Re: Peter Nyikos's totalitarian bent and "credibility"
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
alt.religion.christian.romancatholic only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

 Up
Re: Peter Nyikos's totalitarian bent and "credibility"         

Group: alt.religion.christian.romancatholic · Group Profile
Author: pnyikos
Date: Jun 8, 2010 06:38

On Jun 8, 12:18 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> pnyikos  bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>Patrick  "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey has styled himself a
>
> And now fauxNy will once again treat us to one of his self-serving,
> pompous, bullshit-ridden propaganda pieces about how he's so special
> and every else isn't.

Fischer is behaving like a pouty six-year old above; I've reposted my
post below so people can see the total disconnect between what I wrote
and what he writes above.

Below, he makes a more adult-sounding but utterly false comment:
> And he's even so stupid as to accuse other people of totalitarianism
> while he's promoting a totalitarian state.

For Humphrey's faithful, hate-crazed ally Ray Fischer, wanting
abortions to be done early (before the end of 10 weeks LMP) as is the
case in Portugal, and wanting laws punishing abortionists who do
elective abortions after this time (though not the women), is
"promoting a totalitarian state".

Evidently he thinks the USA of ca. 1867-1967 was a totalitarian state--
and the ban was on abortion all through the pregnancy back then.

Or does he? I've started more and more seriously thinking that he is
a troll, and so I am beginning to use the Chilton remedy of reposting
the things he is too much of a coward to leave in his replies:

libertarian; but that libertarianism could just be a thin veneer over
a totalitarian mentality which is evidenced by his embracing of a
"guilty until proven innocent" attitude in a recent post.

He actually projected that attitude onto the USA as it now stands: see
excerpt below

Background: I've been (falsely, but that's actually beside the
point) charged with forging headers in an e-mail I received back in
1994, and that is what the "guilty until proven innnocent"-style
comment of Humphrey has to do with:

------------------ begin excerpt, beginning with Spartakus's words:
>> why are you running away from those bogus headers, perfesser?
> Prove they are bogus, you dishonest character assassin.
> Peter Nyikos

You'd get slapped all the more stupid if you tried that in a court of
law,
Phony. (Your responsibility is to prove the affirmative statement.)
======= end of excerpt from
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/d5e5a4e95404e1e2

My reply to that statement was as follows:

-------------------- begin excerpt from my reply
I'm sure Keegan will be grateful to you for saving him whatever
anxiety comes from being the one to tell such a brazen, bare-faced lie
as the one you just told.

You may heartily WISH that this country were based on "guilty until
proven innocent" [in this case: guilty of having posted an e-mail with
bogus headers, or forgery for short] with you as [a] D.A., but it is
shamelessly dishonest to imply that the USA is run on this system
NOW.
=========== end of excerpt from
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/aa6d1867f5e45326

Humphrey left in all of the above in his reply and did not challenge
any of it:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/087279983cb53b28

I pointed this out in my reply to that post:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/ca3fed4f2ac9ea7f

There the matter rests in that thread to this day:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/browse_thread/thread/5c2b3008d6ece9/...

Humphrey's allies often bandy about the word "credibility" and I would
like to ask the readers: what does the performance above do for
Humphrey's credibility in your eyes?

Peter Nyikos
no comments
diggit! del.icio.us! reddit!