Dirty debating tactics I: The Phantom Error Correction Scam
nyi...@bellsouth.net
post about dirty debating tactics and strategies that I kept
encountering over and over, and which I felt were inadequately covered
in books of logic where fallacies are described. Here, I return to
this practice of mine for the first time since I started posting again
in November.
(I) The Phantom Error Correction Scam. This consists of
lecturing someone as though one were correcting an error of
the one being lectured. Often accompanied by unsupported
assertions like "________ clearly doesn't understand that..."
or "__________ is obviously ignorant of the fact that...".
Often, the lecture is on a brand new theme that had never
been mentioned before by the person being lectured to.
Sometimes, however, the lecture is designed to create a
false impression in the minds of the readers
(including both lurkers and participants),
that one is referring to things that had happened earlier,
perhaps on other threads, and that one is only seeing
a tip of an iceberg. But in fact, the reader has missed
nothing by "coming in late".
The example which follows is of this latter variety. It features
Patrick Humphrey, a.k.a. The Chief Instigator, one of the great
Usenet masters of this variety of the tactic. As you read it, you may
find yourself thinking all kinds of things about the person to whom
the words are addressed--but they are, in effect, addressed to a
figment of Humphrey's imagination, as will subsequently be made clear
on this thread.
"The problem with your idiot's fantasy is: you don't know how much
of a factor it was...and you're just assuming you know more about
it than I do. Heishman is subliterate, and is trying to convince
people
that that was why I was fired. The University and I both disagree
with you and your fellow loons, and Heishman flat out lied about
me facing any criminal charges. It was a purely internal issue
between me and the University, and you are not
(and will never be) a party to the situation,
much less have any standing in it."
Peter Nyikos
nyi...@bellsouth.net
the following reply of mine to a post of a staunch ally of Humphrey,
who goes by the pseudonym "Spartakus".
Subject: Re: Now we know
On Apr 17, 10:32 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> nyik...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > I could name some flagrantly INsincere fulminations of yours,
>
> So what? Sometimes I fulminate for effect - rhetorical, ironic or
> comical. You're smart enough to tell the difference - aren't you?
I believe I am, and I believe the following example by you is none of
the above. I believe it is:
(1) utterly insincere and
(2) worded so as to make all but the most experienced readers think
that you are being neither comical, nor ironic, nor rhetorical, but
absolutely sincere:
"I seem to remember that a certain PiNhead expressed a willingness
to
be civil to a certain Chief Instigator, because the latter showed
some
courtesy to the former. What happened to that willingness?
PiNhead
whines about "treachery", but he is as treacherous as anyone I have
seen on Usenet."
I think you can see why I believe (2), but most readers may not know
why I also believe (1). For one thing, you cunningly wrote "seem to
remember" about something you almost surely knew to be false, my
reason for showing courtesy to Humphrey, which I explained very
clearly in a follow-up to him when he was beginning to show signs of
turning nasty on me.
But a more serious reason is that you know Patrick Humphrey's posting
habits very well, and know that he is a master of what I call The
Phantom Error Correction Scam--although you might not word it that
way, even in the privacy of your innermost thoughts.
To put it another way: you know Patrick well enough not to assume he
was referring to ANYTHING that you weren't privy to right on the
thread from which these quotes are taken. Here is what he said and
to which the above words of yours are a response:
"The problem with your idiot's fantasy is: you don't know how much
of a factor it was...and you're just assuming you know more about
it than I do. Heishman is subliterate, and is trying to convince
people that that was why I was fired. The University and I both
disagree with you and your fellow loons, and Heishman flat out
lied about me facing any criminal charges. It was a purely
internal issue between me and the University, and you are not
(and will never be) a party to the situation,
much less have any standing in it.
Except for the purely factual last sentence, the whole thing was a
pure fantasy, no more true about me than about anyone you might
randomly pick out in some newsgroup having nothing to do with
talk.abortion, etc. And even the last sentence, when taken in the
context of the fantasy that preceded it, is designed to create the
impression that I want to be a party to something, etc.
Peter Nyikos
nyi...@bellsouth.net
so far. It began with the following statement by Osprey on the
thread, "Re: Does Keegan understand justice? Was: osprey calls nyikos2
a liar" back in January
"I have Humphrey's admission it was a factor that he was fired
due to his stalking using Rice computers."
Osprey was telling the truth:
=============post containing Humphrey's admission
From: The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com>
Date: 30 Nov 2008 19:01:16 GMT
Subject: Re: What Fischer doesn't want to know about you
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 16:41:06 -0500, Osprey <Osp...@netscape.net>
wrote:
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>> <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> I've done a background check on Humphrey. Don't worry Patty, it's
>> You really are an obsessed little stalker, aren't you?
> go talk to Humphrey, that's what he was fired at Rice for.
Only in your fantasy, child. It was a factor, but the Institute and I
know,
and you don't...and they won't talk to you, unless it's to tell you
you're
acting like an obsessive stalker.
================end of documentation
But that didn't stop "Spartakus" from posting the following piece of
counterfeit sincerity in direct response to Osprey:
"Oh cripes, Bobby, you know darn well
you're going to be called out on that lie.
WTF is wrong with you, anyway?"
And now, here is what I wrote about that, preserved in the post where
Humphrey wrote his Phantom Error Correction:
============== begin headers and relevant excerpt
Newsgroups: alt.abortion, talk.abortion
From: The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com>
Date: 20 Feb 2009 22:45:04 GMT
Local: Fri, Feb 20 2009 6:45 pm
Subject: Re: Can Osprey get a fair trial in the abortion newsgroups?
> On Feb 7, 10:36 am, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> nyik...@bellsouth.net wrote:
[...]
> Osprey had documented that admission shortly before Spartakus wrote
> the above pathological-seeming deceit. Spartakus even berated Osprey
> for leaving out the "only in your fantasies, child" but that had to do
> with Osprey's implication that stalking, in and of itself, was already
> grounds for Patrick losing his access. The fact that it is a factor,
> as you can see, WAS confirmed by Patrick.
The problem with your idiot's fantasy is: you don't know how much of
a
factor it was...and you're just assuming you know more about it than I
do.
Heishman is subliterate, and is trying to convince people that that
was why
I was fired. The University and I both disagree with you and your
fellow
loons, and Heishman flat out lied about me facing any criminal
charges. It
was a purely internal issue between me and the University, and you are
not
(and will never be) a party to the situation, much less have any
standing in
it.
==================== end of excerpt
There are people in talk.abortion who are notorious for making
selective deletia, but I've given enough documentation so that readers
can check out the full post for themselves.
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
<7295c1ab-6ef2-4da0...@k38g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> Back during my first sojourn in Usenet I would, from time to time,
> post about dirty debating tactics and strategies
the original peter nyikos did in facy try to do that after he got caught
in some outrageous action, misrepresentation or blatant lie.
of course, the original peter nyikos had to abandon the abortion
newsgroups after his reputation fell to the point where no one believed
anything he posted.
interesting that you, who uses nyikos' name have exactly the same
standing now.
--
"You tried to steal the identity of a James G. Keegan Jr. who did in
fact author a book, and you're trying to convince people that you are
the same person." -- corrupt prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey"
in an effort to cover-up his earlier lie that i was not an author
<noneedtok...@mail.com> in<v4qdndNQW_fFAMXanZ2dnUVZ_sOrn...@comcast.com>
james g. keegan jr.
<cabdfc6c-281f-4832...@z5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> Now for an explanation of the background of the two posts I have done
> so far.
most phds don't write posts so convoluted and disjointed that they need
to write more posts explaining earlier posts.
you're just pretending to be peter nyikos, a phd, aren't you>
Ray Fischer
>Back during my first sojourn in Usenet I would, from time to time,
>post about dirty debating tactics and strategies that I kept
>encountering over and over,
Bragging about your own use of dirty debating tactics, fauxNy?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
nyi...@bellsouth.net
> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Back during my first sojourn in Usenet I would, from time to time,
> >post about dirty debating tactics and strategies that I kept
> >encountering over and over,
>
> Bragging about your own use of dirty debating tactics, fauxNy?
++++++++++++++++++++sarcasm on
No, liar ray, I am luring you into the trap of posting some of your
own.
+++++++++++++++++ sarcasm off
And you are using a dirty debating tactic that is so elementary and so
well known that I'd never bother to devote a new thread to it. It is
known as the Pee Wee Hermanism, after the actor who used a taunt of
children of age ca. 6-9 in talking to another adult (and the adult to
him), "I know you are, but what am I?"
Spartakus loves to accuse people of this dirty debating trick, which
he labels the "tu quoque", but his "definition" practically screams
"pro-choice propaganda" at you, the way it is worded, whereas the
practice is indulged in far more often by his side in talk.abortion
and alt.abortion, in the posts I have seen.
But, to answer your question a little more directly: No, and I'd love
to see you try to document an authentic example of a dirty debating
trick by me. Chances are, you won't even get around to describing a
single example well enough for people to figure out what the hell you
are talking about.
Peter Nyikos
nyi...@bellsouth.net
> In article
> <7295c1ab-6ef2-4da0-b0a4-edc5afd65...@k38g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> nyik...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > Back during my first sojourn in Usenet I would, from time to time,
> > post about dirty debating tactics and strategies
>
> the original peter nyikos did in facy try to do that
Note to people in the non-abortion newsgroups: Keegan is indulging in
a scam here, trying to convince people that I am not the same Peter
Nyikos who posted to talk.abortion in 1992-1996 with a few additional
weeks in 1997. I've posted at least twice on what I suspect to be the
main reason he indulges in this scam, and I'll repeat it here if
people are interested.
>after he got caught
> in some outrageous action, misrepresentation or blatant lie.
Jim, since you and your allies were constantly accusing me of such
things, almost always unjustly, (and always unjustly where "blatant
lie" is concerned) the "after" is essentially meaningless.
> of course, the original peter nyikos had to abandon the abortion
> newsgroups
because he got caught up in several others and could no longer spare
the time to devote enough attention to the abortion newsgroups. Among
the others were talk.origins, sci.bio.evolution and
sci.bio.paleontology.
>after his reputation fell to the point where no one believed
> anything he posted.
This bare-faced lie is especially ironic coming from you, who weren't
even believed by a lot of pro-choicers in that era. Here are two of
them, one of whom (Matheson) has even sided with me on some issues,
and with whom I have had unfailing good relations.
The Subject: line is a fascinating coincidence, by the way: you and
Fischer are the only two besides me who have posted to this thread so
far.
------------begin included post
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mi...@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1992 23:17:57 GMT
Local: Tues, Dec 1 1992 7:17 pm
Subject: Re: It's time for a kill file...Re: Fischer this, Keegan that
> Stephen Matheson
>This Keegan dude has pushed me over the edge. It's time to create a
>kill file, and Mr. Keegan will be the first (and, for now, only)
>member of this exclusive club.
>His pathetic and wholly idiotic posts, all of which include some
>poor victim's name, are nothing more that electronic pollution.
Agreed. Unfortunately, by daring to broadcast your honest opinion of
Keegan,
you will undoubtedly become a victim yourself and therefore only
generate
more pollution (as will I).
$5 says Keegan will accuse you of censorship. It's his favorite line.
--
Ferrari (mi...@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
===================end of included post
Matheson even stepped into a thread this past December where I was
heavily involved and his name came up, although he has hardly ever
posted to the abortion newsgroups
> interesting that you, who uses nyikos' name have exactly the same
> standing now.
I am the same person, the Professor of Mathematics at the University
of South Carolina whose home page you can look up, and it is totally
uninteresting that you are lying in the same way about my standing now
as you are about my standing back then.
After all, you are the same james g. keegan jr about whom Mills and
Matheson talked back then, aren't you?
Peter Nyikos
Ray Fischer
>On Apr 23, 6:57 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <7295c1ab-6ef2-4da0-b0a4-edc5afd65...@k38g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> nyik...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>> > Back during my first sojourn in Usenet I would, from time to time,
>> > post about dirty debating tactics and strategies
>>
>> the original peter nyikos did in facy try to do that
>
>Note to people in the non-abortion newsgroups: Keegan is indulging in
>a scam here, trying to convince people that I am not the same Peter
>Nyikos who posted to talk.abortion in 1992-1996 with a few additional
Note to people in other newsgroups: "nyikos" here is indulging in a
scam here, pretending to be the same pompous Nyikos that posted here
several years ago.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Apr 23, 10:23 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >Back during my first sojourn in Usenet I would, from time to time,
>> >post about dirty debating tactics and strategies that I kept
>> >encountering over and over,
>>
>> Bragging about your own use of dirty debating tactics, fauxNy?
>
>++++++++++++++++++++sarcasm on
>
>No, liar ray, I am luring you into the trap of posting some of your
>own.
>
>+++++++++++++++++ sarcasm off
Either you don't know what sarcasm is, or you're an idiot.
>And you are using a dirty debating tactic that is so elementary and so
Same back at you, asshole.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Galen Hekhuis
>...
>Note to people in the non-abortion newsgroups: Keegan is indulging in
>a scam here, trying to convince people that I am not the same Peter
>Nyikos who posted to talk.abortion in 1992-1996 with a few additional
>weeks in 1997. I've posted at least twice on what I suspect to be the
>main reason he indulges in this scam, and I'll repeat it here if
>people are interested.
>...
People who have names like ours usually get over any name fueled
identity crisis by about third grade or so (if we became famous,
they'd probably spell it wrong anyway, so why try?). Then again, I
guess some of us don't. Of course, nyikos2 is now likely to lash out
accusing me of being in some sort of top secret anti-nyikos2 cabal. I
am the same Glen Hellhairs that Belsaw used to send mail to back in
the 50s.
james g. keegan jr.
<7d4aa46e-3d67-4cc7...@p11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Apr 23, 6:57 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > > Back during my first sojourn in Usenet I would, from time to time,
> > > post about dirty debating tactics and strategies
> >
> > the original peter nyikos did in facy try to do that
>
> Note to people in the non-abortion newsgroups: Keegan is indulging in
> a scam here, trying to convince people that I am not the same Peter
> Nyikos who posted to talk.abortion in 1992-1996 with a few additional
> weeks in 1997.
you're lying again.
when the original peter nyikos got caught lying, he apologized (although
often with little class and much excuse making). you simply deny lies,
or, admit to them, and then later foolishly deny them.
that's a pretty significant difference.
james g. keegan jr.
> On Apr 23, 6:57 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > of course, the original peter nyikos had to abandon the abortion
> > newsgroups after his reputation fell to the point where no one
> > believed anything he posted.
>
> because he got caught up in several others
there is always an excuse, isn't there?
james g. keegan jr.
rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
so it would appear, and more so each day.
william mosco
> In article
> <7d4aa46e-3d67-4cc7...@p11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > On Apr 23, 6:57 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > > Back during my first sojourn in Usenet I would, from time to time,
> > > > post about dirty debating tactics and strategies
> > >
> > > the original peter nyikos did in facy try to do that
> >
> > Note to people in the non-abortion newsgroups: Keegan is indulging in
> > a scam here, trying to convince people that I am not the same Peter
> > Nyikos who posted to talk.abortion in 1992-1996 with a few additional
> > weeks in 1997.
>
> you're lying again.
>
anyone have substantial evidence that Peter isn't who he says he is?
> when the original peter nyikos got caught lying, he apologized (although
> often with little class and much excuse making). you simply deny lies,
> or, admit to them, and then later foolishly deny them.
>
Peter may believe you are part of a scam James, if he is the original
Peter; which means he's not lying. He may also believe that you are
trying to convince others, when you bring into question his identity.
I do believe you have true doubts or may have concluded since our last
exchange on this subject. This would mean that your accusation that
peter is lying about the claim above is reasonable in your view.
I for one have no doubt he is the original Peter. I've gone over some
of his past postings and have noticed some changes that suggest to me
nothing more than a different approach this time around.
Not unlike myself who has been gone a bit longer than he.
A person must ask what motivation or gain would there be in assuming
another's identity on usenet?
james g. keegan jr.
<3c53fcde-ec17-419d...@z9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > In article
> > <7d4aa46e-3d67-4cc7...@p11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> > nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 23, 6:57 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > > Back during my first sojourn in Usenet I would, from time to time,
> > > > > post about dirty debating tactics and strategies
> > > >
> > > > the original peter nyikos did in facy try to do that
> > >
> > > Note to people in the non-abortion newsgroups: Keegan is indulging in
> > > a scam here, trying to convince people that I am not the same Peter
> > > Nyikos who posted to talk.abortion in 1992-1996 with a few additional
> > > weeks in 1997.
> >
> > you're lying again.
> >
> I've heard this over and over since returning to the group. Does
> anyone have substantial evidence that Peter isn't who he says he is?
do you believe a published phd would forge text and falsely attribute it
to another, as the person posting as peter nyikos did today?
just consider his lie above about my efforts to "convince" people he is
not the original. i am the *only* abortion regular to have posted that i
thought he was the original. admittedly, that was when he first
reappeared and before all of the evidence suggesting that he is not the
original. in fact, i believe i said that to you in an earlier post.
if he is the original, he must have had a several strokes and
significant brain damage in the past decade.
i suggest you read a random half dozen of his 2009 posts, and then find
some a decade old and read those. tell me what you think. there are some
common attributes, but the current version is broken ethically.
james g. keegan jr.
<3c53fcde-ec17-419d...@z9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
"different approach???????"
forging and blatantly lying?
william mosco
> In article
> <3c53fcde-ec17-419d...@z9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>
> > > when the original peter nyikos got caught lying, he apologized (although
> > > often with little class and much excuse making). you simply deny lies,
> > > or, admit to them, and then later foolishly deny them.
> > >
> > Peter may believe you are part of a scam James, if he is the original
> > Peter; which means he's not lying. He may also believe that you are
> > trying to convince others, when you bring into question his identity.
> >
> > I do believe you have true doubts or may have concluded since our last
> > exchange on this subject. This would mean that your accusation that
> > peter is lying about the claim above is reasonable in your view.
> >
> > I for one have no doubt he is the original Peter. I've gone over some
> > of his past postings and have noticed some changes that suggest to me
> > nothing more than a different approach this time around.
>
> "different approach???????"
>
> forging and
blatantly lying?
I was not aware of this accusation (forging). I saw some of his newer
posts and looked at some older. I certainly can't look at them all
when I drive 11 hours a day.
Can you show evidence for your claim?
william mosco
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> In article
> <3c53fcde-ec17-419d...@z9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <7d4aa46e-3d67-4cc7...@p11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> > > nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Apr 23, 6:57 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > > Back during my first sojourn in Usenet I would, from time to time,
> > > > > > post about dirty debating tactics and strategies
> > > > >
> > > > > the original peter nyikos did in facy try to do that
> > > >
> > > > Note to people in the non-abortion newsgroups: Keegan is indulging in
> > > > a scam here, trying to convince people that I am not the same Peter
> > > > Nyikos who posted to talk.abortion in 1992-1996 with a few additional
> > > > weeks in 1997.
> > >
> > > you're lying again.
> > >
> > I've heard this over and over since returning to the group. Does
> > anyone have substantial evidence that Peter isn't who he says he is?
>
> do you believe a published phd would forge text and falsely attribute it
> to another, as the person posting as peter nyikos did today?
Today?? Who was it attributed to and what thread?
I haven't had time to read everthing today, 4 customer pickups in long
island and three in new jersey with no directions provided.
My heads been spinning...
>
> just consider his lie above about my efforts to "convince" people he is
> not the original. i am the *only* abortion regular to have posted that i
> thought he was the original. admittedly, that was when he first
> reappeared and before all of the evidence suggesting that he is not the
> original. in fact, i believe i said that to you in an earlier post.
>
Yes you did.
> if he is the original, he must have had a several strokes and
> significant brain damage in the past decade.
>
> i suggest you read a random half dozen of his 2009 posts, and then find
> some a decade old and read those. tell me what you think. there are some
> common attributes, but the current version is broken ethically.
>
Fair enough. I will.
james g. keegan jr.
<927e67c3-e2e1-451a...@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > > I've heard this over and over since returning to the group. Does
> > > anyone have substantial evidence that Peter isn't who he says he is?
> >
> > do you believe a published phd would forge text and falsely attribute it
> > to another, as the person posting as peter nyikos did today?
>
> Today?? Who was it attributed to and what thread?
Message-ID:
<b964de30-a4cd-4aa2...@3g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
References:
<778d9541-041e-4e22...@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
<8a5c8486-a0ac-48dd...@f19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>
<slrngusou8....@eris.io.com>
<b7c0b655-e205-41b4...@f1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
<jgkeegan-B3EDF4...@news.individual.net>
james g. keegan jr.
<938cca09-9c3c-44f1...@g19g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
Message-ID:
<b964de30-a4cd-4aa2...@3g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
References:
<778d9541-041e-4e22...@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
<8a5c8486-a0ac-48dd...@f19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>
<slrngusou8....@eris.io.com>
<b7c0b655-e205-41b4...@f1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
<jgkeegan-B3EDF4...@news.individual.net>
--
william mosco
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> In article
> <927e67c3-e2e1-451a...@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>
> > > > I've heard this over and over since returning to the group. Does
> > > > anyone have substantial evidence that Peter isn't who he says he is?
> > >
> > > do you believe a published phd would forge text and falsely attribute it
> > > to another, as the person posting as peter nyikos did today?
> >
> > Today?? Who was it attributed to and what thread?
>
> Message-ID:
> <b964de30-a4cd-4aa2...@3g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
> References:
> <778d9541-041e-4e22...@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
> <8a5c8486-a0ac-48dd...@f19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>
> <slrngusou8....@eris.io.com>
> <b7c0b655-e205-41b4...@f1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
> <jgkeegan-B3EDF4...@news.individual.net>
>
I did go through these and your claim of forgery is correct.
Though Peter did say [as I remember] '...fixed it for you', to the
casual browser, they may not know what "it" is.
Peter never should have edited and kept the new statement attributed
to your name.
He most certainly owes you an apology; and it would be prudent for him
to be clear for all as to what he had done.
james g. keegan jr.
<b978760b-5dd6-473a...@x31g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
i suspect you'll be able to resolve without any doubts whether or not
the person posting as peter Nyikos is the same person who posted here as
peter Nyikos more than a decade ago when you read how he handles this
matter.
Ospr...@hotmail.com
> > <927e67c3-e2e1-451a-98cb-52ba82a87...@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>
> > > > > I've heard this over and over since returning to the group. Does
> > > > > anyone have substantial evidence that Peter isn't who he says he is?
>
> > > > do you believe a published phd would forge text and falsely attribute it
> > > > to another, as the person posting as peter nyikos did today?
>
> > > Today?? Who was it attributed to and what thread?
>
> > Message-ID:
> > References:
> > <778d9541-041e-4e22-8cec-c09950958...@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
> > <8a5c8486-a0ac-48dd-99e2-fea46050c...@f19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>
> > <slrngusou8.10d1.patr...@eris.io.com>
> > <b7c0b655-e205-41b4-9ab7-b0b15a98f...@f1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
> > <jgkeegan-B3EDF4.17082322042...@news.individual.net>
>
> I did go through these and your claim of forgery is correct.
>
> Though Peter did say [as I remember] '...fixed it for you', to the
> casual browser, they may not know what "it" is.
>
> Peter never should have edited and kept the new statement attributed
> to your name.
>
> He most certainly owes you an apology; and it would be prudent for him
>
> - Show quoted text -
Before you go any further, keep one thing in mind. James Keegan Jr.
is guilty of forgery himself. Keegan is guilty of a LOT of things,
but since you're talking about this at the moment I thought I would
just let you know. And to this date, Keegan has never offered an
apology for his forgeries.
Evidence provided below... I've provided original posting and posting
after Keegan has altered the text and meaning.
herkimer said to Keegan in message:
From: herkimer <t...@re.ocm>
Newsgroups:
talk.abortion,alt.abortion,alt.atheism,alt.religion.christian.roman-
catholic,or.politics
Subject: Re: Planned Parenthood Suspends Employee Caught Covering Up
Rape
of 13-Year-Old
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:37:18 -0700
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <6ql2rkF...@mid.individual.net>
"Get out, loser."
Keegan replied, by snipping out the words "Get out,..."
From: "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
talk.abortion,alt.abortion,alt.atheism,alt.religion.christian.roman-
catholic,or.politics
Subject: Re: Planned Parenthood Suspends Employee Caught Covering Up
Rape of 13-Year-Old
Followup-To: misc.test,alt.test,alt.fan.keegan
Date: 15 Dec 2008 00:49:32 GMT
Organization: dedicated to challenging some of osprey's lies
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <Xns9B74C9A237663j...@130.133.1.4>
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>> Gwen <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:ea13e8f1-2695-4174-9040-
>> ddcc27f12...@m12g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Dec 13, 5:15 pm, Ospre...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Dec 13, 4:59 pm, herkimer <t...@re.ocm> wrote:
>>>>> Damn you're a stupid obsessor.
>>>> Amen to that, and a compulsive liar he is too.
>>> -- and you flame him in your responses to others.
>>
>>
>> heishman has always been afraid to confront me directly.
>>
> loser.
even a fruitcake like you can define liar bobby, i see.
james g. keegan jr.
<26b51365-ec85-42a8...@x31g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
Ospr...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > do you believe a published phd would forge text and falsely
> > > > > attribute it to another, as the person posting as peter
> > > > > nyikos did today?
> >
> > > > Today?? Who was it attributed to and what thread?
> >
> > > Message-ID:
> > > <b964de30-a4cd-4aa2-9054-d2998b43c...@3g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
> > > References:
> > > <778d9541-041e-4e22-8cec-c09950958...@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
> > > <8a5c8486-a0ac-48dd-99e2-fea46050c...@f19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>
> > > <slrngusou8.10d1.patr...@eris.io.com>
> > > <b7c0b655-e205-41b4-9ab7-b0b15a98f...@f1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
> > > <jgkeegan-B3EDF4.17082322042...@news.individual.net>
> >
> > I did go through these and your claim of forgery is correct.
> >
> > Though Peter did say [as I remember] '...fixed it for you', to the
> > casual browser, they may not know what "it" is.
> >
> > Peter never should have edited and kept the new statement attributed
> > to your name.
> >
> > He most certainly owes you an apology; and it would be prudent for him
> > to be clear for all as to what he had done.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Before you go any further, keep one thing in mind. James Keegan Jr.
> is guilty of forgery himself.
and, like the person posting as peter nyukos, liar bobby heishman known
as the abortion newsgroups most prolific liar, goes on to post proof
that his claim is false.
i'm laughing so hard i lamost fell our of my chair.
[...]
william mosco
I've been away for a while, and I may be wrong. Isn't the "loser"
above attributed to James?
So, even if he did snip out the "get out" part, he assumed ownership
of the word "loser" in his post.
Where's the forgery?
>.
james g. keegan jr.
<5e79bd4a-66b2-45be...@n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
osprey (l'il bobbi heishman) didn't earn his reputation as the abortion
newsgroups most prolific liar for nothing.
ask him about his forgery of email from the new york times, or search
google for it. it has been reposted several times (or email me and i'll
send you a copy).
Ospr...@hotmail.com
>
> > "Get out, loser."
>
> > Keegan replied, by snipping out the words "Get out,..."
>
> > From: "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com>
> > Newsgroups:
> > talk.abortion,alt.abortion,alt.atheism,alt.religion.christian.roman-
> > catholic,or.politics
> > Subject: Re: Planned Parenthood Suspends Employee Caught Covering Up
> > Rape of 13-Year-Old
> > Followup-To: misc.test,alt.test,alt.fan.keegan
> > Date: 15 Dec 2008 00:49:32 GMT
> > Organization: dedicated to challenging some of osprey's lies
> > Lines: 32
>
> > > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > >> Gwen <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > >> news:ea13e8f1-2695-4174-9040-
> > >> ddcc27f12...@m12g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>
> > >>> On Dec 13, 5:15 pm, Ospre...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >>>> On Dec 13, 4:59 pm, herkimer <t...@re.ocm> wrote:
> > >>>>> Damn you're a stupid obsessor.
> > >>>> Amen to that, and a compulsive liar he is too.
> > >>> -- and you flame him in your responses to others.
>
> > >> heishman has always been afraid to confront me directly.
>
> > > loser.
>
> I've been away for a while, and I may be wrong. Isn't the "loser"
> above attributed to James?
>
> So, even if he did snip out the "get out" part, he assumed ownership
> of the word "loser" in his post.
>
> Where's the forgery?
If you go to the original thread, you will see that a person posted a
response. He said "go away loser"
Keegan came back and removed the words, go away and claimed he was
calling someone else a loser.
Thus changing the meaning of what the original person was saying.
Just go to the date of the posting, find the thread, and you will see
the exchange between the two persons.
No, he didn't assume ownership, he snipped words away from another
persons statement.
I have tons of things on Keegan to display his dishonesty. But, you
just keep your conversations with him yourself and you shall find out
on your own.
james g. keegan jr.
<6332522c-79cc-4d73...@v35g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Ospr...@hotmail.com wrote:
we all see that. in fact it's still contained above and everyone left it
included because you again refuted your own claim and proved you were
lying.
> Keegan came back and removed the words, go away and claimed he was
> calling someone else a loser.
as mosco said above, "So, even if he did snip out the "get out" part, he
assumed ownership of the word "loser" in his post. Where's the forgery?"
it appears you repeated yourself to him because he caught you in a lie,
and in his first response to a heishman post too. oh my. *smirk*
why don't you share with william our fond memories of being exposed as
having forged email from the new york times?
Ray Fischer
>> He most certainly owes you an apology; and it would be prudent for him
>> to be clear for all as to what he had done.- Hide quoted text -
>
>Before you go any further, keep one thing in mind. James Keegan Jr.
>is guilty of forgery himself. Keegan is guilty of a LOT of things,
Robert "Asshole" Heishman is a habitual liar and NOTHING he says about
anybody can be assumed to be true.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
nyi...@bellsouth.net
> william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
A CC goes to William because he may not be aware of the convention
whereof I speak below.
> > I've heard this over and over since returning to the group. Does
> > anyone have substantial evidence that Peter isn't who he says he is?
In a word: No.
> do you believe a published phd would forge text and falsely attribute it
> to another, as the person posting as peter nyikos did today?
"Fixed it for you" is a formula that your staunch ally "Spartakus"
frequently indulges in, after substituting words in brackets for the
actual words in the text of the person to whom he is responding. In
one post he even did it twice and after the second time said something
like "It was no trouble, really".
Since no one but I berated him for this, I assumed that this is a
convention that grew up in the abortion newsgroups during my eleven-
plus year absence. Why, Osprey even used it against him once, and I
don't recall Spartakus whining about it, let alone charging
"Forgery!". It was in the wake of one of Spartakus's annoying
repetitions of
"I AM SPARTAKUS!!!" Osprey deleted the last word and substituted [A
SPARROW].
[Will you accuse me of lying or forgery if I didn't get the caps and
number of exclamation marks right, Jim? I didn't want to bother with
looking the post up.]
What may have confused you, Jim, is that I changed what you wrote from
something that was at best misleading, to something that was true,
whereas Spartakus uses this convention for just the opposite purpose
in most of the posts where I've seen him use it.
If you didn't realize I was adopting his convention on account of
this, I apologize for (unintentionally) confusing you and making you
waste time berating me for what I did in post after post after post.
Peter Nyikos
nyi...@bellsouth.net
[deletia of things dealt with in my first follow-up]
> just consider his lie above about my efforts to "convince" people he is
> not the original.
"lie"?????? how ELSE am I supposed to interpret all your lies and all
your random guesses about how "the real peter nyikos" would have acted
differently, how "the real peter nyikos never ..." etc. ??? You even
got at least one of your guesses right--I hardly if ever used the word
"obsession" back then, but that was because few people used it in the
first place back then, whereas it gets used over and over and over in
the abortion newsgroups of 2008-2009.
There are LOTS of differences between the newsgroups between then and
now, and I always was a practitioner of "when in Rome, do as the
Romans do" unless it is somehow dishonest or hypocritical or too tacky
to do so.
>i am the *only* abortion regular to have posted that i
> thought he was the original. admittedly, that was when he first
> reappeared and before all of the evidence suggesting that he is not the
> original.
I'd like to see you parade the supposed "evidence" in front of
William Mosco and let HIM say what he thinks of it.
(After all, he was around a good part of the time I posted to
talk.abortion in 1992-1997.)
But I think you will duck this challenge [see below for why].
>in fact, i believe i said that to you in an earlier post.
You are nothing if not repetitious, Jimbo. Where you fall down is
actually backing your allegations with solid evidence. Just look at
your .sig below, and my comments on it.
> if he is the original, he must have had a several strokes and
> significant brain damage in the past decade.
Of course, none of your "evidence" of this is worth the time it takes
to post it, which is why I suspect you won't take the time to do so.
> i suggest you read a random half dozen of his 2009 posts, and then find
> some a decade old
Those won't be in talk.abortion, Jim.
Are you really the same james g. keegan, jr who saw me posting to
talk.abortiion in 1992-1996, plus a few weeks in 1997, and then
nothing else in the abortion newsgroups besides a few accidental
crossposts from the newsgrouops I was heavily involved in during
1997-2001?
It sure doesn't look that way in this post! And I'll stack this up
against any evidence you could produce for William Mosco as above, and
I think my evidence will come out on top.
>and read those. tell me what you think. there are some
> common attributes, but the current version is broken ethically.
I was accused regularly of lying and hypocrisy back then, too.
> --
> "You tried to steal the identity of a James G. Keegan Jr. who did in
> fact author a book,
Can you name that book, Jimbo? I've never seen you do it, and the
only other claim I've seen about it was from an anonymous poster who
claimed it was a boring textbook.
>and you're trying to convince people that you are
> the same person." -- corrupt prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey"
Why "lying"? Did you never claim to be the same person?
> in an effort to cover-up his earlier lie that i was not an author
You are the author of innumerable posts. Did you also author a book?
> <noneedtok...@mail.com> in<v4qdndNQW_fFAMXanZ2dnUVZ_sOrn...@comcast.com>
What goes in the place of those ellipses, Jimbo?
Peter Nyikos
>
james g. keegan jr.
<305dc3eb-b090-4e32...@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Apr 24, 9:05 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > just consider his lie above about my efforts to "convince" people he is
> > not the original.
>
> "lie"?????? how ELSE am I supposed to interpret all your lies and all
> your random guesses about how "the real peter nyikos" would have acted
> differently, how "the real peter nyikos never ..." etc. ??? You even
> got at least one of your guesses right--I hardly if ever used the word
> "obsession" back then, but that was because few people used it in the
> first place back then, whereas it gets used over and over and over in
> the abortion newsgroups of 2008-2009.
>
> There are LOTS of differences between the newsgroups between then and
> now, and I always was a practitioner of "when in Rome, do as the
> Romans do" unless it is somehow dishonest or hypocritical or too tacky
> to do so.
i note that, as usual, you blame others for *your* behavior.
> >i am the *only* abortion regular to have posted that i
> > thought he was the original. admittedly, that was when he first
> > reappeared and before all of the evidence suggesting that he is not the
> > original.
>
> I'd like to see you parade the supposed "evidence" in front of
> William Mosco and let HIM say what he thinks of it.
i don't need to.
he can look at that for himself.
i think he and i will agree that the peter nyikos who posted here more
than a decade ago would not have falsely attributed words to me as you
did.
that speaks for itself, don't you think?
--
"You tried to steal the identity of a James G. Keegan Jr. who did in
fact author a book, and you're trying to convince people that you are
the same person." -- corrupt prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey"
in an effort to cover-up his earlier lie that i was not an author
<noneedtok...@mail.com> in<v4qdndNQW_fFAMXanZ2dnUVZ_sOrn...@comcast.com>
james g. keegan jr.
<343a6f62-1b84-4d65...@k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Apr 24, 9:05 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
[...]
> > do you believe a published phd would forge text and falsely attribute it
> > to another, as the person posting as peter nyikos did today?
>
> "Fixed it for you" is a formula that your staunch ally "Spartakus"
stop blaming others for *your* dishonesty/
*you* falsely attributed text to me. *you*
the peter nyikos who posted here more than a decade ago, a phd, wouldn't
have done that.
william mosco
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
[Snipped Peter asking James about providing evidence to me]
> i don't need to.
>
> he can look at that for himself.
>
> i think he and i will agree that the peter nyikos who posted here more
> than a decade ago would not have falsely attributed words to me as you
> did.
I agree he would not.
He has explained his reasonings as to why he has done so now, and very
much like the Peter I remember, he's not afraid to apologize when
apologies are due.
Issue is closed in my view.
james g. keegan jr.
<0b44dcec-490a-446b...@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>
> [Snipped Peter asking James about providing evidence to me]
>
> > i don't need to.
> >
> > he can look at that for himself.
> >
> > i think he and i will agree that the peter nyikos who posted here more
> > than a decade ago would not have falsely attributed words to me as you
> > did.
>
> I agree he would not.
>
> He has explained his reasonings as to why he has done so now, and very
> much like the Peter I remember, he's not afraid to apologize when
> apologies are due.
i didn't see his apology for that forgery. can you point me to it.
i did see him making up excuses and blaming others for *his* dishonesty.
william mosco
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> In article
> <0b44dcec-490a-446b...@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> >
> > [Snipped Peter asking James about providing evidence to me]
> >
> > > i don't need to.
> > >
> > > he can look at that for himself.
> > >
> > > i think he and i will agree that the peter nyikos who posted here more
> > > than a decade ago would not have falsely attributed words to me as you
> > > did.
> >
> > I agree he would not.
> >
> > He has explained his reasonings as to why he has done so now, and very
> > much like the Peter I remember, he's not afraid to apologize when
> > apologies are due.
>
> i didn't see his apology for that forgery. can you point me to it.
>.
Last paragraph below:
More options Apr 27, 11:38 am Newsgroups: talk.abortion,
alt.abortion, alt.religion.christianity, alt.politics.usa,
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic From: nyik...@bellsouth.net
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 08:38:53 -0700 (PDT) Local: Mon, Apr 27 2009
11:38 am Subject: Re: Dirty debating tactics I: The Phantom Error
Correction Scam Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print |
Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find
messages by this author On Apr 24, 9:05 pm, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article > <3c53fcde-ec17-419d-83fa-14e90fff3...@z9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
A CC goes to William because he may not be aware of the convention
whereof I speak below.
> > I've heard this over and over since returning to the group. Does > > anyone have substantial evidence that Peter isn't who he says he is?
In a word: No.
> do you believe a published phd would forge text and falsely attribute it > to another, as the person posting as peter nyikos did today?
"Fixed it for you" is a formula that your staunch ally "Spartakus"
william mosco
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> In article
> <0b44dcec-490a-446b...@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> >
> > [Snipped Peter asking James about providing evidence to me]
> >
> > > i don't need to.
> > >
> > > he can look at that for himself.
> > >
> > > i think he and i will agree that the peter nyikos who posted here more
> > > than a decade ago would not have falsely attributed words to me as you
> > > did.
> >
> > I agree he would not.
> >
> > He has explained his reasonings as to why he has done so now, and very
> > much like the Peter I remember, he's not afraid to apologize when
> > apologies are due.
>
> i didn't see his apology for that forgery. can you point me to it.
>.
Last paragraph below:
More options Apr 27, 11:38 am Newsgroups: talk.abortion,
alt.abortion, alt.religion.christianity, alt.politics.usa,
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic From: nyik...@bellsouth.net
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 08:38:53 -0700 (PDT) Local: Mon, Apr 27 2009
11:38 am Subject: Re: Dirty debating tactics I: The Phantom Error
Correction Scam Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print |
Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find
messages by this author On Apr 24, 9:05 pm, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article > <3c53fcde-ec17-419d-83fa-14e90fff3...@z9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
A CC goes to William because he may not be aware of the convention
whereof I speak below.
> > I've heard this over and over since returning to the group. Does > > anyone have substantial evidence that Peter isn't who he says he is?
In a word: No.
> do you believe a published phd would forge text and falsely attribute it > to another, as the person posting as peter nyikos did today?
Galen Hekhuis
<wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'll bet you're a big fan of those "I'm sorry if anyone was offended"
type of apologies, too.
william mosco
Well, the part where he says "...(Unintentionally) confusing you..."
points directly to what he had done including, keeping the
attributes.
I'd take it if I were James, but certainly it's his call...
Galen Hekhuis
<wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Galen Hekhuis wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:21:41 -0700 (PDT), william mosco
>> <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>> >> In article
>> >> <0b44dcec-490a-446b...@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > [Snipped Peter asking James about providing evidence to me]
>> >> >
>> >> > > i don't need to.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > he can look at that for himself.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > i think he and i will agree that the peter nyikos who posted here more
>> >> > > than a decade ago would not have falsely attributed words to me as you
>> >> > > did.
>> >> >
>> >> > I agree he would not.
>> >> >
>> >> > He has explained his reasonings as to why he has done so now, and very
>> >> > much like the Peter I remember, he's not afraid to apologize when
>> >> > apologies are due.
>> >>
>> >> i didn't see his apology for that forgery. can you point me to it.
>> >>.
>> >
>> >Last paragraph below:
>> >
>> > ?More options Apr 27, 11:38?am Newsgroups: talk.abortion,
>> >alt.abortion, alt.religion.christianity, alt.politics.usa,
>> >alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic From: nyik...@bellsouth.net
>> >Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 08:38:53 -0700 (PDT) Local: Mon, Apr 27 2009
>> >11:38?am Subject: Re: Dirty debating tactics I: The Phantom Error
>> >Correction Scam Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print |
>> >Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find
>> >messages by this author On Apr 24, 9:05 pm, "james g. keegan jr."
>> ><jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> In article > <3c53fcde-ec17-419d-83fa-14e90fff3...@z9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, > ?william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >A CC goes to William because he may not be aware of the convention
>> >whereof I speak below.
>> >> > I've heard this over and over since returning to the group. Does > > anyone have substantial evidence that Peter isn't who he says he is?
>> >In a word: No.
>> >> do you believe a published phd would forge text and falsely attribute it > to another, as the person posting as peter nyikos did today?
>> >"Fixed it for you" is a formula that ?your staunch ally "Spartakus"
>> >frequently indulges in, after substituting words in brackets for the
>> >actual words in the text of the person to whom he is responding. ?In
>> >one post he even did it twice and after the second time said something
>> >like "It was no trouble, really".
>> >Since no one but I berated him for this, I assumed that this is a
>> >convention that grew up in the abortion newsgroups during my eleven-
>> >plus year absence. ?Why, Osprey even used it against him once, and I
>> >don't recall Spartakus whining about it, let alone charging
>> >"Forgery!". ?It was in the wake of one of Spartakus's annoying
>> >repetitions of "I AM SPARTAKUS!!!" Osprey deleted the last word and
>> >substituted [A SPARROW].
>> >[Will you accuse me of lying or forgery if I didn't get the caps and
>> >number of exclamation marks right, Jim? I didn't want to bother with
>> >looking the post up.]
>> >What may have confused you, Jim, is that I changed what you wrote from
>> >something that was at best misleading, to something that was true,
>> >whereas Spartakus uses this convention for just the opposite purpose
>> >in most of the posts where I've seen him use it.
>> >If you didn't realize I was adopting his convention on account of
>> >this, I apologize for (unintentionally) confusing you and making you
>> >waste time berating me for what I did in post after post after post.
>> >Peter Nyikos
>>
>> I'll bet you're a big fan of those "I'm sorry if anyone was offended"
>> type of apologies, too.
>
>Well, the part where he says "...(Unintentionally) confusing you..."
>points directly to what he had done including, keeping the
>attributes.
>
>I'd take it if I were James, but certainly it's his call...
He's apologizing for (possibly) confusing Keegan, not for what he did.
It's sort of a "non-apology" apology.
james g. keegan jr.
<4966bf52-a7b6-4321...@u9g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > In article
> > <0b44dcec-490a-446b...@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > >
> > > [Snipped Peter asking James about providing evidence to me]
> > >
> > > > i don't need to.
> > > >
> > > > he can look at that for himself.
> > > >
> > > > i think he and i will agree that the peter nyikos who posted here more
> > > > than a decade ago would not have falsely attributed words to me as you
> > > > did.
> > >
> > > I agree he would not.
> > >
> > > He has explained his reasonings as to why he has done so now, and very
> > > much like the Peter I remember, he's not afraid to apologize when
> > > apologies are due.
> >
> > i didn't see his apology for that forgery. can you point me to it.
> >.
>
> Last paragraph below:
if you believe that is an appropriate apology, william, then you haev
lost my respect.
>
> �More options Apr 27, 11:38�am Newsgroups: talk.abortion,
--
james g. keegan jr.
<55aad808-a82f-4244...@n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > In article
> > <0b44dcec-490a-446b...@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > >
> > > [Snipped Peter asking James about providing evidence to me]
> > >
> > > > i don't need to.
> > > >
> > > > he can look at that for himself.
> > > >
> > > > i think he and i will agree that the peter nyikos who posted here more
> > > > than a decade ago would not have falsely attributed words to me as you
> > > > did.
> > >
> > > I agree he would not.
> > >
> > > He has explained his reasonings as to why he has done so now, and very
> > > much like the Peter I remember, he's not afraid to apologize when
> > > apologies are due.
> >
> > i didn't see his apology for that forgery. can you point me to it.
> >.
>
> Last paragraph below:
[normally, i don't follow-up your duplicate posts. this is an exception.]
if you believe the apology below is appropriate, william, then you have
lost my respect
>
> �More options Apr 27, 11:38�am Newsgroups: talk.abortion,
--
james g. keegan jr.
Galen Hekhuis <ghek...@earthlink.net> wrote:
it's a flame, not an apology.
i had thought better of william.
that's two mistakes this year: first, initially believing that the
person posting as nyikos was the same peter nyikos who posted here more
than a decade ago and the next believing that william was evaluating
facts fairly.
oh my. maybe i'm getting old.
william mosco
> In article
> <55aad808-a82f-4244...@n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
> william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <0b44dcec-490a-446b...@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> > > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [Snipped Peter asking James about providing evidence to me]
> > > >
> > > > > i don't need to.
> > > > >
> > > > > he can look at that for himself.
> > > > >
> > > > > i think he and i will agree that the peter nyikos who posted here more
> > > > > than a decade ago would not have falsely attributed words to me as you
> > > > > did.
> > > >
> > > > I agree he would not.
> > > >
> > > > He has explained his reasonings as to why he has done so now, and very
> > > > much like the Peter I remember, he's not afraid to apologize when
> > > > apologies are due.
> > >
> > > i didn't see his apology for that forgery. can you point me to it.
> > >.
> >
[Snip]
> if you believe the apology below is appropriate, william, then you have
> lost my respect
>
Sorry to hear that James. It *may* be appropriate if you left me in
the dark about this "alleged" convention Peter spoke about. If this
indeed was what was deemed common in the group since I've been away
(inserting brackets with content within other's attributed texts),
then I've been played.
[Snip]
william mosco
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> In article <u2dcv414s56c27e95...@4ax.com>,
> Galen Hekhuis <ghek...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:36:42 -0700 (PDT), william mosco
> > <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >Well, the part where he says "...(Unintentionally) confusing you..."
> > >points directly to what he had done including, keeping the
> > >attributes.
> > >
> > >I'd take it if I were James, but certainly it's his call...
> >
> > He's apologizing for (possibly) confusing Keegan,
not for what he did.
> > It's sort of a "non-apology" apology.
>
>
> it's a flame, not an apology.
>
> i had thought better of william.
>
> that's two mistakes this year: first, initially believing that the
> person posting as nyikos was the same peter nyikos who posted here more
> than a decade ago
and the next believing that william was evaluating
> facts fairly.
>
Not possibe,
if you knew what Peter was doing when he forged your text and
intentionally left me in the dark about what may have become common.
james g. keegan jr.
<c996f140-665e-4834...@z16g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
it's too late, william. you did it to yourself, just like the person
posting as nyikos did.
as for what has become common, don't start lying or using someone else's
lies in your arguments.
if you want to accept nyikos defensive lie and use it in your arguments
with me, then support it with evidence.... evidence that does not exist.
as i said, i had thought better of you; much better.
james g. keegan jr.
<287437ed-5a55-40be...@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > if you believe the apology below is appropriate, william, then you have
> > lost my respect
> >
>
> Sorry to hear that James. It *may* be appropriate
there are no conditions under what nyikos did was acceptable;
particularly his self-justifying lies.
i had thought better of you, william.
james g. keegan jr.
<287437ed-5a55-40be...@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
there is no "if," william.
if someone made an outrageous claim to defend a disgusting and dishonest
action, that person would provide evidence that the claim was valid.
of course, he did now.
you were worse than played. you were made a fool of my the person
posting as peter nyikos and i believe you have lost the respect of
several, deservedly so.
william mosco
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> <287437ed-5a55-40be...@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
> william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry to hear that James. It *may* be appropriate if you left me in
> > the dark about this "alleged" convention Peter spoke about. If this
> > indeed was what was deemed common in the group since I've been away
> > (inserting brackets with content within other's attributed texts),
> > then I've been played.
>
>
> there is no "if," william.
>
> if someone made an outrageous claim to defend a disgusting and dishonest
> action, that person would provide evidence that the claim was valid.
>
Agreed. So are you saying Peter's charge is fantasy?
> of course, he did now.
>
> you were worse than played. you were made a fool of my the person
> posting as peter nyikos and i believe you have lost the respect of
> several, deservedly so.
>
I never said the apology was appropriate, there was plenty of
conditional diction
posted; and as for your charge of 'lost respect', that's up to you and
others and I never lose sleep over the small things in life...
> --
william mosco
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> In article
> <287437ed-5a55-40be...@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
> william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>
> > > if you believe the apology below is appropriate, william, then you have
> > > lost my respect
> > >
> >
> > Sorry to hear that James. It *may* be appropriate
>
> there are no conditions under what nyikos did was acceptable;
I was talking about his apology James; you're not trying to
misrepresent what I wrote are you?
> particularly his self-justifying lies.
>
> i had thought better of you, william.
>
Was the purpose of your post to falsely slander me as one who approves
of forgery?
>.
james g. keegan jr.
<2711460b-b0c1-4502...@k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > In article
> > <287437ed-5a55-40be...@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
> > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry to hear that James. It *may* be appropriate if you left me in
> > > the dark about this "alleged" convention Peter spoke about. If this
> > > indeed was what was deemed common in the group since I've been away
> > > (inserting brackets with content within other's attributed texts),
> > > then I've been played.
> >
> >
> > there is no "if," william.
> >
>
> > if someone made an outrageous claim to defend a disgusting and dishonest
> > action, that person would provide evidence that the claim was valid.
> >
>
> Agreed. So are you saying Peter's charge is fantasy?
has he proven his claim william?
it's not my job to disprove it.
the person posting as peter nyikos got caught lying. after being
harassed about it for a long time, he admitted his lie in a sleazy post
and tried to blame others for it.
then he posted his forgery.
then he made up an excuse for his forgery, which he did not support
because he could not.
in what post did you challenge him to support his claim?
> > you were worse than played. you were made a fool of my the person
> > posting as peter nyikos and i believe you have lost the respect of
> > several, deservedly so.
> >
>
> I never said the apology was appropriate
back up william. i asked you if you considered it appropriate. in fact,
i said if you did that i had lost all respect for you.
> there was plenty of
> conditional diction
> posted;
bullshit.
> and as for your charge of 'lost respect', that's up to you and
> others and I never lose sleep over the small things in life...
no william, it was up to you.
james g. keegan jr.
<52ce88f6-1d5f-483b...@j18g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > In article
> > <287437ed-5a55-40be...@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
> > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> >
> > > > if you believe the apology below is appropriate, william, then you have
> > > > lost my respect
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sorry to hear that James. It *may* be appropriate
> >
> > there are no conditions under what nyikos did was acceptable;
>
> I was talking about his apology James; you're not trying to
> misrepresent what I wrote are you?
you're making a fool of yourself.
you conditionally excused the person posting as peter nyikos' forgery
and then you conditionally accepted his non-apology slur as an apology.
you don;t look very credible now.
> > particularly his self-justifying lies.
> > i had thought better of you, william.
> >
> Was the purpose of your post to falsely slander me as one who approves
> of forgery?
you did that to yourself.
william mosco
posted a claim and I didn't dismiss it at once because it may or may
not be true.
I have not been here.
When osprey posted a post that proved you did not forge when he
charged you had that was easy; but you have done what Peter has also
done, made a charge without evidence, shouldn't I dismiss your charge
on his identity for lack of proof?
> as for what has become common, don't start lying
False charge. I said 'may have'. Try to be honest.
or using someone else's
> lies in your arguments.
>
Misdirection. The james keegan I remember is emerging. I actually
Was begining to respect you james.
> if you want to accept nyikos defensive lie and use it in your arguments
> with me, then support it with evidence.... evidence that does not exist.
>
Stop misrepresenting.
> as i said, i had thought better of you; much better.
>
And I you.
james g. keegan jr.
<a0fa3ac3-87bd-4be9...@l16g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > > > that's two mistakes this year: first, initially believing that the
> > > > person posting as nyikos was the same peter nyikos who posted here
> > > > more than a decade ago and the next believing that william was
> > > > evaluating facts fairly.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not possibe,
> > > if you knew what Peter was doing when he forged your text and
> > > intentionally left me in the dark about what may have become common.
> >
> > it's too late, william. you did it to yourself, just like the person
> > posting as nyikos did.
> >
> The fact that I do try to be fair is what I suspect you dislike.
you're attacking me now because you visibly were blatantly unfair and
made yourself look like just another dishonest creep.
worse yet, you perpetuated it even after what you had done was out there
and indefensible.
i remember that while we often disagreed, you once acted with character
and substance. now you sound just like the liar and forger you defended.
we don't need to replay this further.
james g. keegan jr.
<a0fa3ac3-87bd-4be9...@l16g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When osprey posted a post that proved you did not forge when he
> charged you had that was easy; but you have done what Peter has also
> done, made a charge without evidence, shouldn't I dismiss your charge
> on his identity for lack of proof?
now you are blatantly lying.
the person you are defending made a claim, one that was false and
unsupportable.
the person posting as peter nyikos made a claim that usenet convention
had changed. he made this claim to defend his forgery. and, of course,
his forgery was the result of his childlike anger at having been exposed
as a liar.
only a sleazeball would attack the target of the false claim rather than
the one making it.
william mosco
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> <a0fa3ac3-87bd-4be9...@l16g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > When osprey posted a post that proved you did not forge when he
> > charged you had that was easy; but you have done what Peter has also
> > done, made a charge without evidence, shouldn't I dismiss your charge
> > on his identity for lack of proof?
>
>
> now you are blatantly lying.
>
What you call evidence is not evidence at all.
I dismiss it as I will dismiss Peter's claim if he does not provide
proof.
> the person you are defending made a claim, one that was false and
> unsupportable.
>
I will give him the chance to show evidence if he can, I gave you a
chance, should I not do the same for him?
> the person posting as peter nyikos made a claim that usenet convention
> had changed. he made this claim to defend his forgery. and, of course,
> his forgery was the result of his childlike anger at having been exposed
> as a liar.
>
> only a sleazeball would attack the target of the false claim rather than
> the one making it.
>
Lol. The attack came only after you jumped the gun on what I consider
fair treatment of a poster who made a claim. You're upset because I
didn't dismiss his claim right off. Interesting.
> --
nyi...@bellsouth.net
> > > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Sorry to hear that James. It *may* be appropriate if you left me in
> > > > the dark about this "alleged" convention Peter spoke about. If this
> > > > indeed was what was deemed common in the group since I've been away
Keegan's silence about whether this is deemed common in the group is
so deafening that it drowns out the feeble little whispers he posts
below.
Actions speak louder than words, and so do silences like this one of
Keegan's.
> > > > (inserting brackets with content within other's attributed texts),
> > > > then I've been played.
>
> > > there is no "if," william.
One might think that Keegan was breaking his silence right here,
agreeing that it IS common action in the abortion newsgroups, but
below he treats the whole sentence beginning with "If" as though it
had not been written at all.
> > > if someone made an outrageous claim to defend a disgusting and dishonest
> > > action, that person would provide evidence that the claim was valid.
>
> > Agreed. So are you saying Peter's charge is fantasy?
>
> has he proven his claim william?
Are you referring to the claim that "Saprtakus" frequently indulges in
this "Fixed it for you" convention?
> the person posting as peter nyikos got caught lying.
Whispers like this can be disregarded in the wake of Keegan's
silence. But I'll humor him below, for William's sake. Not Keegan's.
>after being
> harassed about it for a long time, he admitted his lie
Correction: I admitted to a minor inaccuracy. Which is why I
substituted "minor inaccuracy" for "lie" in what Keegan wrote.
Here, William, you see proof that if Keegan claims someone "admitted
his lie" it means only that the person admitted to having said
something which Keegan labels a lie.
> > I never said the apology was appropriate
> back up william. i asked you if you considered it appropriate. in fact,
> i said if you did that i had lost all respect for you.
That, William, is because Keegan is working a variation on the Phantom
Error Correction Scam which I call the Usenet Apology Scam.
This scam consists of demanding an apology for something that never
happened, so that the demander will have the evidence he was so sorely
lacking before--the evidence that the thing that actually never
happened DID indeed happen. I've seen this scam worked a number of
times since, tby others targeting other people, here and in
talk.origins.
Keegan and his allies of the time worked this scam before, in regard
to Adrienne Regard being allegedly accused of forgery by me, whereas I
was merely raising the issue of whether she had actually done that.
[excuse the "regard" wordplay, that really was her name--in fact, you
might remember her, William]
But just the other day, he acted as though such an episode had never
taken place in 1993, so as to foist yet another false claim of a
difference between me and "the real peter nyikos" on an unsuspecting
readership.
Peter Nyikos
nyi...@bellsouth.net
CC to William Mosco
On Apr 27, 11:15 pm, william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <a0fa3ac3-87bd-4be9-9e90-b271942ea...@l16g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > When osprey posted a post that proved you did not forge when he
> > > charged you had that was easy; but you have done what Peter has also
> > > done, made a charge without evidence, shouldn't I dismiss your charge
> > > on his identity for lack of proof?
>
> > now you are blatantly lying.
>
> What you call evidence is not evidence at all.
> I dismiss it as I will dismiss Peter's claim if he does not provide
> proof.
I'm not sure what counts as proof to you, William, but here is a post
where the convention is used twice by Spartakus. In a later post to
the same thread, one of his and one of my previous uses are preserved,
and in it he even calls it an "Internet tradition": Message-ID:
<88d6975d-b035-4bfe...@z8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
Google has this nasty habit of putting ellipses for symbols just
before the @ sign. I expect the three dots to be substituted for a93
in the above ID. If you need similar assistance for the post below,
give a holler:
Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!
v35g2000pro.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion,alt.religion.christian.roman-
catholic,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Brazilian bishops didn't really excommunicate anybody
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:19:40 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <f1732082-7527-4ab9-a194-
ca7c4a...@v35g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
References:
<0eebb980-53a0-47e6...@o2g2000prl.googlegroups.com>
<f68e9c64-302e-4510...@p20g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
nyik...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Recently in Brazil, a pregnant nine-year-old girl underwent an
> > abortion to avoid probable death.
> That's assuming the report linked below is not only correct about what
> the unspecified [abortion?] doctors said, but also that the doctors
> were more knowledgeable/honest about the dangers than [Archbishop
> Sobrinho is] about canon law below.
Fixed it for you.
A safe assumption, btw, fixed or otherwise.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> > The Catholic Church in Brazil objected, but the abortion went forward
> > anyway. The RCC's bishops responded by announcing that everyone
> > involved in this life-saving abortion was excommunicated, with the
> > exception of the girl.
> > Canon 1398 states that “A [Catholic] person who procures a completed
> > abortion incurs a latae sententiae [automatic] excommunication.” And
> > that goes for any Catholic who performs an abortion or assists in any
> > way. Catholic doctrine is clear and explicit, and there are no
> > provisions for exceptional circumstances.
> Yes, there are. This is the second time you've failed to take the
> elementary precaution of consulting Wikipedia before putting your foot
> in your mouth about excommunication. Under latae sentiae you can read:
> " Unless the excusing circumstances outlined in canons 1321-1330[6]
> are verified, the following persons incur excommunication latae
> sententiae:"
What? Do you mean to say that members of the Catholic heirarchy,
including Archbishop Sobrinho and unnamed source at the Vatican got it
wrong??? Maybe y'all should come off the reservation and tell those
guys what's what. Besides, Rome is gorgeous at this time of year, so
I hear.
> [6] Cann. 1321-1330". Code of Canon Law.http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4W.HTM.
> Retrieved on 2008-06-01.
> The VERY FIRST exception in Canon 1323 covers the young girl who had
> the abortion:
> 1/ a person who has not yet completed the sixteenth year of age;
I don't recall claiming that the girl was excommunicated. In fact I
said:
"everyone involved in this life-saving abortion was
excommunicated,
with the exception of the girl."
Your attention is wandering again. Sucks getting old, doesn't it?
> and, if the report was correct about what the unspecified "doctors"
> said, the mother is exempt under:
> 4/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively
> grave,
Take it up with Archbishop Sobrinho. After all, he was the one who
claimed that the abortion was a more grave sin than the rape of the
girl.
> and, if the unspecified "doctors" really had the same fear the girl
> would die, they too are let off the hook.
Fuck you with your own scare quotes "Doctor" Nyikos.
> If I had made such an elementary blunder, I would be accused of lying
> by elizabeth's "everyone" (you, elizabeth, Gwen,
> Hekhuis, Keegan, Fischer, Humphrey) but I suspect none of you give
> a damn how many abortion-related mistakes *you* make, as long as
> the mistakes favor the pro-choice side.
Lesson learned. I will never take Catholic clergymen's word on
anything, ever again.
> > Now, after affirming Catholic doctrine that says that anyone who
> > has an abortion or assists with an abortion is automatically
> > excommunicated, Brazil's bishops are walking it back. They didn't
> > mean it, they were misunderstood, blah, blah, blah...
> >http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/03/14/1245a40abd9e
> > It's like they're not even pretending to believe their BS any more.
> Will all 7 of you revert to these false accusations when I'm not
> around to correct [Archbishop Sobrinho and unnamed sources at the Vatican]?
Fixed it for you again. Really, it's no trouble at all.
---------------------------- end of included
post---------------------------
william mosco
nyik...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> CC to William Mosco
>
> On Apr 27, 11:15 pm, william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <a0fa3ac3-87bd-4be9-9e90-b271942ea...@l16g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> > > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > When osprey posted a post that proved you did not forge when he
> > > > charged you had that was easy; but you have done what Peter has also
> > > > done, made a charge without evidence, shouldn't I dismiss your charge
> > > > on his identity for lack of proof?
> >
> > > now you are blatantly lying.
> >
> > What you call evidence is not evidence at all.
> > I dismiss it as I will dismiss Peter's claim if he does not provide
> > proof.
>
> I'm not sure what counts as proof to you, William, but here is a post
> where the convention is used twice by Spartakus. In a later post to
> the same thread, one of his and one of my previous uses are preserved,
> and in it he even calls it an "Internet tradition": Message-ID:
> <88d6975d-b035-4bfe...@z8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
> Google has this nasty habit of putting ellipses for symbols just
> before the @ sign. I expect the three dots to be substituted for a93
> in the above ID. If you need similar assistance for the post below,
> give a holler:
>
it appears you have shown substantial proof of your claim of a prior
convention.
Heh. I guess James may have intentionally kept me in the dark about
this, if he was aware of it.
I wonder if he will now post a new thread with the topic: "spartikus
the forger"...?
I should have known better, I've been away too long...
I will be eagerly awaiting James' response or loistening to the
crickets...
james g. keegan jr.
<39d335b9-7864-4a2f...@z8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > In article
> > <a0fa3ac3-87bd-4be9...@l16g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > When osprey posted a post that proved you did not forge when he
> > > charged you had that was easy; but you have done what Peter has also
> > > done, made a charge without evidence, shouldn't I dismiss your charge
> > > on his identity for lack of proof?
> >
> > now you are blatantly lying.
> >
> What you call evidence is not evidence at all.
you're lying again. i provided irrefutable evidence with legitimate
message ids, and more than once. you even responded to posts containing
that evidence and agreed with me.
> > the person you are defending made a claim, one that was false and
> > unsupportable.
> >
> I will give him the chance to show evidence if he can
shouldn't his claim be considered false until that time, particularly
given that he clearly made it up to partially excuse his forgery?
> > the person posting as peter nyikos made a claim that usenet convention
> > had changed. he made this claim to defend his forgery. and, of course,
> > his forgery was the result of his childlike anger at having been exposed
> > as a liar.
> >
> > only a sleazeball would attack the target of the false claim rather than
> > the one making it.
> >
> Lol. The attack came only after you jumped the gun on what I consider
> fair treatment of a poster who made a claim. You're upset because I
> didn't dismiss his claim right off.
on the contrary, you're blaming me because you were made a fool of.
james g. keegan jr.
<41e68191-145c-4f06...@y6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> nyik...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> it appears you have shown substantial proof of your claim of a prior
> convention.
anyone that considers one person "substantial proof" of a usenet
convention is a fool, dishonest, or both.
james g. keegan jr.
<f13ae5dc-8ec2-41c4...@d2g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> Keegan's silence
i see you're attacking me because you got caught making another claim
you can not support.
I note too that so far you have found ONE example which you tried to
claim formed a usenet convention. do you think a phd would use such
logiv?
sorry whomever you are, most readers aren't that stupid.
you lied in an effort to cover up your earlier dishonesty.
the similarities to ooopsy are unmistakable.
william mosco
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> In article
> <39d335b9-7864-4a2f...@z8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <a0fa3ac3-87bd-4be9...@l16g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> > > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > When osprey posted a post that proved you did not forge when he
> > > > charged you had that was easy; but you have done what Peter has also
> > > > done, made a charge without evidence, shouldn't I dismiss your charge
> > > > on his identity for lack of proof?
> > >
> > > now you are blatantly lying.
> > >
> > What you call evidence is not evidence at all.
>
> you're lying again. i provided irrefutable evidence with legitimate
> message ids,
About his identity?
No, you provided no such proof.
and more than once. you even responded to posts containing
> that evidence and agreed with me.
>
We"re talking about two different things here.
> > > the person you are defending made a claim, one that was false and
> > > unsupportable.
> > >
> > I will give him the chance to show evidence if he can
>
>
> shouldn't his claim be considered false until that time,
No. Even a court allows time for evidence preperation.
particularly
> given that he clearly made it up to partially excuse his forgery?
>
He posted proof to his claim today.
> > > the person posting as peter nyikos made a claim that usenet convention
> > > had changed. he made this claim to defend his forgery. and, of course,
> > > his forgery was the result of his childlike anger at having been exposed
> > > as a liar.
> > >
> > > only a sleazeball would attack the target of the false claim rather than
> > > the one making it.
> > >
> > Lol. The attack came only after you jumped the gun on what I consider
> > fair treatment of a poster who made a claim. You're upset because I
> > didn't dismiss his claim right off.
>
> on the contrary, you're blaming me because you were made a fool of.
>
No I blame myself for believing that you were up front with me.
Peter posted a post from march today, where spartikus did exactly what
peter did to you. Will you now be calling spartikus a forger also?
Also, peter provided proof to his claim of a prior convention, will
you now be providing proof about the authenticity of peter's identity?
james g. keegan jr.
<239e9c03-9c06-49f1...@k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > In article
> > <39d335b9-7864-4a2f...@z8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <a0fa3ac3-87bd-4be9...@l16g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > When osprey posted a post that proved you did not forge when he
> > > > > charged you had that was easy; but you have done what Peter has also
> > > > > done, made a charge without evidence, shouldn't I dismiss your charge
> > > > > on his identity for lack of proof?
> > > >
> > > > now you are blatantly lying.
> > > >
> > > What you call evidence is not evidence at all.
> >
> > you're lying again. i provided irrefutable evidence with legitimate
> > message ids,
>
> About his identity?
nice try at changing the subject william. we're talking about his
forgery; the forgery you initially criticized and later defended.
> Also, peter provided proof to his claim of a prior convention
you're lying again.
peter found ONE example. ONE.
that doesn't come close to making a usenet convention, william.
for you to claim it does tells readers what kind of character you have.
william mosco
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> In article
> <239e9c03-9c06-49f1...@k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <39d335b9-7864-4a2f...@z8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <a0fa3ac3-87bd-4be9...@l16g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > When osprey posted a post that proved you did not forge when he
> > > > > > charged you had that was easy; but you have done what Peter has also
> > > > > > done, made a charge without evidence, shouldn't I dismiss your charge
> > > > > > on his identity for lack of proof?
> > > > >
> > > > > now you are blatantly lying.
> > > > >
> > > > What you call evidence is not evidence at all.
> > >
> > > you're lying again. i provided irrefutable evidence with legitimate
> > > message ids,
> >
> > About his identity?
>
> nice try at changing the subject william.
Follow the thread down once more from the top.
we're talking about his
> forgery; the forgery you initially criticized and later defended.
>
Where did I defend forgery? Post it or retract the charge (or ignore
my request which seems more likely).
> > Also, peter provided proof to his claim of a prior convention
>
> you're lying again.
My mistake. Peter never made a claim that there *was* a prior
convention, only that he assumed there was because of what spartikus
had done and no one seemed to care about his forgery. Sorry 'bout
that.
> peter found ONE example. ONE.
>
Right, and he only cited one person. What's the problem?
> that doesn't come close to making a usenet convention, william.
>
No it doesn't, the mistake above was mine not Peter's. He never made
the claim that one surely existed. My bad.
> for you to claim it does tells readers what kind of character you have.
I'm not as you can see. What I am saying is that Peter proved his
claim true,
Did you or anyone in. The group address spartikus' forgery when it
happened?
Spartakus
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > > > the person posting as peter nyikos made a claim that usenet convention
> > > > had changed. he made this claim to defend his forgery. and, of course,
> > > > his forgery was the result of his childlike anger at having been exposed
> > > > as a liar.
> > > >
> > > > only a sleazeball would attack the target of the false claim rather than
> > > > the one making it.
> > > Lol. The attack came only after you jumped the gun on what I consider
> > > fair treatment of a poster who made a claim. You're upset because I
> > > didn't dismiss his claim right off.
> > on the contrary, you're blaming me because you were made a fool of.
> No I blame myself for believing that you were up front with me.
>
> Peter posted a post from march today, where spartikus did exactly what
> peter did to you. Will you now be calling spartikus a forger also?
Bill, I realize that you are probably not a religious man, so certain
allowances for your ignorance can be made. However, I cannot stand
(or sit, in this case) idly by while you trample, run roughshod over,
and otherwise demean a hallowed Internet Tradition[tm].
The "Fixed It For You" convention is relatively new. It seems to date
back to approximately 2003. Its origins are obscure - something about
a "fog of war"... whatever! Properly deployed, it brings
enlightenment to attentive readers. This is where the person posting
as Peter Nyikos strayed: he used "Fixed It For You" to *obscure*, not
to enlighten. As with all cases of misusing Internet Traditions[tm],
this is tantamount to blasphemy.
And you, my good man, are an accessory to his blasphemy through your
misguided attempts at defending him. Normally this would be a good
time for a "repent and be saved" rant, but we are talking about
Internet Traditions[tm]. YOU must become Aware of ALL Internet
Traditions[!!!] Your best course of action here is "read and be
enlightened":
william mosco
james g. keegan jr.
<85fd1044-06ff-4b36...@c18g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
you would have come across as less dishonest had you simply admitted
your effort to change the subject
> > we're talking about his
> > forgery; the forgery you initially criticized and later defended.
> >
> Where did I defend forgery?
in this thread a d others. repeatedly.
> > > Also, peter provided proof to his claim of a prior convention
> >
> > you're lying again.
>
> My mistake.
or worse.
>
> > peter found ONE example. ONE.
> >
> Right, and he only cited one person. What's the problem?
didn;t you read the next line?
>
> > that doesn't come close to making a usenet convention, william.
no close at all. for you to argue that it did makes you appear ignorant,
dishonest, or both.
> >
> No it doesn't,
finally, you admit your error
> the mistake above was mine not Peter's.
his mistake was his forgery and his subsequent effort to excuse it by
calling on a usenet convention he fabricated.
i suspect you knew that anyway.
> > for you to claim it does tells readers what kind of character you have.
>
> I'm not as you can see. What I am saying is that Peter proved his
> claim true,
since you just admitted he did not, i'll take that as another effort on
your part to defend peter's forgery and subsequent lie to cover it up.
william mosco
> <41e68191-145c-4f06...@y6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > nyik...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > it appears you have shown substantial proof of your claim of a prior
> > convention.
>
>
> anyone that considers one person "substantial proof" of a usenet
> convention is a fool, dishonest, or both.
>
this on a blackberry 'cause I'm getting ready to roll. Here goes:
Peter never made a claim of there ever being a *prior convention* of
inserting words within brackets contained within words attributted to
another. He *assumed* there was one because spartikus did that to him
and no one called out spartikus for doing so.
I apologize for my mistake to Peter.
I think that covers that.
william mosco
Bull. Exposing your hypocrisy is only a side bar and I'm still on
subject. Nice try.
> > > we're talking about his
> > > forgery; the forgery you initially criticized and later defended.
> > >
> > Where did I defend forgery?
>
> in this thread a d others. repeatedly.
>
James my good man, I'm so low down on the iq table, I really need you
to repost or quote where I defended the practice of forgery.
> > > > Also, peter provided proof to his claim of a prior convention
> > >
> > > you're lying again.
> >
> > My mistake.
>
> or worse.
> >
> > > peter found ONE example. ONE.
> > >
> > Right, and he only cited one person. What's the problem?
>
> didn;t you read the next line?
Yes I did.
> >
> > > that doesn't come close to making a usenet convention, william.
>
> no close at all. for you to argue that it did makes you appear ignorant,
> dishonest, or both.
> > >
> > No it doesn't,
>
> finally, you admit your error
>
> > the mistake above was mine not Peter's.
>
> his mistake was his forgery and his subsequent effort to excuse it by
> calling on a usenet convention he fabricated.
>
No. He said he *thought* there was one.
And according to spartikus there is, though he said Peter did not use
it properly.
Either way, I disagree with the practice. I will never employ it.
> i suspect you knew that anyway.
>
My last post prior to my return was around 1996. I knew nothing about
whether it was real or not.
> > > for you to claim it does tells readers what kind of character you have.
> >
> > I'm not as you can see. What I am saying is that Peter proved his
> > claim true,
>
> since you just admitted he did not, i'll take that as another effort on
> your part to defend peter's forgery and subsequent lie to cover it up.
>
Take it any way you want my good man. I can't convince you out of your
fantasies...
> --
james g. keegan jr.
<51a16b0e-0c46-4781...@x31g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
[...]
> > > > > > you're lying again. i provided irrefutable evidence with legitimate
> > > > > > message ids,
> > > > >
> > > > > About his identity?
> > > >
> > > > nice try at changing the subject william.
> > >
> > > Follow the thread down once more from the top.
> >
> > you would have come across as less dishonest had you simply admitted
> > your effort to change the subject
>
> Bull. Exposing your hypocrisy is only a side bar and I'm still on
> subject. Nice try.
you are calling a hypocrite because i exposed your dishonesty, william.
unfortunately for you, your dishonesty is maintained in the google
archives and no matter how much name-calling you do, the facts remain
facts and condemn you.
[...]
james g. keegan jr.
<e0a381dc-dcf8-4a0f...@f41g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > In article
> > <41e68191-145c-4f06...@y6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > nyik...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >
> > > it appears you have shown substantial proof of your claim of a prior
> > > convention.
> >
> >
> > anyone that considers one person "substantial proof" of a usenet
> > convention is a fool, dishonest, or both.
> >
> No just tired. I did make a mistake in my diction there.
yes. you did.
william mosco
Spartakus wrote:
> william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>
> > > > > the person posting as peter nyikos made a claim that usenet convention
> > > > > had changed. he made this claim to defend his forgery. and, of course,
> > > > > his forgery was the result of his childlike anger at having been exposed
> > > > > as a liar.
> > > > >
> > > > > only a sleazeball would attack the target of the false claim rather than
> > > > > the one making it.
>
> > > > Lol. The attack came only after you jumped the gun on what I consider
> > > > fair treatment of a poster who made a claim. You're upset because I
> > > > didn't dismiss his claim right off.
>
> > > on the contrary, you're blaming me because you were made a fool of.
>
> > No I blame myself for believing that you were up front with me.
> >
> > Peter posted a post from march today, where spartikus did exactly what
> > peter did to you. Will you now be calling spartikus a forger also?
>
> Bill, I realize that you are probably not a religious man, so certain
> allowances for your ignorance can be made. However, I cannot stand
> (or sit, in this case) idly by while you trample, run roughshod over,
> and otherwise demean a hallowed Internet Tradition[tm].
>
Interesting. So it does exist?
> The "Fixed It For You" convention is relatively new. It seems to date
> back to approximately 2003. Its origins are obscure - something about
> a "fog of war"... whatever! Properly deployed, it brings
> enlightenment to attentive readers. This is where the person posting
> as Peter Nyikos strayed: he used "Fixed It For You" to *obscure*, not
> to enlighten. As with all cases of misusing Internet Traditions[tm],
> this is tantamount to blasphemy.
>
> And you, my good man, are an accessory to his blasphemy through your
> misguided attempts at defending him.
Whoa. I defended his claim that he *thought* there was a prior
convention of this. I did not defend what he had done.
As I remember usenet, tampering with quoted text without indicating
within the attribute line was a no no.
Normally this would be a good
> time for a "repent and be saved" rant, but we are talking about
> Internet Traditions[tm]. YOU must become Aware of ALL Internet
> Traditions[!!!] Your best course of action here is "read and be
> enlightened":
>
Sounds fair enough.
william mosco
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> In article
> <51a16b0e-0c46-4781...@x31g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
> william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> [...]
> > > > > > > you're lying again. i provided irrefutable evidence with legitimate
> > > > > > > message ids,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > About his identity?
> > > > >
> > > > > nice try at changing the subject william.
> > > >
> > > > Follow the thread down once more from the top.
> > >
> > > you would have come across as less dishonest had you simply admitted
> > > your effort to change the subject
> >
> > Bull. Exposing your hypocrisy is only a side bar and I'm still on
> > subject. Nice try.
>
>
> you are calling a hypocrite because i exposed your dishonesty, william.
>
posted a prior post where the *bracket,fixed it for you* occured) that
he *thought* there was a prior convention (yes spartikus I know you
said that he employed it differently), and you considered my refusal
of early dismissal dishonest.
I did the same for you on your constant questioining of Peter's
identity, which you have provided *no proof*;
Shouldn't I dismiss your claim based on your own reasoning?
> unfortunately for you, your dishonesty is maintained in the google
> archives and no matter how much name-calling you do, the facts remain
> facts and condemn you.
>
Which is fortunate because it proves that I have been honest.
james g. keegan jr.
<70ff02ed-8f29-4c7c...@x31g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > In article
> > <51a16b0e-0c46-4781...@x31g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
> > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > > > > > you're lying again. i provided irrefutable evidence with
> > > > > > > > legitimate
> > > > > > > > message ids,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > About his identity?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > nice try at changing the subject william.
> > > > >
> > > > > Follow the thread down once more from the top.
> > > >
> > > > you would have come across as less dishonest had you simply admitted
> > > > your effort to change the subject
> > >
> > > Bull. Exposing your hypocrisy is only a side bar and I'm still on
> > > subject. Nice try.
> >
> >
> > you are calling a hypocrite because i exposed your dishonesty, william.
> >
> No sir. You dismissed Peter's claim, without proof
because, since it was his claim, he was responsible to submit proof to
support it.
as he claim was false, did did not do that. he could not.
you came across as quite dishonest with your support of his false claim
and your current bobbing and weaving.
james g. keegan jr.
<70ff02ed-8f29-4c7c...@x31g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I did the same for you on your constant questioining of Peter's
> identity, which you have provided *no proof*;
it's quite intellectually dishonest of you to dismiss questions,
william. i suppose you already know that.
james g. keegan jr.
<70ff02ed-8f29-4c7c...@x31g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> I did the same for you on your constant questioining of Peter's
> identity, which you have provided *no proof*;
>
> Shouldn't I dismiss your claim based on your own reasoning?
quote my claim william, the one you are asking if you should dismiss.
pnyikos
The two examples I documented from you were used as a worthless
substitute for reasoned argument. Your subsequent treatment of the
first was a poor excuse for reasoning also.
>This is where the person posting
> as Peter Nyikos strayed: he used "Fixed It For You" to *obscure*, not
> to enlighten.
Ah, so you are claimng that when I relied on a 17 year old memory, and
said that CJ Silverio had *compared* Keegan to the Energizer Bunny,
when all I could dig up on the first go-through was a case of her
*calling* him that, I told a lie as opposed to being guilty of a minor
inaccuracy?
Or are you already launching into what obviously degenerates into a
madcap piece of Dadaism below?
>As with all cases of misusing Internet Traditions[tm],
> this is tantamount to blasphemy.
> And you, my good man, are an accessory to his blasphemy through your
> misguided attempts at defending him. Normally this would be a good
> time for a "repent and be saved" rant, but we are talking about
> Internet Traditions[tm]. YOU must become Aware of ALL Internet
> Traditions[!!!] Your best course of action here is "read and be
> enlightened":
>
> http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=10643
Let's see how much this madcap performance helps to elevate you and
Keegan in the eyes of William Mosco.
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
<b2b3b2d6-9024-4e88...@w40g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
[...]
> Let's see how much this madcap performance helps to elevate you and
> Keegan in the eyes of William Mosco.
being ranked highly by someone who openly announces his disregard for
the united states, it's laws and constitution doesn't rank particularly
high on my list of important maters.
william mosco
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> In article
> <70ff02ed-8f29-4c7c...@x31g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
> william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <51a16b0e-0c46-4781...@x31g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > > > > > you're lying again. i provided irrefutable evidence with
> > > > > > > > > legitimate
> > > > > > > > > message ids,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > About his identity?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > nice try at changing the subject william.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Follow the thread down once more from the top.
> > > > >
> > > > > you would have come across as less dishonest had you simply admitted
> > > > > your effort to change the subject
> > > >
> > > > Bull. Exposing your hypocrisy is only a side bar and I'm still on
> > > > subject. Nice try.
> > >
> > >
> > > you are calling a hypocrite because i exposed your dishonesty, william.
> > >
> > No sir. You dismissed Peter's claim, without proof
>
> because, since it was his claim, he was responsible to submit proof to
> support it.
I've had about 3 hours sleep in the last 800 miles and I'm gonna try
to do this once more.
True, he didn't provide proof that he thought there was a prior
convention, when he posted and recalled spartikus insering brackets.
I did not dismiss his claim right off because I knew he was going to.
He showed a post where it happened twice (brackets).
He can't prove that he *thought* there was a convention, to you or
anyone. I took him on his word as far as that goes.
> as he claim was false,
Wait a minute. Spartikus told me that it does happen and it's been
goin on since about 2003.
He told me that Peter *employed* it incorrectly.
Which follows logically that he would, given the fact that he appeared
unfamiliar with the practice, as am I.
did did not do that. he could not.
>
I'm not following; state to me what you believe his claim was.
> you came across as quite dishonest with your support of his false claim
That he *thought* there was one? I admitted my mistake about there
*being* one, what's your point here?
> and your current bobbing and weaving.
Itks interesting how you debate James. you never back up anything you
say,
I've been going over this with you and I don't even know what you
think peter's claim was.
I suspect you are arguing from a position that he himself never stood
When he made his claim.
So do us all a favor for brevity and state what you believe Peter's
claim was.
I suspect you won't.
william mosco
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> In article
> <b2b3b2d6-9024-4e88...@w40g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > Let's see how much this madcap performance helps to elevate you and
> > Keegan in the eyes of William Mosco.
>
>
> being ranked highly by someone who openly announces his disregard for
> the united states, it's laws and constitution doesn't rank particularly
> high on my list of important maters.
>
I stated I don't recognize laws that usurp the constitution.
So what? Obviously you do, which makes you worse...
william mosco
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> In article
> <70ff02ed-8f29-4c7c...@x31g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
> william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>
> > I did the same for you on your constant questioining of Peter's
> > identity, which you have provided *no proof*;
> >
> > Shouldn't I dismiss your claim based on your own reasoning?
>
>
> quote my claim william, the one you are asking if you should dismiss.
>
"...to the person posting as Peter Niyoks"
Maybe not word for word.
it implies you have made a claim of doubt about Peter's identity. The
evidence you cited is not evidence.
Either you're trying to create drama, or you are a complete paranoid
lunatic.
I lean toward the former.
james g. keegan jr.
<4abe103a-2d64-453b...@k41g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
you have already done enough to demonstrate your lack of judgement and a
level of dishonesty.
> True, he didn't provide proof
exactly.
> He showed a post where it happened twice (brackets).
and you ignorantly or dishonestly took something that happened twice to
make a usenet convention!!!
be serious.
[...]
james g. keegan jr.
<d4f8f0ab-d0c1-4413...@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
you repeatedly demonstrated your disregard for the united states, it's
laws and constitution and your love for anarchy.
james g. keegan jr.
<4abe103a-2d64-453b...@k41g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> Itks interesting how you debate James. you never back up anything you
> say,
put up or shut up william.
"If you are going to make the claim, prove it. "
coward bobby heishman posting as osprey
news:8912d58d.03070...@posting.google.com:
"Your statement is to be considered a lie until you
can prove it to be true."
"osprey" in <1161104485.981302.246...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
show readers any claim i made which was not supported.
james g. keegan jr.
<7ffafde9-16c8-4731...@3g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > In article
> > <70ff02ed-8f29-4c7c...@x31g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
> > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> >
> > > I did the same for you on your constant questioining of Peter's
> > > identity, which you have provided *no proof*;
> > >
> > > Shouldn't I dismiss your claim based on your own reasoning?
> >
> >
> > quote my claim william, the one you are asking if you should dismiss.
> >
> "...to the person posting as Peter Niyoks"
quote my claim william, unless you are misrepresenting yet again.
cite the message id too.
william mosco
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> In article
> <7ffafde9-16c8-4731...@3g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <70ff02ed-8f29-4c7c...@x31g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > >
> > > > I did the same for you on your constant questioining of Peter's
> > > > identity, which you have provided *no proof*;
> > > >
> > > > Shouldn't I dismiss your claim based on your own reasoning?
> > >
> > >
> > > quote my claim william, the one you are asking if you should dismiss.
> > >
> > "...to the person posting as Peter Niyoks"
>
>
> quote my claim william, unless you are misrepresenting yet again.
>
> cite the message id too.
>
Look for it yourself.
> --
william mosco
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> In article
> <4abe103a-2d64-453b...@k41g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > Itks interesting how you debate James. you never back up anything you
> > say,
>
> put up or shut up william.
>
> "If you are going to make the claim, prove it. "
What you said today to Peter about my views of the constitution.
It was a lie. I'm not going to look it up, nor will I post it for
you. You lied. I don't repost lies about myself.
So go look at it yourself.
I put up, so I suspect you'll shut up. Hee hee.
william mosco
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> In article
> <d4f8f0ab-d0c1-4413...@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <b2b3b2d6-9024-4e88...@w40g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > > > Let's see how much this madcap performance helps to elevate you and
> > > > Keegan in the eyes of William Mosco.
> > >
> > >
> > > being ranked highly by someone who openly announces his disregard for
> > > the united states, it's laws and constitution doesn't rank particularly
> > > high on my list of important maters.
> > >
> >
> > I stated I don't recognize laws that usurp the constitution.
>
> you repeatedly demonstrated your disregard for the united states,
You are lying.
it's
> laws
Only those don't fall within the boundries of the constitution.
and constitution and your love for anarchy.
Repost or quote where I demonstrated my love for no law?
You are lying.
cast.com>
james g. keegan jr.
<7f3de7eb-6913-44c8...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > In article
> > <4abe103a-2d64-453b...@k41g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Itks interesting how you debate James. you never back up anything you
> > > say,
> >
> > put up or shut up william.
> >
>
> > "If you are going to make the claim, prove it. "
>
>
> What you said today to Peter about my views of the constitution.
i see you can't support your claim
you got caught lying again, didn't you william?
james g. keegan jr.
<e232f2a1-7113-419d...@z5g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
i'll take that as your cowardly admission that your claim was just
another lie?
you needn't apologize. an apology from someone like you is meaningless.
william mosco
Here you are being dishonest.
william mosco
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> In article
> <7f3de7eb-6913-44c8...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <4abe103a-2d64-453b...@k41g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> > > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > Itks interesting how you debate James. you never back up anything you
> > > > say,
> > >
> > > put up or shut up william.
> > >
> >
> > > "If you are going to make the claim, prove it. "
> >
> >
> > What you said today to Peter about my views of the constitution.
>
>
> i see you can't support your claim
You wrote this today and it demonstrates your misunderstanding of my
position or your willful desire to lie about it:
being ranked highly by someone who openly announces his disregard for
the united states, it's laws and constitution doesn't rank
particularly high on my list of important maters.
> you got caught lying again, didn't you william?
You can quote the announcement,
nZ2dnUVZ_sOrn...@comcast.com>
james g. keegan jr.
<9f65ab23-aacf-4e29...@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > In article
> > <d4f8f0ab-d0c1-4413...@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <b2b3b2d6-9024-4e88...@w40g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > > > Let's see how much this madcap performance helps to elevate you and
> > > > > Keegan in the eyes of William Mosco.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > being ranked highly by someone who openly announces his disregard for
> > > > the united states, it's laws and constitution doesn't rank particularly
> > > > high on my list of important maters.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I stated I don't recognize laws that usurp the constitution.
> >
> > you repeatedly demonstrated your disregard for the united states,
>
> You are lying.
your own words support my claim.
>
>
> > it's laws
>
> Only those don't fall within the boundries of the constitution.
you again admit to the accuracy of my claim.
>
>
> and constitution and your love for anarchy.
>
> Repost or quote where I demonstrated my love for no law?
directly above in this very post where you openly assert that you follow
only those laws you want to follow.
you have said the same things in several other posts too,'
james g. keegan jr.
<bc5119ce-61f7-4fcb...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
you are lying.
proof of your lie and of the accuracy of my comments is contained above.
james g. keegan jr.
<a78d3a63-4548-43a6...@g20g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > In article
> > <7f3de7eb-6913-44c8...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <4abe103a-2d64-453b...@k41g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > > Itks interesting how you debate James. you never back up anything you
> > > > > say,
> > > >
> > > > put up or shut up william.
> > > >
> > >
> > > > "If you are going to make the claim, prove it. "
> > >
> > >
> > > What you said today to Peter about my views of the constitution.
> >
> >
> > i see you can't support your claim
>
> You wrote this today and it demonstrates your misunderstanding of my
> position or your willful desire to lie about it:
>
> being ranked highly by someone who openly announces his disregard for
> the united states, it's laws and constitution doesn't rank
> particularly high on my list of important maters.
what did i write william> are you going to quote me or not?
i think you are running away from having been exposed in yet another
false claim.
you made a claim william. you were called on to support it. you ran
away; three times in this very thread.
you are a coward, as well as a liar.
william mosco
>James wrote:
"being ranked highly by someone who openly announces his disregard for
the united states, it's laws and constitution doesn't rank
particularly high on my list of important maters."
Is that better?
> i think you are running away from having been exposed in yet another
> false claim.
>
> you made a claim william. you were called on to support it. you ran
> away; three times in this very thread.
>
> you are a coward, as well as a liar.
Lol.
I can assure you my friend, that if we were sitting in a room, face to
face, you would not use that language on me.
That, is what defines a coward.
james g. keegan jr.
<1ba81eb5-62fd-4ebb...@r36g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > > > > > > Itks interesting how you debate James. you never back up
> > > > > > > anything you say,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > put up or shut up william.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > "If you are going to make the claim, prove it. "
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What you said today to Peter about my views of the
> > > > > constitution.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > i see you can't support your claim
> > >
> > > You wrote this today and it demonstrates your misunderstanding of
> > > my position or your willful desire to lie about it:
> > >
> > > being ranked highly by someone who openly announces his disregard
> > > for the united states, it's laws and constitution doesn't rank
> > > particularly high on my list of important maters.
> >
> >
> > what did i write william> are you going to quote me or not?
>
> >James wrote:
> "being ranked highly by someone who openly announces his disregard
> for the united states, it's laws and constitution doesn't rank
> particularly high on my list of important maters."
>
> Is that better?
"better?" you're admitting you lied. how is that better?
or, perhaps you're simply too ignorant to understand message ids.
you've seen people quoted before, william. the quotes carry a citation
or in the case of usenet posts, a message id.
but you knew that.
you're just bobbing and weaving because you got caught making false
claims and you ran away when i challenged you.
you must be very ashamed of yourself.
william mosco
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> In article
> <9f65ab23-aacf-4e29...@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <d4f8f0ab-d0c1-4413...@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> > > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <b2b3b2d6-9024-4e88...@w40g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > > Let's see how much this madcap performance helps to elevate you and
> > > > > > Keegan in the eyes of William Mosco.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > being ranked highly by someone who openly announces his disregard for
> > > > > the united states, it's laws and constitution doesn't rank particularly
> > > > > high on my list of important maters.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I stated I don't recognize laws that usurp the constitution.
> > >
> > > you repeatedly demonstrated your disregard for the united states,
> >
> > You are lying.
>
> your own words support my claim.
No they do not. Your claim is false.
I have been arrested on 3 occasions for failure to prove identity,
have been. Charged in a court of law for "disorderly conduct"
That was their interpretation of what I did. I gave on each occassion
a fake name during the booking process.
when I was charged I admitted to the court my true identity.
I went to trial (no plea bargain), and on each occasion a verdict of
not guilty was handed down.
A lawyer approached me on one of the occassions and asked if I would
like to sue, I declined.
That is what we are supposed to do...
Your methods are different. You would have let injustice prevail, thus
further eroding our liberties.
> >
> >
> > > it's laws
> >
> > Only those don't fall within the boundries of the constitution.
>
> you again admit to the accuracy of my claim.
Crap.
It is the duty of every american
> >
> >
> > and constitution and your love for anarchy.
> >
> > Repost or quote where I demonstrated my love for no law?
>
> directly above in this very post where you openly assert that you follow
> only those laws you want to follow
They no longer I.d. People walking down the street in my hometown.
You're full of it.