the definition of "pro-choice" in the Merriam-Webster
> > dictionary, and Fischer has NEVER denied using that definition when
> > proclaiming that he is pro-choice.
>
> He's also not denied that it's NOT the only facet of
> what it means.
EXACTLY. He has kept us totally in the dark. He loves to hold the
cards close to his chest, just like you.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 08:42:39 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 23, 11:23?pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@prismnet.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:16:04 -0700 (PDT), elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Jun 23, 10:09?am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Jun 22, 2:23?pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > On Jun 21, 9:31?pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > OOps--in restoring text I accidentally deleted, I put one attribution
> >> >> > > mark too many after text by Spartakus. ?The following is the way my
> >> >> > > post should have looked.
>
> >> >> > OOPSEY did it again . ...
>
> >> >> I think you meant to say "OOpsey"--this way, it looks like you are
> >> >> still obsessing on Osprey.
>
> >> > Oh, no, you're still so obsessed with your perceived enemies that
> >> > you're pretending to be someone else .. ?..you must've really got
> >> > reamed last time you got called in.
>
> >> Reamed, as in sending him to whatever prison system that's holding Wentzky?
> >> (assuming Wentzky's still alive)
>
> > When you say "him" are you referring to Bob "Osprey" Heishman, or to
> > me?
>
> You're apparently getting a bit feeble...
No, but you seem to be.
>obviously it was Elizabeth
> addressing you. Count the chevrons.
Elizabeth was addressing someone she seems absolutely convinced is
Osprey.
Do you think she was just pretending to think that?
> > Or are you also kooky enough to think that we are the same person?
Evidently not, see below.
> > Why didn't you go the whole hog and claim that we are also Wentzky,
> > posting from jail?
>
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> You're not doing well at keeping your profession, if anyone at The USC spots
> those questions.
You sure are indulging in wishful thinking. It must really hurt to
have been fired by Rice, and not to see anything come of the attacks
on me by Blackshaw and Lynda Wilson when they tried to report me to my
superiors.
If they see replies like the one you've just given, with Elizabeth's
kooky talk up there, they'll see my adversaries don't have a leg to
stand on.
> Heishman's likely continuing his idiocy somewhere, the
> farther away the better for both of us.
I think Heishman is enjoying his long absence from Usenet, with more
time he can devote to his family and other interests.
Just like me when I went on an eight year absence from all of
Usenet.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Jun 23, 10:14 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >On Jun 22, 10:09 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >> > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> >> > > I reverse-engineered a hypothetical definition ofplagiarismthat
> >> >> > > fit the facts regarding Keegan and Frank Rich's opinion piece.
> >> >> > ...and which you don't reveal here, because it would have to be
> >> >> > utterly ridiculous, in stark contrast to the Merriam-Webster
> >> >> > definition above.
>
> >> >> Yeah, that was my point, brainiac.
>
> >> >"Claiming victory"-- Fischer uses this when I do a preamble to
> >> >something which he often deletes,
>
> >> Because your "preamble" is usually nothing more than a declaration
> >> of victory preceding bullshit
>
> >Tnanks for not denying that you often delete what you now dishonestly
> >claim to be bullshit.
>
> Failure to document any dishonesty noted.
And if I had documented it, would you have deleted the documentation
and lied that I had failed to document it, like you did with your
notorious "I don't give a shit about women"?
> >In fact, you live in such a topsy-turvy world that you have no
>
> Failure to provide documentation noted.
Failure to give readers who have killfiled me any clue as to how the
sentence ended, noted.
> >You were the beneficiary of a shamelessly insincere and dishonest
>
> Failure to provide documentation noted.
I don't document everything on the spot, Fishbreath.
It's enough to document things when challenged, and your "challenges"
read just like IAAH's "challenge" a bunch of months ago to post
message-ids for the posts I documented on the thread, "Below-40-IQ
Simulation of the Month (Jan. 2009)":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/browse_frm/thread/7080f944f432159f/7fcf71bc10c57632
...where your dishonesty was laid bare for all to see.
Now I've posted message-ids for all the posts of yours that I reposted
that thread, and many more besides, to the following thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/browse_thread/thread/6d84e03cbc6785a8/30abde02df3c2005
... and he has confirmed my suspicion that he didn't really want to
see them, by not showing the slightest interest in the documentation,
or the issue in general of your (and Spartakus's, etc.) dishonesty--he
just enjoyed giving me put-downs, just as he is doing on utterly
unrelated topics on the new thread.
Peter Nyikos
IAAH
Oooh, back to "internet vandal". How precious.
>
>>> Your turn: do you think you and Ray Fischer aren't basically
>>> interchangeable?
>> Yeah, because I don't hold the same views he does.
>
> Nor do I hold the same views as Osprey does. For instance, he has
> been very unclear in his mind on where he stands wrt. legalization of
> abortion, and hardly ever posted on abortion at all in my experience,
> whereas I have consistently fought for the same things since 1994, and
> they are more stringent than anything I've seen Osprey advocate.
>
> Care to elaborate on where you and Fischer differ with each other?
Why should I feel like I need to do that? Because
you've decided something?
Please, spare us.
>
>>> I never did for Osprey anything like what you did for Fischer, namely
>>> reading into the definition "in favor of legalizing abortion" what
>>> might be termed "in favor of illegalizing forced abortion" just to let
>>> Fischer off the hook, for the umpteenth time, for telling us his
>>> position on forced abortion.
>> And where did I do that?
>
> In the thread where you asked, `What's wrong with "favouring
> legalization of abortion"? ' as a definition of "pro-choice" in
> connection with the issue of whether Fischer was against forced
> abortion.
>
> IIRC this was the thread where "Paladin" made a splash before
> disappearing from the abortion newsgroups.
>
>> Or was I pointing out that pro-choice doesn't JUST mean
>> what you wrote up there?
>
> That came LATER, after you had at first denied that you were insisting
> that there HAD to be ONE definition of abortion, just as you are doing
> here now with your loaded "pointing out that".
I've never insisted that there's only ONE definition.
You're not going to bother to back that statement of
yours up, of course.
>
> IOW, you did BOTH. And you are implying that you KNOW the people
> responsible for the Merriam-Webster dictionaries got the definition of
> "pro-choice" wrong, because that's all their definition says--the
> thing that you first suggested was an adequate definition:
> "favoring the legalization of abortion"
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-choice
>
> Will you be writing to the Merriam-Webster people to let them know
> they got it wrong?
Ah, now you're attempting to make me defend a position
I never took.
And still you wonder why you and Bipolar Bob are
basically interchangeable.
>
>> Second Or: is this just another of your bullshit
>> made-up things?
>
> No, and you seem to be doing a good job of simulating amnesia.
Yup, it's bullshit, made-up garbage. As usual.
>
>>> That's the definition of "pro-choice" in the Merriam-Webster
>>> dictionary, and Fischer has NEVER denied using that definition when
>>> proclaiming that he is pro-choice.
>> He's also not denied that it's NOT the only facet of
>> what it means.
>
> EXACTLY. He has kept us totally in the dark. He loves to hold the
> cards close to his chest, just like you.
If you actually have difficulty divining his position
on abortion, then you are too stupid to use a compouter.
For myself, I have repeatedly posted my position on
abortion. See the sentence above for what I think of
your inability to divine that as well.
pnyikos
> On Jul 26, 8:26 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 23, 11:16 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 23, 10:09 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 22, 2:23 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 21, 9:31 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > OOps--in restoring text I accidentally deleted, I put one attribution
> > > > > > mark too many after text by Spartakus. The following is the way my
> > > > > > post should have looked.
>
> > > > > OOPSEY did it again . ...
>
> > > > I think you meant to say "OOpsey"--this way, it looks like you are
> > > > still obsessing on Osprey.
>
> > > Oh, no,
>
> Hmmmm . .. .
>
> > You're still doing it in this post, more kookily than ever:
>
> Ya see, Oopsey, it's the little things that give you away.
Hundreds if not thousands of little things "give away" that Spartakus
is Chris Lyman, but I know better than to claim that I know him to be
Chris Lyman.
> You were fond of the word "kook" but never saw fauxNy use it until you
> went away.
Ordinarily I would have written "more crazily than ever," but that
would have elicited a Pavlov-dog-style salivation from you of the
words "diagnosing" and "credentials" or "license" or words to that
effect. So I decided to use a word that cannot be construed as a
diagnosis.
> snip
>
> And ya go right for the Oopsey Clause!
What are you calling the Oopsey Clause? True things said about you
that are unflattering?
Ray Fischer
>That's not the only thing, not by a long shot; but I figured that a
>self-centered, self-important, self-righteous Internet Vandal like
>yourself
99.997% on the irony meter
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Jul 26, 6:51 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@prismnet.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 08:42:39 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > On Jun 23, 11:23?pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@prismnet.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:16:04 -0700 (PDT), elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Jun 23, 10:09?am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Jun 22, 2:23?pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Jun 21, 9:31?pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > OOps--in restoring text I accidentally deleted, I put one attribution
>> >> >> > > mark too many after text by Spartakus. ?The following is the way my
>> >> >> > > post should have looked.
>>
>> >> >> > OOPSEY did it again . ...
>>
>> >> >> I think you meant to say "OOpsey"--this way, it looks like you are
>> >> >> still obsessing on Osprey.
>>
>> >> > Oh, no, you're still so obsessed with your perceived enemies that
>> >> > you're pretending to be someone else .. ?..you must've really got
>> >> > reamed last time you got called in.
>>
>> >> Reamed, as in sending him to whatever prison system that's holding Wentzky?
>> >> (assuming Wentzky's still alive)
>>
>> > When you say "him" are you referring to Bob "Osprey" Heishman, or to
>> > me?
>>
>> You're apparently getting a bit feeble...
>
>No, but you seem to be.
Knock it off, PeeWee.
>>obviously it was Elizabeth
>> addressing you. Count the chevrons.
>
>Elizabeth was addressing someone she seems absolutely convinced is
>Osprey.
You
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Jul 27, 2:09 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >Tnanks for not denying that you often delete what you now dishonestly
>> >claim to be bullshit.
>>
>> Failure to document any dishonesty noted.
>
>And if I had documented it,
... pigs might be flying past my window at this very moment.
>> >In fact, you live in such a topsy-turvy world that you have no
>>
>> Failure to provide documentation noted.
>
>Failure to give readers who have killfiled me any clue as to how the
You're whining about context, hypocrite???
>> >You were the beneficiary of a shamelessly insincere and dishonest
>>
>> Failure to provide documentation noted.
>
>I don't document everything on the spot, Fishbreath.
Nor after the fact, asshole. What you do is post dozens of lines of
irrelevant text and then insist that everybody should blindly accept
your irrational interpretation.
But everybody know that you really are a lying, immoral, unethical,
sleazebag because you lie, you use quotes out of context, you fail
to prove your claims, and you whine that people treat you with the
contempt you deserve.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
elizabeth
Wow, this is really proof how sick the fauxNy Oopsey Whoopsey really
is.
> I think Heishman is enjoying his long absence from Usenet,
You and Oopsey, always insisting you know what others are thinking!
> with more
> time he can devote to his family and other interests.
Or it could be that Oopsey Whoopsey puddin&pie got has ass reamed by
the DoC and finally he realized that airing one's shortcomings was a
bad idea.
Kinda like how you, whatever you are, finally dropped the sig line.
> Just like me when I went on an eight year absence from all of
> Usenet.
Yes, Oopsey, we know all about it and your problems. We don't have to
guess or speculate, since you make the evidence public.
elizabeth
Just kill yourself, Oopsey Whoopsey. And take all your handles with
you.
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >That's not the only thing, not by a long shot; but I figured that a
> >self-centered, self-important, self-righteous Internet Vandal like
> >yourself
>
> 99.997% on the irony meter
You've made your fantasy clear scores if not hundreds of times: for
reasons known only to you, you have decided that I fit the above
description.
But now, unless you keep your cards practically riveted to your chest,
you might perhaps start explaining WHY you think this.
In the absence of any explanation by you, there are only two
possibilities that I can think of:
(1) The "root for the overdog" concept: I am all of the above because
I have decided to fight against a pack of leftists who outnumber all
others on threads at least two to one, but more often at least four to
one and sometimes even ten to one.
According to this concept, people not fitting those three adjectives
would emulate Spartakus and avoid forums where they are outnumbered
like the plague.
(2) The LC "horse to water" concept: I should simply take y'all's
word for there being convincing evidence for Osprey being habitually
dishonest, Bill Mosco being a racist, and Jon Young being a "nazi
turd" and the author of horribly racist and bigoted posts under
assumed names which LC asserts to be "nyms" of his...and goodness
knows what other things y'all claim without EVER providing evidence
when I ask for it, on threads where I ask for it.
Back in the 1990's, when someone in talk.origins used that "You can
lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" line on me, I
informed him "You led me to a dry gulch, prevaricator. "
LC wasn't quite that bad: he led me to numerous pools of stagnant
water [including the J. Baker post that seems to be his sole halfway
convincing alleged link from J. Young to the floods of racist posts]
and one very small spring (the "Jon Young is Auric Hellman" spring)
where the link to really virulent racism seems to be lacking.
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
<a3bd1cb6-3435-475c...@w30g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 12:55 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >That's not the only thing, not by a long shot; but I figured that a
> > >self-centered, self-important, self-righteous Internet Vandal like
> > >yourself
> >
> > 99.997% on the irony meter
>
> You've made your fantasy clear scores if not hundreds of times: for
> reasons known only to you, you have decided that I fit the above
> description.
you statement is obviously and blatantly false.
but then, s scumball who would post email with bogus headers and falsely
accuse another of plagiarism is used to being dishonest.
james g. keegan jr.
<120fa6a8-7167-45b9...@f8g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 2:09 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > Failure to provide documentation noted.
>
> I don't document everything on the spot, Fishbreath.
you haven't supported any claim you ever made and were challenged to
support, as far as i can tell.
remember now, you challenged me on saying something along those lines
months ago and i immediately posted a half dozen examples of challenges
to your claims that you ran away from. so you lied in your response to
the proof of my claim.
Ray Fischer
>On Jul 27, 12:55 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >That's not the only thing, not by a long shot; but I figured that a
>> >self-centered, self-important, self-righteous Internet Vandal like
>> >yourself
>>
>> 99.997% on the irony meter
>
>You've made your fantasy clear scores if not hundreds of times:
Yep. And yuou've posted thousands of lines of self-serving bullshit
and entire treatises on the majesty of your own ego.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
pnyikos
> In article
> <a3bd1cb6-3435-475c-b452-3f64773a9...@w30g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 12:55 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > >That's not the only thing, not by a long shot; but I figured that a
> > > >self-centered, self-important, self-righteous Internet Vandal like
> > > >yourself
>
> > > 99.997% on the irony meter
>
> > You've made your fantasy clear scores if not hundreds of times: for
> > reasons known only to you, you have decided that I fit the above
> > description.
>
> you statement is obviously and blatantly false.
>
> but then, s scumball who would post email with bogus headers and falsely
> accuse another of plagiarism is used to being dishonest.
You aren't Fischer.
By now, I'm sure you've caught on to what these "You aren't" posts are
all about, but you wouldn't dare post the full formula, because that
would cause you and your allies to lose face.
Instead, I expect you to delete everything after my first new sentence
and make some snide remark about it, to obscure what it is all about,
the better to fool people who have killfiled me and not you.
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
<e3aa0e82-d6ac-418f...@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 7:21 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <a3bd1cb6-3435-475c-b452-3f64773a9...@w30g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Jul 27, 12:55 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > >That's not the only thing, not by a long shot; but I figured that a
> > > > >self-centered, self-important, self-righteous Internet Vandal like
> > > > >yourself
> >
> > > > 99.997% on the irony meter
> >
> > > You've made your fantasy clear scores if not hundreds of times: for
> > > reasons known only to you, you have decided that I fit the above
> > > description.
> >
> > you statement is obviously and blatantly false.
> >
> > but then, s scumball who would post email with bogus headers and falsely
> > accuse another of plagiarism is used to being dishonest.
>
> You aren't Fischer.
agreeing with my remarks, the scumball posting as peter nyikos tries for
the insanity defense again.
elizabeth
> On Jul 27, 7:21 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <a3bd1cb6-3435-475c-b452-3f64773a9...@w30g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Jul 27, 12:55 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > >That's not the only thing, not by a long shot; but I figured that a
> > > > >self-centered, self-important, self-righteous Internet Vandal like
> > > > >yourself
>
> > > > 99.997% on the irony meter
>
> > > You've made your fantasy clear scores if not hundreds of times: for
> > > reasons known only to you, you have decided that I fit the above
> > > description.
>
> > you statement is obviously and blatantly false.
>
> > but then, s scumball who would post email with bogus headers and falsely
> > accuse another of plagiarism is used to being dishonest.
Turn of the Irony Meters . ..
> You aren't Fischer.
And you ain't Nykios. Only thing is, only you believe your claims,
and your perceived enemies don't.
Kill yourself, Oopsey. Or whatever you are, what it should be is dead
meat.
pnyikos
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 2:09 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > > Failure to provide documentation noted.
>
> > I don't document everything on the spot, Fishbreath.
>
> you haven't supported any claim you ever made and were challenged to
> support, as far as i can tell.
That's because you don't even consider documentation of full posts,
complete with urls, and sometimes even complete with message-ids [with
the last three symbols before the @ being posted for the benefit of
readers who don't want to navigate away from Google pages] as
"support" when it comes from me.
Fischer's despicable "I don't give a shit about women" is a clear
example. Here is a blow-by-blow description of how first he and then
you treated my support:
I post the url for Fischer's "give a shit" post in:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/5b2e463551bf06b7
In a direct follow-up, Fischer deletes the url and falsely accuses me
of lying,
================== begin excerpt
>And you said you don't give a shit about women:
nyioks is, of course, lying is sleazy ass off.
====================== end of excerpt from
in the Subject: line (see amended subject line below, with his still
intact:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/c10d3b5ea090cc18
I repost both url and post:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/c1b55e1f17bc7d24
Subject: Fischer lies about giving a shit about women with: "Re:
Nyikos shows himself to be a lying sleazebag with no ethics"
------------------- excerpt
> > Does this mean you'd just as soon see ALL women starve?
>
> I explained it
Repeat the transparently dishonest "explanation" that ignored the
context of Ospery asking you "if you would help and/or support a woman
who wants to get an abortion?"
================= end of excerpt
And after I post the whole thing, he lies
through his teeth in the following post, having deleted the whole
repost and url:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/8d3aa22ec6472dc0
he even titles the new post "Nyikos lies about giving a shit about
women"
I documented all this in the following post:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/9f21a0e2b4f507e0
But, loyal ally of Fischer that you are, you pretended not to see any
evidence of his dishonesty, and instead licked his boots by lying
through your teeth that HE had exposed MY dishonesty in:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/aea14443b45c822c
Message-ID: <Xns9D9247DE671AC...@130.133.4.11>
the last three symbols before the @ are com
Sleazeball that you are, you even changed the thread title to:
Subject: Re: Pathological Liar of the Month (June 2010) early returns
leader: the perfesser
> remember now, you challenged me on saying something along those lines
> months ago
On which of the eight posts to which you replied with the same
identical list of five examples? and how did the challenge actually
read?
> and i immediately posted a half dozen examples of challenges
> to your claims that you ran away from.
Eight times at least, but you even had the chutzpah to call four of
those those claims lies FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, alleging that you had
exposed the lie simply by asking for proof of what I was saying.
By the way, I had already supported two of those claims (one of which
was the solitary exception) earlier, and so saw no reason to respond
to your nuisance challenges.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Jul 27, 12:55 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >That's not the only thing, not by a long shot; but I figured that a
> >> >self-centered, self-important, self-righteous Internet Vandal like
> >> >yourself
>
> >> 99.997% on the irony meter
>
> >You've made your fantasy clear scores if not hundreds of times:
>
> Yep. And yuou've posted thousands of lines of self-serving bullshit
> and entire treatises on the majesty of your own ego.
You are giving your usual "justification" for your fantasies: piling
more fantasies on top of fhem.
You deleted my challenge to at least begin to ground these fantasies
in reality, and of course Keegan doesn't give a shit about YOU running
away from challenges.
I'm still curious to know just HOW he will show his condoning of this
latest running away by you, hence my new Subject: line.
Peter Nyikos