Trumped-up charges against Osprey wrt New York Times?
pnyikos
look like to me at present, Keegan & co. were suckered into claiming
"forgery" by a dumb-as-a-fox Bob "Osprey" Heishman. Osprey did a
follow-up to Keegan in which the New York Times was not mentioned at
all:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/87d58451f0f0372a?dmode=source
Message-ID: <sPSdnRvdOLHunUHb...@comcast.com>
The text he added was of a communication with no signature, which made
no mention of Keegan or anyone else by name.
Strangely enough, in all the months I've asked about this, nobody has
reposted this post of Osprey's and the discussion was clouded by
misdirection about how Osprey supposedly had had Google block a lot of
his posts. Perhaps Keegan&co were hoping I would never read the
thread where the events I relate below took place.
Anyway, Keegan took the bait (at least, the evidence is overwhelming
that it WAS bait) and swallowed it--hook, line, and sinker:
"ha ha ha.
no wonder no one believes anything you post.
i'll bet you can't even recognizes the errors in your forgery."
and, even without waiting for Osprey's reply, Keegan did another
post whose thread title showed how completely he had been suckered:
Newsgroups: talk.abortion, alt.abortion
From: "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 11:35:02 -0400
Local: Mon, Sep 3 2007 11:35 am
Subject: check out osprey's attempted email forgery of new york times
and in it he drooled, after keeping in only Osprey's "forgery":
"poor, illiterate osprey doesn't even recognize why his forgery is so
clearly *his* forgery."
Actually I think Osprey deliberately put in grammatical errors--
repeatedly claimed by Keegan&co. to be completely typical of him--
precisely to sucker Keegan into making this false accusation of
forgery. And Keegan wasn't the only one who was suckered: LC did his
own follow-up to that Osprey post, in which he couldn't resist a huge
exaggeration in addition to an implicit forgery charge:
"Not that anyone believes this latest scream for attention from
Ostrich, but
it's particularly hard to believe that the alleged 'respondent' from
the NYT
could come off as barely literate as, say, Robert Heishman himself."
The sequel certainly seems to bear out the hypothesis that Osprey
deliberately fooled these people and others, besides, who joined in on
that thread. Osprey, coolly and calmly, kept on posting on other
matters to that thread until Keegan addressed him directly in a post
where he repeated the accusation, and Osprey very calmly answered:
"What forged e-mail from the New York Times?
Why are you so worried, are you guilty?
From what I read, I didn't see your name in there nor New York Times.
Appears I was dead on target when I said I think they got a hold of
you and you're scared.
Nowhere in that message sent to me, did I see your name nor New York
Times.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/690977118c17e832?dmode=source
Message-ID: <1188882477....@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
And here are some more posts by Osprey, again showing how calm he was
under fire, while Keegan grew more and more agitated:
Newsgroups: talk.abortion, alt.abortion
From: "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 10:44:08 -0400
Subject: Keegans meltdown and feelings of guilt
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/e441150b2e1ff495?dmode=source
Message-ID: <r4ydnVbTRJWq8kDb...@comcast.com>
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/18c0815442cb204c?dmode=source
Message-ID: <K7GdnXE_Lvo88kDb...@comcast.com>
Keegan, grasping at an ambiguous statement like a drowning man
grasping at a straw, resorted to outright slander in one Subject:
line:
Newsgroups: talk.abortion, alt.abortion
From: "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 10:49:00 -0400
Subject: heishman admits to ny times forgery efforts and reprimand
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/4da1734e62f608a9?dmode=source
Message-ID: <jgkeegan-45E5AE...@individual.net>
And Keegan threw all caution to the winds in the following post, in
which he rattled off a whole mess of other alleged admissions, not
realizing that he was undermining the whole mess by including it with
the latest, patently phoney, "admission":
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/b1a4b6cf4472ad0d?dmode=source
Message-ID: <jgkeegan-733E48...@individual.net>
You might say that in so doing, Keegan threw in "rod and reel" along
with "hook, line, and sinker," but fisherman Osprey (an apt name,
under the circumstances!) remained high and dry on the bank, perhaps
even laughing his head off over the whole spectacle.
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
<96f81bda-a073-4711...@m11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
i decided to leave every word of the person posting as peter nyikos
original post because i believe it demonstrates his psychotic dishonesty.
i have the feeling that's the way most readers will see it too,
particularly all of those who were around to view the events that let up
to osprey's forgery of email from the new york times.
elizabeth
> In article
> <96f81bda-a073-4711-a52d-2a246ae60...@m11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > I put the question mark in the Subject line because, the way things
> > look like to me at present, Keegan & co. were suckered into claiming
> > "forgery" by a dumb-as-a-fox Bob "Osprey" Heishman. Osprey did a
> > follow-up to Keegan in which the New York Times was not mentioned at
> > all:
> > Message-ID: <sPSdnRvdOLHunUHbnZ2dnUVZ_hisn...@comcast.com>
> > Message-ID: <1188882477.644460.19...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
>
> > And here are some more posts by Osprey, again showing how calm he was
> > under fire, while Keegan grew more and more agitated:
> > Newsgroups: talk.abortion, alt.abortion
> > From: "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com>
> > Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 10:44:08 -0400
> > Subject: Keegans meltdown and feelings of guilt
> > Message-ID: <r4ydnVbTRJWq8kDbnZ2dnUVZ_h-vn...@comcast.com>
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/18c0815442cb204c?dmo...
> > Message-ID: <K7GdnXE_Lvo88kDbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdn...@comcast.com>
>
> > Keegan, grasping at an ambiguous statement like a drowning man
> > grasping at a straw, resorted to outright slander in one Subject:
> > line:
> > Newsgroups: talk.abortion, alt.abortion
> > From: "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com>
> > Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 10:49:00 -0400
> > Subject: heishman admits to ny times forgery efforts and reprimand
> > Message-ID: <jgkeegan-45E5AE.10490004092...@individual.net>
>
> > And Keegan threw all caution to the winds in the following post, in
> > which he rattled off a whole mess of other alleged admissions, not
> > realizing that he was undermining the whole mess by including it with
> > the latest, patently phoney, "admission":
> > Message-ID: <jgkeegan-733E48.10513404092...@individual.net>
>
> > You might say that in so doing, Keegan threw in "rod and reel" along
> > with "hook, line, and sinker," but fisherman Osprey (an apt name,
> > under the circumstances!) remained high and dry on the bank, perhaps
> > even laughing his head off over the whole spectacle.
>
> i decided to leave every word of the person posting as peter nyikos
> original post because i believe it demonstrates his psychotic dishonesty.
>
> i have the feeling that's the way most readers will see it too,
> particularly all of those who were around to view the events that let up
>
> - Show quoted text -
That post of fauxNy's is exactly like Oopsey's many posts about how
everyone "lies" about him.
james g. keegan jr.
<7278dec0-5c29-4cab...@d36g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
elizabeth <efra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> That post of fauxNy's is exactly like Oopsey's many posts about how
> everyone "lies" about him.
long and disjointed and full of lies. that's why i reposted it in its
entirety.
can you imagine a phd, andy phd, doing such a thing?
pnyikos
> In article
> <96f81bda-a073-4711-a52d-2a246ae60...@m11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> > I put the question mark in the Subject line because, the way things
> > look like to me at present, Keegan & co. were suckered into claiming
> > "forgery" by a dumb-as-a-fox Bob "Osprey" Heishman. Osprey did a
> > follow-up to Keegan in which the New York Times was not mentioned at
> > all:
The url at the bottom of this long post of mine takes you to a Google
page which includes that Osprey post as well as the first two Keegan
posts mentioned next, as well as the LC post mentioned further down:
> > Anyway, Keegan took the bait (at least, the evidence is overwhelming
> > that it WAS bait) and swallowed it--hook, line, and sinker:
>
> > "ha ha ha.
> > no wonder no one believes anything you post.
> > i'll bet you can't even recognizes the errors in your forgery."
> > and, even without waiting for Osprey's reply, Keegan did another
> > post whose thread title showed how completely he had been suckered:
>
> > Newsgroups: talk.abortion, alt.abortion
> > From: "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com>
> > Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 11:35:02 -0400
> > Local: Mon, Sep 3 2007 11:35 am
> > Subject: check out osprey's attempted email forgery of new york times
[...]
> > Actually I think Osprey deliberately put in grammatical errors--
> > repeatedly claimed by Keegan&co. to be completely typical of him--
> > precisely to sucker Keegan into making this false accusation of
> > forgery. And Keegan wasn't the only one who was suckered: LC did his
> > own follow-up to that Osprey post, in which he couldn't resist a huge
> > exaggeration in addition to an implicit forgery charge:
[...]
> > The sequel certainly seems to bear out the hypothesis that Osprey
> > deliberately fooled these people and others, besides, who joined in on
> > that thread. Osprey, coolly and calmly, kept on posting on other
> > matters to that thread until Keegan addressed him directly in a post
> > where he repeated the accusation, and Osprey very calmly answered:
>
> > "What forged e-mail from the New York Times?
> > Why are you so worried, are you guilty?
> > From what I read, I didn't see your name in there nor New York Times.
> > Appears I was dead on target when I said I think they got a hold of
> > you and you're scared.
> > Nowhere in that message sent to me, did I see your name nor New York
> > Times.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/690977118c17e832?dmo...
> > Message-ID: <1188882477.644460.19...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
>
> > And here are some more posts by Osprey, again showing how calm he was
> > under fire, while Keegan grew more and more agitated:
> > Newsgroups: talk.abortion, alt.abortion
> > From: "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com>
> > Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 10:44:08 -0400
> > Subject: Keegans meltdown and feelings of guilt
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/e441150b2e1ff495?dmo...
> > Message-ID: <r4ydnVbTRJWq8kDbnZ2dnUVZ_h-vn...@comcast.com>
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/18c0815442cb204c?dmo...
> > Message-ID: <K7GdnXE_Lvo88kDbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdn...@comcast.com>
>
> > Keegan, grasping at an ambiguous statement like a drowning man
> > grasping at a straw, resorted to outright slander in one Subject:
> > line:
> > Newsgroups: talk.abortion, alt.abortion
> > From: "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com>
> > Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 10:49:00 -0400
> > Subject: heishman admits to ny times forgery efforts and reprimand
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/4da1734e62f608a9?dmo...
> > Message-ID: <jgkeegan-45E5AE.10490004092...@individual.net>
>
> > And Keegan threw all caution to the winds in the following post, in
> > which he rattled off a whole mess of other alleged admissions, not
> > realizing that he was undermining the whole mess by including it with
> > the latest, patently phoney, "admission":
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/b1a4b6cf4472ad0d?dmo...
> > Message-ID: <jgkeegan-733E48.10513404092...@individual.net>
The three symbols before the @ are 007: Keegan's posts regularly
have message Id's where the last 8 symbols before the @ are the
numerical date: day/month/year.
[...]
> i decided to leave every word of the person posting as peter nyikos
> original post because i believe it demonstrates his psychotic dishonesty.
On the contrary, it demonstrates that I reason very well on the basis
of the available information.
You had ample time--over 6 months--to post mountains of information
that might counterbalance the above information, but you failed to do
so, and even your toady (or should I day gofer?) Tom S. only posted a
few bits of secondary documentation where I have referenced the
primary sources. For instance, here is that next to last Osprey post
[the last three symbols in the message-id before the @ are Z2d]:
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion
References: <jgkeegan-A579B0...@individual.net>
<1188798856....@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
<46dbb9d1$0$14114$742e...@news.sonic.net>
<1188812073.2...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com> <46dc3f5b
$0$14149$742e...@news.sonic.net>
<kLSdnRoIPMKYyUHb...@comcast.com>
<0001HW.C301D298...@news-server.san.rr.com>
<FtadnYnsrd7hCkHb...@comcast.com>
<0001HW.C301E80E...@news-server.san.rr.com>
<c_udnddWRpsAOEHb...@comcast.com>
<0001HW.C301F791...@news-server.san.rr.com>
<HNadnW50j7BsMkHb...@comcast.com> <jgkeegan-
B1C7F3.211...@individual.net>
<1188881449.8...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>
<jgkeegan-0B6EF0...@individual.net>
In-Reply-To: <jgkeegan-0B6EF0...@individual.net>
Subject: Keegans meltdown and feelings of guilt
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 10:44:08 -0400
Message-ID: <r4ydnVbTRJWq8kDb...@comcast.com>
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgkeegan-0B6EF0...@individual.net...
> In article <1188881449.818672.218...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
> osprey <noneedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 3, 9:10 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > In article <HNadnW50j7BsMkHbnZ2dnUVZ_t-gn...@comcast.com>,
>> >
>> > "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
>> > > "David W. Barnes" <dbar...@barnesco.com> wrote in message
>> > >news:0001HW.C301F791...@news-server.san.rr.com...
>> > > > Proof positive. You don't know the difference.
>> >
>> > > Yes, I know the difference
>> >
>> > is that why you forged email from the new york times, prison clerk?
>>
>> What forged e-mail from the New York Times?
>
>
> the email you forged in the attached post.
Where does it say New York Times?
Does it mention your name?
You're nervous Keegan.
>
> have you been reprimanded for that too?
I think you have been.
>
> Path: g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!
> border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!
> local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED
[...]
> From: "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com>
> Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion
[...]
> In-Reply-To: <jgkeegan-B9D13C.08041203092...@individual.net>
> Subject: Re: osprey's dilemna
> Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 08:39:15 -0400
[...]
> Message-ID: <sPSdnRvdOLHunUHbnZ2dnUVZ_hisn...@comcast.com>
> Lines: 65
[...]
> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jgkeegan-B9D13C...@individual.net...
>> In article <1188812073.206119.290...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
>> osprey <noneedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 3, 3:37 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>> > osprey <noneedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
>>> > >On Sep 2, 6:00 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>> > >> In article <fberb70...@enews1.newsguy.com>,
>>> >
>>> > >> "LC" <LC__...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >> > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> > >> >news:jgkeegan-A579B0...@individual.net...
>>> >
>>> > >> > > What is heishman to do? what can he do?
>>> >
>>> > >> > Ostrich posts.
>>> >
>>> > >> > Ostrich lies.
>>> >
>>> > >> > Ostrich gets called out.
>>> >
>>> > >> > Ostrich attempts to change subject.
>>> >
>>> > >> > Repeat.
>>> > >> > Often.
>>> >
>>> > >> yeah. his situation is hopeless. his only practical option is
> to
>>> > >> leave the abortion newsgroups.
>>> >
>>> > >You have the opportunity to make me.
>>> >
>>> > Have the opportunity to see you make excuses when you lose.
>>>
>>> Lose what?
>>
>> yourself, coward heishman. you have lied and run away from each of
>> your challenges which have been accepted. you have lied and run away
>> from all of your lies. your challenges are nothing more than your
>> cowardly requests to be spanked.
>
>
> This was sent to me:
>
>
> Dated: August 30, 2007
>
> Sir,
>
> Thank you for reporting the person responsible for posting our
> articles in
> the alt.abortion newsgroup.
> We have investigate this matter and found that your report is
> accurate. We
> have sent the matter over
> to our legal department and they will decide as to which action to
> take.
> The person whom you reported to us
> has been contacted and advised that he will be held responsible for
> violating our policy.
> If you continue to see the same person violating our policy or anyone
> else,
> please do not hesitate to contact us
> immediately.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> --
> "New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
> been warned."
> -- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
> in news:2rCdnZNy7LA...@comcast.com
=========== end of included post
I deleted only some headers. Osprey's "forgery" is preserved intact
above, at the end.
> i have the feeling that's the way most readers will see it too,
> particularly all of those who were around to view the events that let up
> to osprey's forgery of email from the new york times.
Well, here is the url for the first 20 posts in that thread, including
the Osprey post in which the "forgery" appeared. Good luck on
demonstrating how the events in it led up to Osprey's "forgery":
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/browse_thread/thread/aff01929776aeba4/0753ecdb4b40798c?#0753ecdb4b40798c
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> That post of fauxNy's is exactly like Oopsey's many posts about how
> everyone "lies" about him.
You are really loony, if you believe that. Osprey's posts typically
include adulterated message-ids whose ellipses can't even be clicked
on, and almost never include links to the actual posts.
What's more, my writing style is utterly different.
You need to get some experience in posting to newsgroups where the
majority of people are hostile to you. You'd soon enough get to see
really big differences between them, as big as the differences between
you and Chilton, or you and Adam Wanderer. Then, when your miserably
under-tuned perceptions have been fine-tuned by a titanic variety of
attacks on you, you will see easily enough that there are major
differences in style between Osprey and me.
But you are far too much of a coward to do anything like that. The
cozy virtual reality which the other Musketeers and allies like Tom S.
and IAAH and Zadok have woven around you is so comfortable, the
contrasting experience of being blasted by most participants may well
drive you stark, raving mad.
Peter Nyikos
Spartakus
[--blarg--]
It takes a special kind of idiot to concoct a post such as yours,
suffused as it is with speculation, attempts at mind reading,
ignorance of the facts, ignore-ance of the facts, paranoia and
outright stoopidity.
And Peter, or whoever you are,
You. Are. That. Idiot.
pnyikos
...in response to someone whom I've suspected in the past of being his
sock puppet:
["elizabeth":]
> > That post of fauxNy's is exactly like Oopsey's many posts about how
> > everyone "lies" about him.
>
> long and disjointed and full of lies. that's why i reposted it in its
> entirety.
Actually, it is very well organized, and tightly documented. Look up
some of my math articles some time, they are very similar as far as
organizaion goes. The following one shows how I usually weave
citations into the body of the papers:
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/ClassicII.pdf
You won't understand the many technical terms used, but otherwise the
article, which is a survey rather than a research article, is not too
hard to follow.
The following one is atypical in that I don't put numbered references
that are cited in the body of the text, but it may perhaps be not so
utterly incomprehensible to you as most of my other articles:
http://at.yorku.ca/t/a/i/c/52.htm
> can you imagine a phd, andy phd, doing such a thing?
What is the highest degree YOU earned, and where, Jim?
Peter Nyikos
Peter Nyikos
Spartakus
> Well, here is the url for the first 20 posts in that thread, including
> the Osprey post in which the "forgery" appeared. Good luck on
> demonstrating how the events in it led up to Osprey's "forgery":
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/browse_thread/thread/aff...
You just did, idiot.
Spartakus
My degree can beat up your degree.
james g. keegan jr.
<c1bfa121-7af2-447a...@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 5:33�pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...in response to someone whom I've suspected in the past of being his
> sock puppet:
and this from someone who claims not only to be a phd but to be the
peter nyikos who posted here more than a decade ago.
no wonder so few, if any, believe whoever it really is.
james g. keegan jr.
<c1bfa121-7af2-447a...@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 5:33�pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> > can you imagine a phd, andy phd, doing such a thing?
>
> What is the highest degree YOU earned, and where, Jim?
a phd would have known that from day one.
*smirk*
james g. keegan jr.
<0f907b6e-c30b-476a...@m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Spartakus <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
a true phd would never have exposed him/herself so badly as the person
posting as peter nyikos.
james g. keegan jr.
<50b38c06-0c2a-4212...@d15g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
Spartakus <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
it was kind of you not to mention his/her lies.
james g. keegan jr.
<d561c93e-503d-4df0...@k6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 5:23�pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That post of fauxNy's is exactly like Oopsey's many posts about how
> > everyone "lies" about him.
>
> You are really loony, if you believe that.
the person posting as peter nyikos tries belatedly to deflect attention
from his huge error.
james g. keegan jr.
<fb499553-568a-4cd4...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Spartakus <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
just like osprey..... he shot him/herself in the foot and posted proof
that he was lying.
and he wants people to believe he is a phd.
Anonymous
So answer Peter's question - What are your degrees, and who conferred them upon you?
james g. keegan jr.
Anonymous <cri...@ecn.org> wrote:
another nyikos/osprey sock
George Orwell
Of course, you can't answer the question, can you?
I don't blame you for being ashamed, James.
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
james g. keegan jr.
George Orwell <nob...@mixmaster.it> wrote:
> "james g. keegan jr." <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jgkeegan-20CE91...@news.individual.net...
> > In article <2009072504181...@www.ecn.org>,
> > Anonymous <cri...@ecn.org> wrote:
> >
> >> "james g. keegan jr." <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:jgkeegan-19119B...@news.individual.net...
> >> > In article
> >> > <d561c93e-503d-4df0...@k6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Jul 24, 5:23 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > That post of fauxNy's is exactly like Oopsey's many posts about how
> >> >> > everyone "lies" about him.
> >> >>
> >> >> You are really loony, if you believe that.
> >> >
> >> > the person posting as peter nyikos tries belatedly to deflect attention
> >> > from his huge error
> >>
> >> So answer Peter's question - What are your degrees, and who conferred them
> >> upon you?
> >
> > another nyikos/osprey sock
>
> Of course, you can't answer the question, can you?
who is asking?
another anonymous coward?
the people i know here have known the answer to that question for two
decades, at least.
others with a grammar school ability to use the internet have had no
trouble answering the question themselves.
no wonder you're ashamed of your identity.
>
> I don't blame you for being ashamed, James.
a projecting sock!!! ha ha ha.
The Chief Instigator
It's not a cause for concern, considering he's just another anonymous whiner
who just wants to bother the literate readers.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Manitoba 3, Houston 1 (May 25: Moose advance, 4-2)
NEXT GAME: The 2009-10 opener in October, TBA
pnyikos
It would have to be something pretty exalted, since I have a Ph.D.
Is it an honorary degree? Other than that, the only degree higher
than a Ph.D. that I am aware of would be either a Habilitation (German/
Austrian system, and some might not call that a degree) or a degree
conferred by Moscow State University and possibly some other Russian
(or, earlier, Soviet) universities--Doctor of Science, IIRC.
You are far more of a coward than "sexkitten", who actually e-mailed
me using the address given at the link below. You are afraid of
having all doubt erased from your mind that I am, indeed, as ever,
Yours truly,
Peter Nyikos
Profefessor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
...or, rather, absent-mindedly copied a strange typo:
> Peter Nyikos
> Profefessor, Dept. of Mathematics
Of course, that shoud read "Professor, Dept. of Mathematics.
Haste makes waste.
Galen Hekhuis
Nothing, absolutely nothing outranks an NpD. I have one.
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> [--blarg--]
>
> It takes a special kind of idiot to concoct a post such as yours,
> suffused as it is with speculation, attempts at mind reading,
These insults are meaningless without you actually pointing out
alleged instances of these things.
> ignorance of the facts, ignore-ance of the facts, paranoia and
> outright stoopidity.
>
> And Peter, or whoever you are,
>
> You. Are. That. Idiot.
You ought to post these baseless insults to alt.flame. Its original
purpose was the pursuit of the insult *as* *an* *art* *form*, and I
hope enough people posting there still realize that. That way, they
won't care at all that
You. Have. Nothing. To. Back. Them. Up. With.
They might be especially impressed by your parsing that I am imitating
in the last line of the preceding paragraph.
Then again, they might think it is corny and/or dated.
The only way to find out is to give it a try.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Well, here is the url for the first 20 posts in that thread, including
Actually, for the whole thread, and the page to which the link below
takes one shows the first 25.
> > the Osprey post in which the "forgery" appeared. Good luck on
> > demonstrating how the events in it led up to Osprey's "forgery":
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/browse_thread/thread/aff01929776aeba4/0753ecdb4b40798c?#0753ecdb4b40798c
>
> You just did,
The only thing *there* to make anyone think the letter was *supposed*
to be from the New York Times was that Keegan had a statement, from
about two or three years earlier, to that effect from Osprey, in
his .sig. It had appeared in every previous Keegan post to the thread,
including the one to which Osprey was following up--but Osprey deleted
it.
What's more, Osprey's "forgery" was dated to only a few days earlier,
so it could not have even been ALLEGED to have been the letter
referred to in Keegan's .sig.
>idiot.
All you are doing with this insult, and in your first post to this
thread, is to show how pro-Keegan (and hence a pro-liar) you are.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> In article <20090725041812.9CBCF1A7...@www.ecn.org>,
>
>
>
> Anonymous <cri...@ecn.org> wrote:
> > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:jgkeegan-19119B...@news.individual.net...
> > > In article
> > > <d561c93e-503d-4df0-9b13-a11799c74...@k6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > >> On Jul 24, 5:23 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > That post of fauxNy's is exactly like Oopsey's many posts about how
> > >> > everyone "lies" about him.
Of course, my post made no hint of ANYONE lying about me, let alone
elizabeth's "everyone" (the Seven Musketeers) let alone *everyone*.
But elizabeth clearly has a terminal case of MMIMUDCMWTF (My Mind Is
Made Up, Don't Confuse Me With The Facts). That is one reason I
responded:
> > >> You are really loony, if you believe that.
>
> > > the person posting as peter nyikos tries belatedly to deflect attention
> > > from his huge error
Of course, you cannot prove it is an error, and you haven't even
tried--and you would be acting completely out of character if you DID
try to prove it, Keegan. It's too much fun being able to have so many
Musketeers and other allies (pawaf, Tom S., perhaps even IAAH) ready,
willing, and able to post TbBA (Truth by Blatant Assertion) in
support of your TbBA.
> > So answer Peter's question - What are your degrees, and who conferred them
> > upon you?
>
> another nyikos/osprey sock
Not mine, that's for sure.
Your colossal self-importance is showing here, Keegan, as well as
perhaps some paranoia: you seem to think that everyone who even wants
to know what degree you have MUST be a sock puppet of either me or
Osprey.
Sort of like the KGB-- Soviet citizens who wanted to see a copy of the
Soviet Constitution were often investigated by the KGB for that very
reason.
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
<40ed6560-2367-44d9...@g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 8:12 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > can you imagine a phd, andy phd, doing such a thing?
> > > What is the highest degree YOU earned, and where, Jim?
> >
> > My degree can beat up your degree.
>
> It would have to be something pretty exalted, since I have a Ph.D.
peter nyikos has a phd. there is no evidence whatsoever that you do.
there is much evidence that suggests you do not.
can you show any examples of any phd (other than the person posting as
peter nyikos) repeatedly and arrogantly bragging about it?
james g. keegan jr.
<399082fe-5585-4b3a...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> What's more, Osprey's "forgery" was dated to only a few days earlier,
> so it could not have even been ALLEGED to have been the letter
> referred to in Keegan's .sig.
osprey did screw up the date on his forgery having claimed he received
such emails ages before the date he placed on the forgery. poor osprey
is so dumb that eh shot himself in the foot in the first line.
interestingly, you are the only person who posted on this subject who
didn't realize that on first reading.
james g. keegan jr.
<d29a6521-fae5-4e04...@q14g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jul 25, 12:53 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <20090725041812.9CBCF1A7...@www.ecn.org>,
> >
> >
> >
> > Anonymous <cri...@ecn.org> wrote:
> > > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:jgkeegan-19119B...@news.individual.net...
> > > > In article
> > > > <d561c93e-503d-4df0-9b13-a11799c74...@k6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > > >> On Jul 24, 5:23 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >> > That post of fauxNy's is exactly like Oopsey's many posts about how
> > > >> > everyone "lies" about him.
>
> Of course, my post made no hint of ANYONE lying about me, let alone
> elizabeth's "everyone" (the Seven Musketeers) let alone *everyone*.
> But elizabeth clearly has a terminal case of MMIMUDCMWTF (My Mind Is
> Made Up, Don't Confuse Me With The Facts). That is one reason I
> responded:
have you noticed how the insane never accept responsibility for their
actions?
pnyikos
> In article <873bc03386181969a6c0b30617dfa...@mixmaster.it>,
> George Orwell <nob...@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:jgkeegan-20CE91...@news.individual.net...
> > > In article <20090725041812.9CBCF1A7...@www.ecn.org>,
> > > Anonymous <cri...@ecn.org> wrote:
>
> > >> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:jgkeegan-19119B...@news.individual.net...
> > >> > In article
> > >> > <d561c93e-503d-4df0-9b13-a11799c74...@k6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> > >> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > >> >> On Jul 24, 5:23 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >> > That post of fauxNy's is exactly like Oopsey's many posts about how
> > >> >> > everyone "lies" about him.
>
> > >> >> You are really loony, if you believe that.
>
> > >> > the person posting as peter nyikos tries belatedly to deflect attention
> > >> > from his huge error
>
> > >> So answer Peter's question - What are your degrees, and who conferred them
> > >> upon you?
>
> > > another nyikos/osprey sock
See my reply to Keegan of a few minutes ago.
> > Of course, you can't answer the question, can you?
>
> who is asking?
> another anonymous coward?
Yes, as anonymous as your cowardly ally "Spartakus". Oh, sure,
Spartakus's posting host and account are displayed in the headers of
his posts, but he is anonymous for all that, and it would take some
very professional detective work to nail him down.
For one thing, IIRC IAAH says that the posting hosts that Google
gives are fake.
> the people i know here have known the answer to that question for two
> decades, at least.
>
> others with a grammar school ability to use the internet have had no
> trouble answering the question themselves.
Just for fun, I went to Usenet Advanced Search, and tried putting
Keegan in for author, "degree" for all these words, and the
alternatives "college" and "university" in for "one or more of these
words"and I got one post, where the following appeared:
------------ begin excerpt---------
Hello.
I have a few basic questions that hopefully aren't too obvious.
First, here's some background. I'm in my mid-20's and born in the US.
I've got a Jr. College Degree in Computer Networking, and I've worked
at
the same place for 5 years under my degree... so lots of experience in
what I do.
---------------- end of excerpt from:
Newsgroups: misc.immigration.canada
From: "Keegan Alex" <keegana...@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 06:12:14 GMT
Local: Sat, Jan 18 2003 2:12 am
Subject: Some basic questions
I also got a lilnk to an ad for the University of Phoenix, but no
indication of a James G. Keegan, Jr. having gotten a degree there:
http://aptm.phoenix.edu/?channel=SRCH&psrc=google&keyword=college+university+degree&pvp_campaign=14210_0917_9_95&creative_desc=P158962810_Broad_Degrees_General-Degrees&Education&pvp_campaign_int=24310_0917_9_95
Peter Nyikos
Tom S.
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Jul 24, 8:06 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > Well, here is the url for the first 20 posts in that thread, including
>
>Actually, for the whole thread, and the page to which the link below
>takes one shows the first 25.
>
>> > the Osprey post in which the "forgery" appeared. Good luck on
>> > demonstrating how the events in it led up to Osprey's "forgery":
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/browse_thread/thread/aff01929776aeba4/0753ecdb4b40798c?#0753ecdb4b40798c
>>
>> You just did,
>
>The only thing *there* to make anyone think the letter was *supposed*
>to be from the New York Times was that Keegan had a statement, from
>about two or three years earlier
Try a few days earlier. The above link is from 3 Sept 2007.
>, to that effect from Osprey, in
>his .sig. It had appeared in every previous Keegan post to the thread,
>including the one to which Osprey was following up--but Osprey deleted
>it.
>
>What's more, Osprey's "forgery" was dated to only a few days earlier,
>so it could not have even been ALLEGED to have been the letter
>referred to in Keegan's .sig.
>
BINGO!! Bobby created the forgery at some time and dated it 30 August
2007. He then posted it to the group on 3 Sept 2007 where it was
immediately identified as a forgery.
All of the grammatical errors that Bobby included in the
"communication" were not mistakes that he intentionally put in. They
are a part of his normal writing style. In fact, we use those and
some other indicators to identify his socks. And few, if any, of his
socks have ever left without holes shot in them.
I will concede that not saying it was from the Times and not
specifying the type of communication may have shown an element of
"save my ass" cunning. But, a much better course of action would have
been to not post the forgery at all.
<snip>
Tom S.
pnyikos
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:35:03 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
>
>
> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Jul 24, 8:12 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > can you imagine a phd, andy phd, doing such a thing?
> >> > What is the highest degree YOU earned, and where, Jim?
>
> >> My degree can beat up your degree.
>
> >It would have to be something pretty exalted, since I have a Ph.D.
>
> >Is it an honorary degree? Other than that, the only degree higher
> >than a Ph.D. that I am aware of would be either a Habilitation (German/
> >Austrian system, and some might not call that a degree) or a degree
> >conferred by Moscow State University and possibly some other Russian
> >(or, earlier, Soviet) universities--Doctor of Science, IIRC.
>
> >You are far more of a coward than "sexkitten", who actually e-mailed
> >me using the address given at the link below. You are afraid of
> >having all doubt erased from your mind that I am, indeed, as ever,
>
> >Yours truly,
>
> >Peter Nyikos
> >Profefessor, Dept. of Mathematics
read "Professor, Dept. of Mathematics"
> Nothing, absolutely nothing outranks an NpD. I have one.
No piss-poor Degree?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> In article
> <40ed6560-2367-44d9-a19d-65f0c728f...@g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Jul 24, 8:12 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > can you imagine a phd, andy phd, doing such a thing?
> > > > What is the highest degree YOU earned, and where, Jim?
>
> > > My degree can beat up your degree.
>
> > It would have to be something pretty exalted, since I have a Ph.D.
>
> peter nyikos has a phd. there is no evidence whatsoever that you do.
Oh, there is plenty of evidence: just ask "sexkitten", who is far more
courageous than you: she e-mailed my departmental mailbox, and found
it using the url I keep posting for my home page.
You, being an internet expert, should be able to find that address
even without copying the url I keep giving. And you could try doing
the same thing she did.
But, of course, you would much rather wallow in your ignorance, a pig
satisfied in preference to a Socrates dissatisfied.
> there is much evidence that suggests you do not.
There is plenty of GIGO, at least 9 cases of it pointed out to me, and
a bunch of earlier false claims of yours about how "the real peter
nyikos would never..." at least one of which you even admitted to be
incorrect after I corrected you.
> can you show any examples of any phd (other than the person posting as
> peter nyikos) repeatedly and arrogantly bragging about it?
Can you show me any examples of me arrogantly bragging about it?
A simple Yes, without actually showing one, coming from a proven liar
like you, is meaningless.
Peter Nyikos
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > What's more, Osprey's "forgery" was dated to only a few days earlier,
> > so it could not have even been ALLEGED to have been the letter
> > referred to in Keegan's .sig.
>
> osprey did screw up the date on his forgery having claimed he received
> such emails ages before the date he placed on the forgery. poor osprey
is dumb as a fox: had he put an earlier date it WOULD have been
thought of even by me as a forgery.
> is so dumb that eh shot himself in the foot in the first line.
No, the first line was:
"This was sent to me:"
And that wasn't dumb at all. I do believe you are old enough to have
heard a song that begins about like this:
Ricky, don't lose that number,
You don't want to call nobody else.
Send it off in a lettah to yo'se-elf.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
>
>
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Jul 25, 12:53 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article <20090725041812.9CBCF1A7...@www.ecn.org>,
>
> > > Anonymous <cri...@ecn.org> wrote:
> > > > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:jgkeegan-19119B...@news.individual.net...
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <d561c93e-503d-4df0-9b13-a11799c74...@k6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > >> On Jul 24, 5:23 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >> > That post of fauxNy's is exactly like Oopsey's many posts about how
> > > > >> > everyone "lies" about him.
>
> > Of course, my post made no hint of ANYONE lying about me, let alone
> > elizabeth's "everyone" (the Seven Musketeers) let alone *everyone*.
> > But elizabeth clearly has a terminal case of MMIMUDCMWTF (My Mind Is
> > Made Up, Don't Confuse Me With The Facts). That is one reason I
> > responded:
>
> have you noticed how the insane never accept responsibility for their
> actions?
It *is* quite possible that "elizabeth" is insane, but I prefer the
theory that [s]he is crazy as a fox. Ditto the other six Musketeers,
including yo'se-elf. [spelling inspired by old popular song]
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:19:45 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
>
>
> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Jul 24, 8:06 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> > Well, here is the url for the first 20 posts in that thread, including
>
> >Actually, for the whole thread, and the page to which the link below
> >takes one shows the first 25.
>
> >> > the Osprey post in which the "forgery" appeared. Good luck on
> >> > demonstrating how the events in it led up to Osprey's "forgery":
>
> >> You just did,
>
> >The only thing *there* to make anyone think the letter was *supposed*
> >to be from the New York Times was that Keegan had a statement, from
> >about two or three years earlier
> Try a few days earlier. The above link is from 3 Sept 2007.
> >, to that effect from Osprey, in
> >his .sig. It had appeared in every previous Keegan post to the thread,
> >including the one to which Osprey was following up--but Osprey deleted
> >it.
I was referring to the following .sig, still posted frequently by
Keegan:
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA...@comcast.com
I traced the "all ready" quote to a post that was done in 2004 or 2005
(I forget which). Can you find a post of a few days earlier that at
least followed up to a post of Osprey's where he says the same
identical thing?
> >What's more, Osprey's "forgery" was dated to only a few days earlier,
> >so it could not have even been ALLEGED to have been the letter
> >referred to in Keegan's .sig.
>
> BINGO!!
Glad you agree with me.
Peter Nyikos
Galen Hekhuis
No, but it sure did impress some of the doctors where I used to work.
I was a "laboratory instrument maker" at a university medical school.
Like most universities, we had people with PhD's all over the place.
About the only thing lower than a post-doc was a grad student working
on some "advanced" degree. We had real doctors too, MD's, lots of
them. We had people with MD's and PhD's. Forgive me if I'm not that
impressed with your degree.
Tom S.
Tom S.
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Jul 27, 6:42 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <399082fe-5585-4b3a-b3ab-deab70b7d...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > What's more, Osprey's "forgery" was dated to only a few days earlier,
>> > so it could not have even been ALLEGED to have been the letter
>> > referred to in Keegan's .sig.
>>
>> osprey did screw up the date on his forgery having claimed he received
>> such emails ages before the date he placed on the forgery. poor osprey
>
>is dumb as a fox: had he put an earlier date it WOULD have been
>thought of even by me as a forgery.
>
>> is so dumb that eh shot himself in the foot in the first line.
>
>No, the first line was:
>
>"This was sent to me:"
Try the first line of the "communication":
"Dated: August 30, 2007"
The word "dated" is never used before the date in any type of formal
correspondence. The date stands alone.
His next mistake was what he didn't include after the date line. Can
you guess what it is??
<snip>
Tom S.
Tom S.
Were you just going to snip then ignore the rest of what I posted and
hope it went away?? Very Bobbyish ..... Here it is so you don't have
to look it up:
------------------begin insertion----------------------------
Bobby created the forgery at some time and dated it 30 August
2007. He then posted it to the group on 3 Sept 2007 where it was
immediately identified as a forgery.
All of the grammatical errors that Bobby included in the
"communication" were not mistakes that he intentionally put in. They
are a part of his normal writing style. In fact, we use those and
some other indicators to identify his socks. And few, if any, of his
socks have ever left without holes shot in them.
I will concede that not saying it was from the Times and not
specifying the type of communication may have shown an element of
"save my ass" cunning. But, a much better course of action would have
been to not post the forgery at all.
----------------------- end insertion --------------------------------
Tom S.
Osprey
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is funny as hell. The time and energy you're putting into all of
this. You are so full of the word "loser".
First:
I put in the word dated to tell you the date I received that.
Second: If you are studying my writing, you're even a bigger loser
than I thought.
Third: Peter had this dead on a few weeks ago and you'll never figure
it out
Fourth: With all of the time, energy, and personal anguish you are
putting yourself through just being obsessed over me, what I do, my
life, how I write, and so forth you should take a step back and
realize you are in serious need of a life.
Fifth: I haven't had any sock puppets. Don't even try to figure it
out, you never will.
I've got you hooked just like a fish..I can pull the string and just
drag you through the water as I please.
IAAH
As opposed to someone who brags of keeping 'notes'? Who was
that?
Oh, it was you.
>
> Third: Peter had this dead on a few weeks ago and you'll never figure
> it out
Translated as "I'll never explain what I mean, I'm trying to
be enigmatic."
>
> Fourth: With all of the time, energy, and personal anguish you are
> putting yourself through just being obsessed over me, what I do, my
> life, how I write, and so forth you should take a step back and
> realize you are in serious need of a life.
How long did you spend trying to find out who I am? IPs,
names, where I live?
>
> Fifth: I haven't had any sock puppets. Don't even try to figure it
> out, you never will.
Harleyman.
>
> I've got you hooked just like a fish..I can pull the string and just
> drag you through the water as I please.
In a week or two your cycle will pass into the downturn and
the story will be very different.
--
"...it may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep
your head down, plod along, and appease those who demand:
'Sit down and shut up,' but that's the worthless, easy path;
that's a quitter's way out."
- Sarah Palin, as she quits her job half-way through her term.
Osprey
On some things yes, like when you tell a lie. But I'm not going to sit
and "study" your writing. I've got a life.
>
>
>
> > Third: Peter had this dead on a few weeks ago and you'll never figure
> > it out
>
> Translated as "I'll never explain what I mean, I'm trying to
> be enigmatic."
No moron, I'll never explain just how you've been duped.
I'm enjoying doing it over and over.
>
>
>
> > Fourth: With all of the time, energy, and personal anguish you are
> > putting yourself through just being obsessed over me, what I do, my
> > life, how I write, and so forth you should take a step back and
> > realize you are in serious need of a life.
>
> How long did you spend trying to find out who I am? IPs,
> names, where I live?
Maybe at the most, 2 minutes. You told on yourself.
>
>
>
> > Fifth: I haven't had any sock puppets. Don't even try to figure it
> > out, you never will.
>
> Harleyman.
Nope, I know who it was though..:o)
First name Kevin. And he enjoys riding Harley Motorcycles. He has a
nice one.
>
>
>
> > I've got you hooked just like a fish..I can pull the string and just
> > drag you through the water as I please.
>
> In a week or two your cycle will pass into the downturn and
> the story will be very different.
Nope, but enjoy trying to chase.
IAAH
Really? You were the one telling me I was someone named
'Adam' based on my writing.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Third: Peter had this dead on a few weeks ago and you'll never figure
>>> it out
>> Translated as "I'll never explain what I mean, I'm trying to
>> be enigmatic."
>
> No moron, I'll never explain just how you've been duped.
> I'm enjoying doing it over and over.
Sure, sure. Keep telling yourself that, if it helps.
>
>>
>>
>>> Fourth: With all of the time, energy, and personal anguish you are
>>> putting yourself through just being obsessed over me, what I do, my
>>> life, how I write, and so forth you should take a step back and
>>> realize you are in serious need of a life.
>> How long did you spend trying to find out who I am? IPs,
>> names, where I live?
>
> Maybe at the most, 2 minutes. You told on yourself.
And yet you couldn't even get a name, or an IP, or a city
until I told you that - and we both know you spent quite a
lot more than 2 minutes on it. You were obsessed, Bipolar
Bob. Admitting that is the first step on the road to recovery.
Also, if you haven't told your therapist about your amateur
stalking, you should.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Fifth: I haven't had any sock puppets. Don't even try to figure it
>>> out, you never will.
>> Harleyman.
>
> Nope, I know who it was though..:o)
> First name Kevin. And he enjoys riding Harley Motorcycles. He has a
> nice one.
Ooooh, Kevin. That's not a made-up name or anything.
Isn't it just the funniest thing that 'Kevin' had the same
written tics and habits that you do, yet was supposed to be
a completely different person - posting from your home...
(Yes, I checked it out, considering your record of
forgery. Don't get your panties in a bunch).
>
>
>>
>>
>>> I've got you hooked just like a fish..I can pull the string and just
>>> drag you through the water as I please.
>> In a week or two your cycle will pass into the downturn and
>> the story will be very different.
>
> Nope, but enjoy trying to chase.
I'm not 'chasing', Bipolar Bob. I'm laughing.
Ray Fischer
>On Jul 24, 8:12 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > can you imagine a phd, andy phd, doing such a thing?
>> > What is the highest degree YOU earned, and where, Jim?
>>
>> My degree can beat up your degree.
>
>It would have to be something pretty exalted, since I have a Ph.D.
More importantly you have a problem with honesty. A real degree
trumps any fake degree.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>You ought to post these baseless insults to alt.flame.
98.1% on the irony meter.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
The Chief Instigator
>"Peter Nyikos"
Thanks for continuing to display that you're definitely a Phony Nyikos.
Sooner or later, you'll trip and she'll have you nailed to the proverbial
wall. (Film at 10.)
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Manitoba 3, Houston 1 (May 25: Moose advance, 4-2)
NEXT GAME: The 2009-10 opener in October, TBA
james g. keegan jr.
<d33b5610-2f93-4e53...@d4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 6:38 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > > It would have to be something pretty exalted, since I have a Ph.D.
> >
> > peter nyikos has a phd. there is no evidence whatsoever that you do.
>
> Oh, there is plenty of evidence: just ask "sexkitten", who is far more
> courageous than you: she e-mailed my departmental mailbox, and found
> it using the url I keep posting for my home page.
which does nothing to support the suggestion that you are peter nyikos
are the same person.
> > there is much evidence that suggests you do not.
>
> There is plenty of GIGO, at least 9 cases of it pointed out to me, and
> a bunch of earlier false claims of yours about how "the real peter
> nyikos would never..." at least one of which you even admitted to be
> incorrect after I corrected you.
why don't you show that to readers, unless you are lying again.
as your sidekick osprey has been quoted so often as saying:
"If you can't prove it on your next post, by default you admit you
lied."
coward bobby heishman posting as"SeahawkFan" <deseah...@hotmail.com>
in news:xb6dnQH276BlFX_a...@comcast.com:
james g. keegan jr.
<45d7d927-cae0-4c97...@d32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
you just validated the implications of my statement.
james g. keegan jr.
<0eb4b556-8127-4568...@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 6:42 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <399082fe-5585-4b3a-b3ab-deab70b7d...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > What's more, Osprey's "forgery" was dated to only a few days earlier,
> > > so it could not have even been ALLEGED to have been the letter
> > > referred to in Keegan's .sig.
> >
> > osprey did screw up the date on his forgery having claimed he received
> > such emails ages before the date he placed on the forgery. poor osprey
>
> is dumb as a fox: had he put an earlier date it WOULD have been
> thought of even by me as a forgery.
>
> > is so dumb that eh shot himself in the foot in the first line.
>
> No, the first line was:
>
> "This was sent to me:"
that was the line of his post, idiot, not of his forgery. his forgery,
as i said, began with a date that proved he had forged.
james g. keegan jr.
<0d5eccfe-56b1-4c65...@l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jul 25, 5:59 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > another nyikos/osprey sock
>
> See my reply to Keegan of a few minutes ago.
you are replying to keegan, you imbecile.
The Chief Instigator
Heishman's everything _but_ subtle.
Spartakus
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > can you imagine a phd, andy phd, doing such a thing?
> > > What is the highest degree YOU earned, and where, Jim?
> > My degree can beat up your degree.
> It would have to be something pretty exalted, since I have a Ph.D.
Dr. Pavlov! Your dog needs a hanky!
> Is it an honorary degree? Other than that, the only degree higher
> than a Ph.D. that I am aware of would be either a Habilitation (German/
> Austrian system, and some might not call that a degree) or a degree
> conferred by Moscow State University and possibly some other Russian
> (or, earlier, Soviet) universities--Doctor of Science, IIRC.
>
> You are far more of a coward than "sexkitten", who actually e-mailed
> me using the address given at the link below.
More like, your actual identity is not that big a deal to me. The
only reason why I express doubt (the ONLY reason) is your enthusiastic
embrace of the role of Oopsrey's lap dog. I find it hard to believe
that someone as "elitist" as you would support a barely literate low-
life like Robert Heishman.
> You are afraid of having all doubt erased from your mind that
> I am, indeed, as ever,
>
> Yours truly,
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Profefessor, Dept. of Mathematics
I don't normally flame typos, and that one is just too precious for
words, perfefessor. :-)
Spartakus
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> ...or, rather, absent-mindedly copied a strange typo:
> > Peter Nyikos
> > Profefessor, Dept. of Mathematics
> Of course, that shoud read "Professor, Dept. of Mathematics.
^^^^^
> Haste makes waste.
Indeed.
Spartakus
> > It takes a special kind of idiot to concoct a post such as yours,
> > suffused as it is with speculation, attempts at mind reading,
> > ignorance of the facts, ignore-ance of the facts, paranoia and
> > outright stoopidity.
> These insults are meaningless without you actually pointing out
> alleged instances of these things.
Res ipsa loquitur, perfefessor. The thing speaks for itself. Your
original post is exactly as I described: suffused with speculation,
attempts at mind reading, ignorance of the facts, ignore-ance of the
facts, paranoia and outright stoopidity.
> > And Peter, or whoever you are,
> >
> > You. Are. That. Idiot.
> You ought to post these baseless insults to alt.flame.
Why didn't you?
> Its original purpose was the pursuit of the insult *as*
> *an* *art* *form*, and I hope enough people posting
> there still realize that. That way, they won't care at
> all that You. Have. Nothing. To. Back. Them. Up. With.
You didn't have anything to back up your, um, thesis in your original
post. In fact, you posted a link to a thread that directly
contradicts your "thesis". Oh well. Since you brought up alt.flame,
I'll quote (from memory) a question from one of that group's leading
flamers, Andrew Clayton:
"What is this dope trying to accomplish?"
Spartakus
> > > the Osprey post in which the "forgery" appeared. Good luck on
> > > demonstrating how the events in it led up to Osprey's "forgery":
> > You just did,
> The only thing *there* to make anyone think the letter was *supposed*
> to be from the New York Times was that Keegan had a statement, from
> about two or three years earlier, to that effect from Osprey, in
> his .sig. It had appeared in every previous Keegan post to the thread,
> including the one to which Osprey was following up--but Osprey deleted
> it.
>
> What's more, Osprey's "forgery" was dated to only a few days earlier,
> so it could not have even been ALLEGED to have been the letter
> referred to in Keegan's .sig.
Are you really this dumb? Since the "email" purported to be from the
NYTimes is an obvious forgery, why would anyone (especially with a
PhD!) put any credence in the Date(d)?
Osprey
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > the Osprey post in which the "forgery" appeared. Good luck on
> > > > demonstrating how the events in it led up to Osprey's "forgery":
> > > You just did,
> > The only thing *there* to make anyone think the letter was *supposed*
> > to be from the New York Times was that Keegan had a statement, from
> > about two or three years earlier, to that effect from Osprey, in
> > his .sig. It had appeared in every previous Keegan post to the thread,
> > including the one to which Osprey was following up--but Osprey deleted
> > it.
>
> > What's more, Osprey's "forgery" was dated to only a few days earlier,
> > so it could not have even been ALLEGED to have been the letter
> > referred to in Keegan's .sig.
>
> Are you really this dumb? Since the "email" purported to be from the
> NYTimes is an obvious forgery,
Where is any such e-mail that says it was from the NYTimes?
Oh, and did you ever get around to apologzing for your lie you claimed
just a few days ago when you said that I claimed to be an expert in
law enforcement?
I noticed, the true coward that you are, you got quiet and couldn't
muster up an apology.
james g. keegan jr.
<c4659209-1592-42cf...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Spartakus <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
[...]
> > You are far more of a coward than "sexkitten", who actually e-mailed
> > me using the address given at the link below.
>
> More like, your actual identity is not that big a deal to me. The
> only reason why I express doubt (the ONLY reason) is your enthusiastic
> embrace of the role of Oopsrey's lap dog. I find it hard to believe
> that someone as "elitist" as you would support a barely literate low-
> life like Robert Heishman.
that reason is a biggie, but it's not the *only* reason for me. the
person posting as peter nyikos today is far, far less ethical then the
person who posted as peter nyikos more than a decade ago. Admittedly,
the writing style is equally bad despite the span of years, and that
would be an extremely difficult thing to mimic, but there is something
wrong with the current version.
elizabeth
> In article
> <c4659209-1592-42cf-ad4f-3c8b016b9...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Well, the real PiNhead was a mathematician, and they are noted for a
lack of human communication skills and many personality
disorders . . . but the reason I don't believe fauxNy is who he says
he is, it's the sheer volume of condswallop he spews. What real
academic has that much time to just BS online? Oh, maybe in groups
involved in his field, but really . .. it could be a consortium, or
someone with a huge personal grudge against the realy PiNhead, like a
disgruntled ex student, sitting alone in a cabin . ...
Spartakus
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > the Osprey post in which the "forgery" appeared. Good luck on
> > > > > demonstrating how the events in it led up to Osprey's "forgery":
> > > > You just did, idiot.
> > > The only thing *there* to make anyone think the letter was *supposed*
> > > to be from the New York Times was that Keegan had a statement, from
> > > about two or three years earlier, to that effect from Osprey, in
> > > his .sig. It had appeared in every previous Keegan post to the thread,
> > > including the one to which Osprey was following up--but Osprey deleted
> > > it.
> > >
> > > What's more, Osprey's "forgery" was dated to only a few days earlier,
> > > so it could not have even been ALLEGED to have been the letter
> > > referred to in Keegan's .sig.
>
> > Are you really this dumb? Since the "email" purported to be from the
> > NYTimes is an obvious forgery,
> Where is any such e-mail that says it was from the NYTimes?
Context, Bobby, context. You claimed that Keegan was in trouble with
the NYTimes' legal department. Then you produced a (forged) email.
And then you scrambled to produce an exculpatory explanation once the
forgery became apparent.
Oh, and before you try claiming that context isn't important, don't
forget all the fun that's been had with the statement "I am a child
molester" that came from your keyboard.
> Oh, and did you ever get around to apologzing for your lie you claimed
> just a few days ago when you said that I claimed to be an expert in
> law enforcement?
What meaningful difference is there between being an "expert" and
being "experienced and knowledgeable"? Is the difference big enough
for you to say that using one term and not another is lying?
If there really is a meaningful difference, I apologize for giving you
more credit than you deserve.
> I noticed, the true coward that you are, you got quiet and couldn't
> muster up an apology.
You didn't ask for an apology, you passive-aggressive twonk.
Osprey
> Osprey <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > > the Osprey post in which the "forgery" appeared. Good luck on
> > > > > > demonstrating how the events in it led up to Osprey's "forgery":
> > > > > You just did, idiot.
> > > > The only thing *there* to make anyone think the letter was *supposed*
> > > > to be from the New York Times was that Keegan had a statement, from
> > > > about two or three years earlier, to that effect from Osprey, in
> > > > his .sig. It had appeared in every previous Keegan post to the thread,
> > > > including the one to which Osprey was following up--but Osprey deleted
> > > > it.
>
> > > > What's more, Osprey's "forgery" was dated to only a few days earlier,
> > > > so it could not have even been ALLEGED to have been the letter
> > > > referred to in Keegan's .sig.
>
> > > Are you really this dumb? Since the "email" purported to be from the
> > > NYTimes is an obvious forgery,
> > Where is any such e-mail that says it was from the NYTimes?
>
> Context, Bobby, context.
Context? Oh, that's right the common liberal cop out. When you can't
support one of your statements, fall back on context.
You claimed that Keegan was in trouble with
> the NYTimes' legal department.
As far as I know he was told about copyright infringement. He violated
their terms on using copyrighted material. Their terms are easily
available for anyone to read on their website.
> Then you produced a (forged) email.
I did? Where did I say it was an e-mail? Where is your proof that
"I" produced it?
Oh yea, you're going to fall back on context.
> And then you scrambled to produce an exculpatory explanation once the
> forgery became apparent.
No, I've just watched you morons for over two years obsess over
something very trivial and stupid.
And you'll obsess over it for the next five years, maybe longer.
>
> Oh, and before you try claiming that context isn't important, don't
> forget all the fun that's been had with the statement "I am a child
> molester" that came from your keyboard.
That never came from my keyboard. But if you're going to lie like
that, then I can say the same for you.
>
> > Oh, and did you ever get around to apologzing for your lie you claimed
> > just a few days ago when you said that I claimed to be an expert in
> > law enforcement?
>
> What meaningful difference is there between being an "expert" and
> being "experienced and knowledgeable"? Is the difference big enough
> for you to say that using one term and not another is lying?
You said I claimed to be an expert, which I've never claimed that.
Which makes your statement a lie. Nothing out of the ordinary, you've
lied before.
I would just like to know if you're going to apologize for lying like
that.
>
> If there really is a meaningful difference, I apologize for giving you
> more credit than you deserve.
Liberals never admit when they are wrong, liberals never apologize
when they lie.
Go ahead, prove I'm wrong.
You were wrong, you lied.
>
> > I noticed, the true coward that you are, you got quiet and couldn't
> > muster up an apology.
>
> You didn't ask for an apology, you passive-aggressive twonk.
A man wouldn't wait for someone to ask, a man would step up and
apologize when he was wrong.
A boy will play silly games.
Boy
james g. keegan jr.
<c2a51cd1-3b3b-46f1...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
Spartakus <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Osprey <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> > > Are you really this dumb? �Since the "email" purported to be from the
> > > NYTimes is an obvious forgery,
>
> > Where is any such e-mail that says it was from the NYTimes?
>
> Context, Bobby, context. You claimed that Keegan was in trouble with
> the NYTimes' legal department. Then you produced a (forged) email.
> And then you scrambled to produce an exculpatory explanation once the
> forgery became apparent.
anyone who even casually read the threads would have seen what happened.
bobby got caught in a lie that i had been in trouble with the new york
times, and it bothered him that i repeatedly reminded him of this. the
email he forged from the new york times was his illiterate effort to
prove that his earlier lie was not a lie.
of course, the whole charade fell apart on him.
it didn't take a phd to figure that out. in fact, it was common
knowledge and had sort of dies out until, in a fit of self-destructive
behavior, bobby started lying about it all over again .... something he
seems to do quite often (recycle his lies).
Tom S.
Nice lie.
>
>Second: If you are studying my writing, you're even a bigger loser
>than I thought.
No study required. Your poor grasp of English syntax and grammar is
almost painfully obvious.
>
>Third: Peter had this dead on a few weeks ago and you'll never figure
>it out
Your lap dog has never had this "dead on".
>
>Fourth: With all of the time, energy, and personal anguish you are
>putting yourself through just being obsessed over me, what I do, my
>life, how I write, and so forth you should take a step back and
>realize you are in serious need of a life.
Keep dreaming, Bobby. You know nothing of my life and what it has or
lacks. And there has been no personal anguish involved.
>
>Fifth: I haven't had any sock puppets. Don't even try to figure it
>out, you never will.
ObKy20
>
>I've got you hooked just like a fish..I can pull the string and just
>drag you through the water as I please.
No, Bobby. You have earned my eternal enmity and watching you try to
squirm off my hook is one of the tiny pleasures of life.
Tom S.
Tom S.
>Osprey wrote, On 7/27/09 10:40 PM:
>> On Jul 27, 9:32 pm, IAAH<n...@email.exist> wrote:
>>> Osprey wrote, On 7/27/09 10:28 PM:
<snip>
>>>> Fifth: I haven't had any sock puppets. Don't even try to figure it
>>>> out, you never will.
>>> Harleyman.
>>
>> Nope, I know who it was though..:o)
>> First name Kevin. And he enjoys riding Harley Motorcycles. He has a
>> nice one.
>
>Ooooh, Kevin. That's not a made-up name or anything.
>
>Isn't it just the funniest thing that 'Kevin' had the same
>written tics and habits that you do, yet was supposed to be
>a completely different person - posting from your home...
OOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHH!!! Then he must be related to ObKy20, who also was
posting from Bobby's computer and had the same mannerisms as Bobby.
ObKy20 was Bobby's brother-in-law. We know this, because Bobby said
so and Bobby would never lie to us, would he. </sarcasm>
> (Yes, I checked it out, considering your record of
>forgery. Don't get your panties in a bunch).
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I've got you hooked just like a fish..I can pull the string and just
>>>> drag you through the water as I please.
>>> In a week or two your cycle will pass into the downturn and
>>> the story will be very different.
>>
>> Nope, but enjoy trying to chase.
>
>I'm not 'chasing', Bipolar Bob. I'm laughing.
Tom S.
Tom S.
Only by you. Certainly not from anyone at the NY Times.
> He violated
>their terms on using copyrighted material. Their terms are easily
>available for anyone to read on their website.
>
>
>
>>�Then you produced a (forged) email.
>
>I did? Where did I say it was an e-mail?
Then, you were careful not to say that, because you knew you couldn't
create credible headers. However, within the past few months you have
called it an e-mail on more than one occasion.
> Where is your proof that
>"I" produced it?
That has been done more than once.
<snip>
>> If there really is a meaningful difference, I apologize for giving you
>> more credit than you deserve.
>
>Liberals never admit when they are wrong, liberals never apologize
>when they lie.
>Go ahead, prove I'm wrong.
>
>You were wrong, you lied.
BBBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!! Wrong answer.
Wrong != lied
Tom S.
<snip>
Osprey
What lie?
>
>
>
> >Second: If you are studying my writing, you're even a bigger loser
> >than I thought.
>
> No study required.
Yes, study. You've absolutely become obsessed.
Your poor grasp of English syntax and grammar is
> almost painfully obvious.
Hmm, wonder why I did so well in English and Research?
3.7 GPA
>
>
>
> >Third: Peter had this dead on a few weeks ago and you'll never figure
> >it out
>
> Your lap dog has never had this "dead on".
Yes he has.
>
>
>
> >Fourth: With all of the time, energy, and personal anguish you are
> >putting yourself through just being obsessed over me, what I do, my
> >life, how I write, and so forth you should take a step back and
> >realize you are in serious need of a life.
>
> Keep dreaming, Bobby. You know nothing of my life and what it has or
> lacks. And there has been no personal anguish involved.
There is nothing to know about your life, you spend it in a ng
obsessing over other people, making things up, guessing, and studying
people in a ng.
>
>
>
> >Fifth: I haven't had any sock puppets. Don't even try to figure it
> >out, you never will.
>
> ObKy20
Nope, wrong again Jethro.
>
>
>
> >I've got you hooked just like a fish..I can pull the string and just
> >drag you through the water as I please.
>
> No, Bobby.
Yes Jethro
>You have earned my eternal enmity
Who cares? Waste your life.
Osprey
Obsessed!!!
>
> > Where is your proof that
> >"I" produced it?
>
> That has been done more than once.
Absolutely 100% obsessed.
>
> <snip>
>
> >> If there really is a meaningful difference, I apologize for giving you
> >> more credit than you deserve.
>
> >Liberals never admit when they are wrong, liberals never apologize
> >when they lie.
> >Go ahead, prove I'm wrong.
>
> >You were wrong, you lied.
>
> BBBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!! Wrong answer.
>
> Wrong != lied
>
> Tom S.
> <snip>- Hide quoted text -
Ray Fischer
>On Jul 28, 3:38�pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> Osprey <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > Where is any such e-mail that says it was from the NYTimes?
>>
>> Context, Bobby, context. �
>
>Context? Oh, that's right the common liberal cop out. When you can't
>support one of your statements, fall back on context.
>> Oh, and before you try claiming that context isn't important, don't
>> forget all the fun that's been had with the statement "I am a child
>> molester" that came from your keyboard.
>
>That never came from my keyboard.
It most certainly did.
> But if you're going to lie like
Stop lying, Asshole.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Osprey
> Osprey <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 28, 3:38 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> Osprey <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Where is any such e-mail that says it was from the NYTimes?
>
> >> Context, Bobby, context.
>
> >Context? Oh, that's right the common liberal cop out. When you can't
> >support one of your statements, fall back on context.
> [...]
> >> Oh, and before you try claiming that context isn't important, don't
> >> forget all the fun that's been had with the statement "I am a child
> >> molester" that came from your keyboard.
>
> >That never came from my keyboard.
>
> It most certainly did.
Show the post, the ENTIRE post.
IAAH
What? Suddenly you think that context IS important?
--
"...it may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep
your head down, plod along, and appease those who demand:
'Sit down and shut up,' but that's the worthless, easy path;
that's a quitter's way out."
- Sarah Palin, as she quits her job half-way through her term.
elizabeth
There is no Irony Meter built that can withstand the next Oopseyism:
> Absolutely 100% obsessed.
Yes, you sure are, OopseyWhoopsey.
Ray Fischer
And then are you going to admit that you wrote those words?
No, of course not. You're a lying coward with no honor.
---------------------------------------------------------
From noneed...@mail.com Thu Oct 2 09:23:56 PDT 2003
Article: 764508 of talk.abortion
Path: typhoon.sonic.net!feed.news.sonic.net!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!cycny01.gnilink.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!small1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:32:42 -0500
From: "Osprey" <noneed...@mail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion
References: <290920030800525526%dba...@barnsco.com> <lx6cnQpgX_Z...@comcast.com> <290920030850297965%dba...@barnsco.com> <gUudnSR996Q...@comcast.com> <290920032004115130%dba...@barnsco.com> <cCKdnaQRUu2...@comcast.com> <290920032129252425%dba...@barnsco.com> <IoadnbeOZM2...@comcast.com> <290920032140583978%dba...@barnsco.com> <3nWdneHOlY7...@comcast.com> <300920030803486157%dba...@barnsco.com> <DMqcnXBEs94...@comcast.com> <ra6knvcmgfk32dv69...@4ax.com>
Subject: Re: Are the ones calling themselves pro-choice really the ones that are anti-choice
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 20:32:46 -0400
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Message-ID: <I0qdnYyFwbY...@comcast.com>
Lines: 73
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.34.53.121
X-Trace: sv3-3GOFvQhGo0YVO1vnInK3ncBeF0sRqHmEg5MIjI3HVD+pAGYNNHJbXUGkCWdCUQ6wVFVxyC6I7X5yUQl!OXyU5dU6tl4O98znAe3JPbTffQOcg6hz+VCzC+uLe4/YYWU6eL17xWDvOqeG
X-Complaints-To: ab...@comcast.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dm...@comcast.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.1
Xref: typhoon.sonic.net talk.abortion:764508 alt.abortion:492267
"Lawrence E. McKnight" <lawrence.del...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:ra6knvcmgfk32dv69...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 11:26:16 -0400, "Osprey" <noneed...@mail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"David Barnes" <dba...@barnsco.com> wrote in message
> >news:300920030803486157%dba...@barnsco.com...
> >> In article <3nWdneHOlY7...@comcast.com>, Osprey
> >> <noneed...@mail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > > Screw you David Barnes
> >> > > >
> >> > > > You are nothing but a lying piece of trash
> >> > >
> >> > > LOL! Come on! Put up or shut up. What do you claim to "know?"
(Is
> >> > > this what you teach your children - when someone gets the best of
you,
> >> > > lie?)
> >> >
> >> > Sorry David, but I all ready have proven it and shown it. Your
> >ignorance is
> >> > not my fault.
> >>
> >> Does the Department of Corrections and the State Attorney General know
> >> that you, as a member of the Department of Corrections are on a
> >> newsgroup claiming to be a Law Enforcement Officer and stating publicly
> >> that you have investigated someone and that you are now libeling that
> >> person with your lies?
> >
> >Stop whining.
> >
> >Are you aware that if you are lying, and you
> >> are, the State of Delaware might be viewed by the court as having some
> >> liability? What would Attorney General Jane Brady think of you expose
> >> her department to such tortious liability?
> >
> >Then do something.
> >
> >Go ahead, because I have a wonderful counter suit for you.
> >
> >And with your record, you can't afford any more losses.
>
> Osprey, you had best be very cautious here. You do realize, of
> course, if a suit were filed, all computer records could be be
> subpoenaed,
Really?
Wow, imagine that. What I have on computer files, including message headers
and ID's is David Barnes
a) claiming I am a child molester
b) saying I abuse children
and if ANY of your activity on state computers was non-job
> related, you could be in major difficulties, especially if any of the
> equipment was purchased with federal funds.
>
> If any of this activity involved accessing law enforcement data-bases
> for non-job related purposes, more than your livlihood could be at
> stake. You would be running the risk of finding out what life inside
> the cell is like.
yawn
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
james g. keegan jr.
<44f74fab-3a47-4bff...@j21g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
Osprey <Ospr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 6:57�pm, Tom S. <tscal...@cox.net> wrote:
[...]
> > Your poor grasp of English syntax and grammar is
> > almost painfully obvious.
very true.
>
> Hmm, wonder why I did so well in English and Research?
> 3.7 GPA
you're 4th tier diploma mill was earning its lowest of the low rating.
Osprey
> Osprey wrote, On 7/29/09 8:53 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 29, 2:58 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> Osprey<Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Jul 28, 3:38 pm, Spartakus<sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >>>> Osprey<Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Where is any such e-mail that says it was from the NYTimes?
> >>>> Context, Bobby, context.
> >>> Context? Oh, that's right the common liberal cop out. When you can't
> >>> support one of your statements, fall back on context.
> >> [...]
> >>>> Oh, and before you try claiming that context isn't important, don't
> >>>> forget all the fun that's been had with the statement "I am a child
> >>>> molester" that came from your keyboard.
> >>> That never came from my keyboard.
> >> It most certainly did.
>
> > Show the post, the ENTIRE post.
>
> What? Suddenly you think that context IS important?
It's the liberal "wild" card. When ever a liberal can't support his or
her assertion, they just pull out the wild card.
Osprey
> Osprey <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 29, 2:58 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> Osprey <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jul 28, 3:38 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> >> Osprey <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Where is any such e-mail that says it was from the NYTimes?
>
> >> >> Context, Bobby, context.
>
> >> >Context? Oh, that's right the common liberal cop out. When you can't
> >> >support one of your statements, fall back on context.
> >> [...]
> >> >> Oh, and before you try claiming that context isn't important, don't
> >> >> forget all the fun that's been had with the statement "I am a child
> >> >> molester" that came from your keyboard.
>
> >> >That never came from my keyboard.
>
> >> It most certainly did.
>
> >Show the post, the ENTIRE post.
>
> And then are you going to admit that you wrote those words?
> No, of course not. You're a lying coward with no honor.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Article: 764508 of talk.abortion
> Path: typhoon.sonic.net!feed.news.sonic.net!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!cycny01.gnilink.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!small1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:32:42 -0500
> Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion
> References: <290920030800525526%dba...@barnsco.com> <lx6cnQpgX_Z...@comcast.com> <290920030850297965%dba...@barnsco.com> <gUudnSR996Q...@comcast.com> <290920032004115130%dba...@barnsco.com> <cCKdnaQRUu2...@comcast.com> <290920032129252425%dba...@barnsco.com> <IoadnbeOZM2...@comcast.com> <290920032140583978%dba...@barnsco.com> <3nWdneHOlY7...@comcast.com> <300920030803486157%dba...@barnsco.com> <DMqcnXBEs94...@comcast.com> <ra6knvcmgfk32dv69...@4ax.com>
> Subject: Re: Are the ones calling themselves pro-choice really the ones that are anti-choice
> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 20:32:46 -0400
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
> Lines: 73
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.34.53.121
> X-Trace: sv3-3GOFvQhGo0YVO1vnInK3ncBeF0sRqHmEg5MIjI3HVD+pAGYNNHJbXUGkCWdCUQ6wVFVxyC6I7X5yUQl!OXyU5dU6tl4O98znAe3JPbTffQOcg6hz+VCzC+uLe4/YYWU6eL17xWDvOqeG
> X-Complaints-To: ab...@comcast.net
> X-DMCA-Complaints-To: d...@comcast.net
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
> X-Postfilter: 1.1
> Xref: typhoon.sonic.net talk.abortion:764508 alt.abortion:492267
>
> messagenews:ra6knvcmgfk32dv69...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 11:26:16 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstok...@mail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >"David Barnes" <dbar...@barnsco.com> wrote in message
> > >news:300920030803486157%dba...@barnsco.com...
> > >> In article <3nWdneHOlY7U8eSiU-K...@comcast.com>, Osprey
Now, where do you see me claiming that I was any sort of a child
molester?
Oh wait, you don't, you took a sentence and just picked out words.
Thanks for posting that, it demonstrates just how wicked you are at
lying.
pnyikos
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:02:09 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
>
>
> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Jul 27, 5:57 pm, Galen Hekhuis <ghekh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:35:03 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >On Jul 24, 8:12 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >> > What is the highest degree YOU earned, and where, Jim?
>
> >> >> My degree can beat up your degree.
>
> >> >It would have to be something pretty exalted, since I have a Ph.D.
>
> >> >than a Ph.D. that I am aware of would be either a Habilitation (German/
> >> >Austrian system, and some might not call that a degree) or a degree
> >> >conferred by Moscow State University and possibly some other Russian
> >> >(or, earlier, Soviet) universities--Doctor of Science, IIRC.
>
> >> >having all doubt erased from your mind that I am, indeed, as ever,
>
> >> >Yours truly,
>
> >> >Profefessor, Dept. of Mathematics
> >read "Professor, Dept. of Mathematics"
> >> >University of South Carolina
> >> >http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
>
> >> Nothing, absolutely nothing outranks an NpD. I have one.
>
> >No piss-poor Degree?
>
> No, but it sure did impress some of the doctors where I used to work.
> I was a "laboratory instrument maker" at a university medical school.
> Like most universities, we had people with PhD's all over the place.
> About the only thing lower than a post-doc was a grad student working
> on some "advanced" degree. We had real doctors too, MD's, lots of
> them. We had people with MD's and PhD's. Forgive me if I'm not that
> impressed with your degree.
No need to be. I have never tried to pull rank with it, and you were
even very suspicious of me back in 1992 for having HIDDEN the fact for
months that I was a full Professor, and had previously introduced
myself as being merely "on the faculty" of the University of South
Carolina. In response to your 1992 bewilderment over how I would not
announce my full title, I kept reiterating the fact that I do not like
to pull rank on people. I hated to do that when I was a 1st
Lieutenant, and later a Captain, in the Army, and I hate to do it now.
It is only pathological liars like Keegan who pretend that I have
arrogantly talked about having the Ph.D., in true blame-the-victim
form. You and he have been working this scam for a long time about me
not being the Professor of Mathematics that I am, and I do need to set
the record straight from time to time [as above]. But Keegan has
dishonestly implied that this constitutes arrogance on my part.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:24:26 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
>
>
> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Jul 27, 7:47 pm, Tom S. <tscal...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:19:45 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >On Jul 24, 8:06 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Actually, for the whole thread, and the page to which the link below
> >> >takes one shows the first 25.
>
> >> >> > demonstrating how the events in it led up to Osprey's "forgery":
>
> >> >> You just did,
>
> >> >to be from the New York Times was that Keegan had a statement, from
>
> >> Try a few days earlier. The above link is from 3 Sept 2007.
I addressed this unmitigated bullshit below:
> >> >, to that effect from Osprey, in
> >> >his .sig. It had appeared in every previous Keegan post to the thread,
> >> >including the one to which Osprey was following up--but Osprey deleted
> >> >it.
>
> >I was referring to the following .sig, still posted frequently by
> >Keegan:
>
> >"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
> >been warned."
> >-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
> >innews:2rCdnZNy7LA...@comcast.com
>
> >I traced the "all ready" quote to a post that was done in 2004 or 2005
> >(I forget which).
And here is proof that it was bullshit: you totally ignored the above
revelation and the following question:
>>Can you find a post of a few days earlier that at
> >least followed up to a post of Osprey's where he says the same
> >identical thing?
>
> >> >What's more, Osprey's "forgery" was dated to only a few days earlier,
> >> >so it could not have even been ALLEGED to have been the letter
> >> >referred to in Keegan's .sig.
>
> >> BINGO!!
>
> >Glad you agree with me.
>
> Were you just going to snip then ignore the rest of what I posted and
> hope it went away??
No, idiot. It contradicts the logic of the whole situation, which is
based on the fact that you posted unmitigated bullshit up there. Try
responding to my revelation and challenge up there for a change.
> Very Bobbyish ..... Here it is so you don't have
> to look it up:
It is very Spartakus-ish to assume that I ignored what you wrote.
Spartakus even lied through his teeth, repeatedly, that I had ignored
something in an interview of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
> ------------------begin insertion----------------------------
>
> Bobby created the forgery at some time and dated it 30 August
> 2007. He then posted it to the group on 3 Sept 2007 where it was
> immediately identified as a forgery.
Not only does this ignore what I wrote above, it ignores what I posted
in the first post to this thread--by which I mean, the whole Google
thread that includes ALL posts with the Subject: line of this one.
> All of the grammatical errors that Bobby included in the
> "communication" were not mistakes that he intentionally put in.
Bullshit. You have been bamboozled by Keegan &co into thinking that
Osprey is too dumb to concoct such a simple "forgery" to sucker people
with. Don't forget, he has had ample time to observe how Keegan,
etc. pounce on the slightest errors in describing what they do. Bill
Mosco learned that the hard way. Keegan has been perpetrating a
massive scam to the effect that I am not Peter Nyikos, Professor of
Mathematics t(even though I am that ), but he has been very careful
not to claim it outright--unlike toadies like you and "elizabeth".
When Mosco nevertheless accused Keegan of making that claim, the steel
jaws of Keegan's trap snapped shut, and Mosco was not released until
he abjectly admitted that he had never seen Keegan make that claim
explicitly.
>They
> are a part of his normal writing style.
Which is exacltly why he was able to sucker Keegan &co, including you,
into (1) thinking that he had meant for you to think that the letter
came from NYT and (2) that Osprey was thereby guilty of forgery.
>In fact, we use those and
> some other indicators to identify his socks.
Incorrectly sometimes, and sometimes y'all lie through your teeth that
someone's writing style is a lot like Osprey's, like "elizabeth" does
with me, and I see 'e has conned you into doing the same thing.
> And few, if any, of his
> socks have ever left without holes shot in them.
THAT is the kind of taunt you need to cultivate if you ever want to
become a Black Knight.
> I will concede that not saying it was from the Times and not
> specifying the type of communication may have shown an element of
> "save my ass" cunning. But, a much better course of action would have
> been to not post the forgery at all.
But then y'all would have made one less false accusation, and he needs
as many as possible to show what suckers/liars/fools/idiots you all
are.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> > > can you imagine a phd, andy phd, doing such a thing?
> >> > What is the highest degree YOU earned, and where, Jim?
>
> >> My degree can beat up your degree.
>
> >It would have to be something pretty exalted, since I have a Ph.D.
>
> trumps any fake degree.
It is you, not I, who has a problem with honesty. I have a Ph.D., and
sexkitten essentially knows it; so does Bill Mosco, but I think
sexkitten's word carries more weight with you.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
You aren't Spartakus, and you ought to post these baseless insults to
alt.flame.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > can you imagine a phd, andy phd, doing such a thing?
> > > > What is the highest degree YOU earned, and where, Jim?
> > > My degree can beat up your degree.
> > It would have to be something pretty exalted, since I have a Ph.D.
>
>
> > Is it an honorary degree? Other than that, the only degree higher
> > than a Ph.D. that I am aware of would be either a Habilitation (German/
> > Austrian system, and some might not call that a degree) or a degree
> > conferred by Moscow State University and possibly some other Russian
> > (or, earlier, Soviet) universities--Doctor of Science, IIRC.
>
> > You are far more of a coward than "sexkitten", who actually e-mailed
> > me using the address given at the link below.
>
> only reason why I express doubt (the ONLY reason) is your enthusiastic
> embrace of the role of Oopsrey's lap dog. I find it hard to believe
> that someone as "elitist" as you would support a barely literate low-
> life like Robert Heishman.
A massive case of GIGO there. No wonder Osprey was able to sucker
y'all.
> > You are afraid of having all doubt erased from your mind that
> > I am, indeed, as ever,
>
> > Yours truly,
>
> > Peter Nyikos
Tom S.
Yes, you are. But that is hardly my problem. Your obsession is a
burden you alone can carry.
>
>>
>> > Where is your proof that
>> >"I" produced it?
>>
>> That has been done more than once.
>
>Absolutely 100% obsessed.
>
Again, I agree. You are 100% obsessed. I wonder that it hasn't
started affecting your home life, if you have a home life.
Tom S.
Tom S.
None is so blind as he who will not see.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Second: If you are studying my writing, you're even a bigger loser
>> >than I thought.
>>
>> No study required. �
>
>Yes, study.
Nope. It only takes a single reading, while paying attention to
detail.
> You've absolutely become obsessed.
>
>Your poor grasp of English syntax and grammar is
>> almost painfully obvious.
>
>Hmm, wonder why I did so well in English and Research?
>3.7 GPA
4th rate school.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Third: Peter had this dead on a few weeks ago and you'll never figure
>> >it out
>>
>> Your lap dog has never had this "dead on".
>
>Yes he has.
So, how did you persuade him to be your lap dog??
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Fourth: With all of the time, energy, and personal anguish you are
>> >putting yourself through just being obsessed over me, what I do, my
>> >life, how I write, and so forth you should take a step back and
>> >realize you are in serious need of a life.
>>
>> Keep dreaming, Bobby. �You know nothing of my life and what it has or
>> lacks. �And there has been no personal anguish involved.
>
>There is nothing to know about your life, you spend it in a ng
>obsessing over other people, making things up, guessing, and studying
>people in a ng.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and.... wrong.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Fifth: I haven't had any sock puppets. �Don't even try to figure it
>> >out, you never will.
>>
>> ObKy20
>
>Nope, wrong again Jethro.
Nobody named Jethro here. But, I am right.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >I've got you hooked just like a fish..I can pull the string and just
>> >drag you through the water as I please.
>>
>> No, Bobby.
>
>Yes Jethro
Nobody named Jethro here.
>
>>You have earned my eternal enmity
>
>Who cares? Waste your life.
Obviously you care, lil bobbi.
Tom S.
Tom S.
But, lil bobbi, you just said that context wasn't important. And
since context is unimportant, then there is nothing wrong with taking
part of a sentence and posting it.
>
>Thanks for posting that, it demonstrates just how wicked you are at
>lying.
>
Careful, lil bobbi. You are talking about something you do all the
time. I guess that means you are wicked.
Tom S.
Osprey
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:36:41 -0700 (PDT), Osprey
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 29, 12:26 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> Osprey <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jul 29, 2:58 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> >> Osprey <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Jul 28, 3:38 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> Osprey <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > Where is any such e-mail that says it was from the NYTimes?
>
> >> >> >> Context, Bobby, context.
>
> >> >> >Context? Oh, that's right the common liberal cop out. When you can't
> >> >> >support one of your statements, fall back on context.
> >> >> [...]
> >> >> >> Oh, and before you try claiming that context isn't important, don't
> >> >> >> forget all the fun that's been had with the statement "I am a child
> >> >> >> molester" that came from your keyboard.
>
> >> >> >That never came from my keyboard.
>
> >> >> It most certainly did.
>
> >> >Show the post, the ENTIRE post.
>
> >> And then are you going to admit that you wrote those words?
> >> No, of course not. You're a lying coward with no honor.
>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------
> >> From noneedstok...@mail.com Thu Oct 2 09:23:56 PDT 2003
> >> Article: 764508 of talk.abortion
> >> NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:32:42 -0500
> >> From: "Osprey" <noneedstok...@mail.com>
> >> Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion
Where did I say that? Show me a quote.
And
> since context is unimportant, then there is nothing wrong with taking
> part of a sentence and posting it.
>
>
>
> >Thanks for posting that, it demonstrates just how wicked you are at
> >lying.
>
> Careful, lil bobbi. You are talking about something you do all the
> time. I guess that means you are wicked.
>
Osprey
5th grade school tactics noted.
>
>
>
> >> >Third: Peter had this dead on a few weeks ago and you'll never figure
> >> >it out
>
> >> Your lap dog has never had this "dead on".
>
> >Yes he has.
>
> So, how did you persuade him to be your lap dog??
No one is my lap dog, are you so insecure and full of yourself that if
anyone seems to agree with something I say, or I agree with something
he or she said they suddenly become a "lap dog"?
Puh-lease, grow up already.
>
>
>
> >> >Fourth: With all of the time, energy, and personal anguish you are
> >> >putting yourself through just being obsessed over me, what I do, my
> >> >life, how I write, and so forth you should take a step back and
> >> >realize you are in serious need of a life.
>
> >> Keep dreaming, Bobby. You know nothing of my life and what it has or
> >> lacks. And there has been no personal anguish involved.
>
> >There is nothing to know about your life, you spend it in a ng
> >obsessing over other people, making things up, guessing, and studying
> >people in a ng.
>
> Wrong, wrong, wrong, and.... wrong.
You can say that all you want, but it doesn't change the facts that
I'm right. You can't help yourself.
>
>
>
> >> >Fifth: I haven't had any sock puppets. Don't even try to figure it
> >> >out, you never will.
>
> >> ObKy20
>
> >Nope, wrong again Jethro.
>
> Nobody named Jethro here. But, I am right.
You are a "Jethro", and you're wrong.
>
>
>
> >> >I've got you hooked just like a fish..I can pull the string and just
> >> >drag you through the water as I please.
>
> >> No, Bobby.
>
> >Yes Jethro
>
> Nobody named Jethro here.
Denial noted
>
>
>
> >>You have earned my eternal enmity
>
> >Who cares? Waste your life.
>
> Obviously you care, lil bobbi.
You're the one who keeps posting to me, I just merely respond.
You're the one who talks about me almost on a constant basis.
The Chief Instigator
Bobby's not doing Wilmington "College" any favors.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Manitoba 3, Houston 1 (May 25: Moose advance, 4-2)
NEXT GAME: The 2009-10 opener in October, TBA
The Chief Instigator
I don't know what you're drinking, but whatever it is you're abusing, it
might justify cutting back on it a bit.
The Chief Instigator
>Peter Nyikos
You aren't the professor, and maybe you should consider ignoring said
supposed insults, Phony. (Whether you suss the procedure or not.)
james g. keegan jr.
<7d6bd433-e906-44c7...@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
[...]
> No need to be. I have never tried to pull rank with it, and you were
> even very suspicious of me back in 1992 for having HIDDEN the fact for
> months that I was a full Professor, and had previously introduced
> myself as being merely "on the faculty" of the University of South
> Carolina. In response to your 1992 bewilderment over how I would not
> announce my full title, I kept reiterating the fact that I do not like
> to pull rank on people. I hated to do that when I was a 1st
> Lieutenant, and later a Captain, in the Army, and I hate to do it now.
>
> It is only pathological liars like Keegan who pretend that I have
> arrogantly talked about having the Ph.D., in true blame-the-victim
> form. You and he have been working this scam for a long time about me
> not being the Professor of Mathematics that I am, and I do need to set
> the record straight from time to time [as above]. But Keegan has
> dishonestly implied that this constitutes arrogance on my part.
it is peter nyikos who holds a phd. there is some question as to your
identity.
your lies above draw more attention to the arrogance you demonstrate
each day you post. that's a good thing. like your, ummmmm, colleague
osprey, you shoot yourself in the foot each time you pist.
Tom S.
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Jul 27, 9:22 pm, Tom S. <tscal...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:24:26 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>>
>>
>>
>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Jul 27, 7:47 pm, Tom S. <tscal...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:19:45 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>>
<snip>
>>
>> Were you just going to snip then ignore the rest of what I posted and
>> hope it went away??
>
>No, idiot.
Tsk! Tsk! You really don't like people to contradict you, do
you.......
> It contradicts the logic of the whole situation, which is
>based on the fact that you posted unmitigated bullshit up there.
But that is exactly what you did. You snipped what I wrote rather
than address it.
> Try
>responding to my revelation and challenge up there for a change.
>
And when did it become mandatory to allow you to cut up a posting any
way you want without challenging it.
>> Very Bobbyish ..... Here it is so you don't have
>> to look it up:
>It is very Spartakus-ish to assume that I ignored what you wrote.
But it is true. If I had not restored what you had snipped, you would
never have addressed it.
>Spartakus even lied through his teeth, repeatedly, that I had ignored
>something in an interview of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
>
>> ------------------begin insertion----------------------------
>>
>> Bobby created the forgery at some time and dated it 30 August
>> 2007. He then posted it to the group on 3 Sept 2007 where it was
>> immediately identified as a forgery.
>
>Not only does this ignore what I wrote above, it ignores what I posted
>in the first post to this thread--by which I mean, the whole Google
>thread that includes ALL posts with the Subject: line of this one.
>
Does any of the above contradict what I wrote above? No it doesn't
>> All of the grammatical errors that Bobby included in the
>> "communication" were not mistakes that he intentionally put in.
>
>Bullshit.
Do you always label the truth as Bullshit?? Can we depend on you to
do this consistently?
>You have been bamboozled by Keegan &co
Show your proof that I have been bamboozled by James
>into thinking that
>Osprey is too dumb to concoct such a simple "forgery" to sucker people
>with.
My opinion of Bobby's mental acuity and honesty (actually his lack of
mental acuity and honesty) is based on my own observations. I do not
let others think for me.
> Don't forget, he has had ample time to observe how Keegan,
>etc. pounce on the slightest errors in describing what they do.
So, he selected a hot button issue, created an obvious forgery, then
posted it, so that everyone would "pounce" on his. That is truly
sick.
> Bill
>Mosco learned that the hard way.
Bill was not and is not a part of this discussion.
> Keegan has been perpetrating a
>massive scam to the effect that I am not Peter Nyikos, Professor of
>Mathematics t(even though I am that ), but he has been very careful
>not to claim it outright--unlike toadies like you and "elizabeth".
>
I have told you before, I think, that I do not know if you are the
real Peter Nyikos, nor do I especially care. I am, however, firmly
that, for some reason, you have become Bobby's lapdog. Yipping around
peoples ankles, trying to distract people while he tries to extract
himself from a mess of his own making.
>When Mosco nevertheless accused Keegan of making that claim, the steel
>jaws of Keegan's trap snapped shut, and Mosco was not released until
>he abjectly admitted that he had never seen Keegan make that claim
>explicitly.
>
>>They
>> are a part of his normal writing style.
>
>Which is exacltly why he was able to sucker Keegan &co, including you,
>into (1) thinking that he had meant for you to think that the letter
>came from NYT and (2) that Osprey was thereby guilty of forgery.
>
And where did you get this revelation? Straight from the ass's mouth,
so to speak??
Bobby's is actually much simpler than that. He posted the forgery so
it would seem that his lie about getting James in trouble with the NY
Times was true.
> >In fact, we use those and
>> some other indicators to identify his socks.
>
>Incorrectly sometimes,
Almost never.
> and sometimes y'all lie through your teeth that
>someone's writing style is a lot like Osprey's, like "elizabeth" does
>with me, and I see 'e has conned you into doing the same thing.
>
All I did is point out that some of your early "defence" of Bobby were
near verbatim repeats of Bobby's own words, including his grammatical
errors. Errors that I would never expect from a PhD.... Even a PhD in
math. ((^:
> > And few, if any, of his
>> socks have ever left without holes shot in them.
>
>THAT is the kind of taunt you need to cultivate if you ever want to
>become a Black Knight.
>
>> I will concede that not saying it was from the Times and not
>> specifying the type of communication may have shown an element of
>> "save my ass" cunning. But, a much better course of action would have
>> been to not post the forgery at all.
>
>But then y'all would have made one less false accusation, and he needs
>as many as possible to show what suckers/liars/fools/idiots you all
>are.
Actually, what he needs is to establish some credibility. He has none
and thus is totally useless to whatever side of the abortion
discussion he is trying to be on this week.
>
>Peter Nyikos
Tom S.
james g. keegan jr.
The Chief Instigator <pat...@io.com> wrote:
> On 2009-07-29, james g. keegan jr. <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >In article
> ><44f74fab-3a47-4bff...@j21g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> > Osprey <Ospr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Jul 28, 6:57�pm, Tom S. <tscal...@cox.net> wrote:
> >[...]
> >> > Your poor grasp of English syntax and grammar is
> >> > almost painfully obvious.
>
> >very true.
> >>
> >> Hmm, wonder why I did so well in English and Research?
> >> 3.7 GPA
>
> >you're 4th tier diploma mill was earning its lowest of the low rating.
>
> Bobby's not doing Wilmington "College" any favors.
actually, i think he's representing their educational level quite
accurately.
james g. keegan jr.
<092f5882-f530-455b...@o32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 9:22 pm, Tom S. <tscal...@cox.net> wrote:
> > All of the grammatical errors that Bobby included in the
> > "communication" were not mistakes that he intentionally put in.
>
> Bullshit.
as a phd, surely you can explain to readers how you know the state of
osprey's mind ages ago when you were not posting and osprey was busily
forging email from the new york times.
explain how his forgery contained exactly the same types of grammatical
errors that bobby has posted hundreds of times before and since.
are you admitting you were in contact with osprey back then?
if you were not in contact with him, how can you so aggressively post to
the state of his mind?
were you in therapy with bobby?
> You have been bamboozled by Keegan &co into thinking that
> Osprey is too dumb to concoct such a simple "forgery" to sucker people
> with.
why are you giving me credit for bobby's stupidity. do you think i craft
his posts for him? who do you think wrote all of the posts that
confirmed his dishonesty and stupidity?
do you really wonder why so many question whether you are a phd?
IAAH
It either is or isn't, Bipolar Bob. If you say it isn't for
anyone else, it isn't for you either.
IAAH
Absolutely no different than what you were doing to
Ginsburg's words.
The Chief Instigator
>In article <slrnh71m76....@eris.io.com>,
> The Chief Instigator <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-07-29, james g. keegan jr. <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >In article
>> ><44f74fab-3a47-4bff...@j21g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Osprey <Ospr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> On Jul 28, 6:57�pm, Tom S. <tscal...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >[...]
>> >> > Your poor grasp of English syntax and grammar is
>> >> > almost painfully obvious.
>>
>> >very true.
>> >>
>> >> Hmm, wonder why I did so well in English and Research?
>> >> 3.7 GPA
>>
>> >you're 4th tier diploma mill was earning its lowest of the low rating.
>>
>> Bobby's not doing Wilmington "College" any favors.
>actually, i think he's representing their educational level quite
>accurately.
...or else they gave in to his money. ;-)
Ray Fischer
> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Jul 24, 8:12 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > > can you imagine a phd, andy phd, doing such a thing?
>> >> > What is the highest degree YOU earned, and where, Jim?
>>
>> >> My degree can beat up your degree.
>>
>> >It would have to be something pretty exalted, since I have a Ph.D.
>>
>> More importantly you have a problem with honesty. A real degree
>> trumps any fake degree.
>
>It is you, not I, who has a problem with honesty.
You're a liar. Provably so. Why should anybody believe that you are
who you claim to be?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Now, where do you see me claiming that I was any sort of a child
>molester?
You realy are an idiot, Asshole. I stated, accorately that you wrote
those words. You LIED again and claimed that you did not, even though
I proved that you actually did.
Now you're trying to change the subject to some claim I never made.
Do you wonder why people treat you like a stupid asshole?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >You ought to post these baseless insults to alt.flame.
>>
>> 98.1% on the irony meter.
>
>You aren't Spartakus,
You aren't Peter Nyikos.
Nor are you very smart.
> and you ought to post these baseless insults
Q.E.D.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net