HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: John Haugh's Brain redux (was - Re: Clinton has won...watch your
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:58:02 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Dec15.000341.32208@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:

>fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
>: Ah, once again the anti-abortionists' favorite comment.  She may have
>: had NO brainwaves, since they aren't necessary to something being
>: 'alive' in the way that you mean it.  Did the babies born with only
>: brainstems down around Brownsville have human brainwaves? 

>I think so.  Their brain stems produce electrical activity that can be 
>uniquely identified as coming from homo-sapien brain stems.  Why can't these 
>be called "human brain waves"?  

I can show you a piston that can be uniquely identified as coming from
a GM car.  Why can't it be called a Chevy?  Oh, and can that brainstem
activity really be identified with a human, or is it just brainstem
electrical activity and the only way to tell what it comes from is to
look and see what's on the other end of the wires?

>As Chris said, it's not cow brain activity or 
>alien brain activity.  What do YOU call it?  

I call it 'brainstem electrical activity', because that it what it is.

>Your argument is backwards.  
>You've decided that something is not human, so therefore it can't emit human 
>brain waves.

No, my argument is frontwards.  The fact that you elect to SEE it
backwards is your problem, not mine.  Have you written to the list of
experts I posted who agree with me?  

>: However, what has been said (and what John Haugh disagrees with) is
>: that "genuine brainwaves do not occur until the third trimester",

>Of course, because you're defining "genuine" brainwaves to be that produced by
>a completely developed brain.  So it's no surprise that under that definition,
>"genuine" brain waves don't appear until the brain is completely formed.  That
>is already assumed in your definition.

If I show you a door off a Corvette, can I claim that it is a Corvette?

>Let me ask you something:  If you had a severe brain injury and had to have
>part of your brain removed, would you no longer emit "genuine" human 
>brainwaves under your definition?

Depends on which parts they had to remove, doesn't it?

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: John Haugh's Brain redux (was - Re: Clinton has won...watch your
Date: 15 Dec 92 23:28:59 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <1992Dec15.145802.16625@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>Let me ask you something:  If you had a severe brain injury and had to have
>>part of your brain removed, would you no longer emit "genuine" human 
>>brainwaves under your definition?

>Depends on which parts they had to remove, doesn't it?

I cannot resist.  Perhaps this has already happened ;-)

 ----------------------!!! H A P P Y   H O L I D A Y S !!!-------------------
 ObQuotes:
 "Igornance and prejudice, confident their ways are best..."
 "Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand..."

  - Patrick Taylor, Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                    "Don't let the .se fool you"
    Visit the SOUNDING BOARD BBS 214-596-2915, a Wildcat! BBS
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: John Haugh's Brain redux (was - Re: Clinton has won...watch your
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 23:36:29 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
: However, if you rip me to shreds in the process of 'removing' me, that
: DOES constitute deadly force and you are likely to find yourself in
: front of the grand jury.

That's a technology limitation.  If a fetus could be removed intact, I suspect
we would do so.

: Do you propose calling the police and
: arresting the foetus for trespassing, or what?

No, but then I don't propose doing that when you walk into my house either.

: The argument can be
: made that the women invited it in, if you want to resort to property
: law.

If she invited it in, it wouldn't be an unwanted pregnancy, in which case this
would all be moot.

: Personally, I think this isn't the best approach to this issue. 

But it gets away from the slippery slope of "what is a human being?", which
as you've seen is very debatable and arbitrary.

: Prove that the FOETUS attached the umbilical cord.  The mother is
: cooperating in this, and if you want to treat it under property rights
: you're going to have to take the foetus to court.

I disagree.  If I leave my front door unlocked and you come walking in, I don't
have to take you to court to get you to leave.  I never agreed to let you in
to begin with.  The same goes for an unintended pregnancy.

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Look, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a
 system of government"
From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Date: 15 Dec 92 09:07:37 CDT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <1992Dec10.140419.21677@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> But George Bush has never seemed to understand that.  His approach
> seems to be submit things you know they won't approve then cry when
> they do what you expect them to.

	And Congress has done the same things.  Earlier in this very newsgroup
was a excerpt that that had done just that.  Finally, they'd pass a bill with
pork or tax increases, but under a name that would look very bad if Bush
vetoed it as well.

>>Now admitedly this is a pretty severe example.  But if the Congress decides
>>to prove to the President that the Congress REALLY DOES control the
>>legislative branch of government, Congress will pull exactly that kind of
>>stunt.
> 
> That's right, and in the next elections we'll see a bunch of new
> people.  You think Congress is somehow magically monolithic and immune
> to public opinion and pressures to do something?

	The stunt has been pulled, and several incumbents are still in office.
While not immune, it is large and there is no "one" person to blame.  It
takes a lot of effort, more than most people can take the time for, to
determine who is really doing what.  There is so much finger pointing, that
most people get confused.  Also, you have the other side with "I'm a Democrat/
Republican and my party can do no wrong" type attitude.  They are blind to the
problems and fallacies in their own party, but all too eager to jump on some
comment that the other party is very bad.  But parties are really too blame,
since both serve their own interests, and occasionally ours...

>>This is precisely why the line item veto is so important to have.  It lets
>>the president cut out the chaff and prevents appropriations bills (and other
>>important pieces of legislation) from being the vehicles through which
>>congressmen tack on pork.
> 
> I agree with you on this, but I think this whole "it wasn't George
> Bush's fault; if only he'd had the Line Item Veto" line is absolute
> crap. 

	True, we need to get Congress in line to stop passing legislation that
makes the line-item veto as good of an idea that you seem to think.  Again,
both sides are to blame.

> Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
David L. Cathey		                |INET: davidc@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts              |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260772, Plano TX  75026-0772  |Fone: (214)-618-2117
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Protectionism and Japan
Date: 11 Dec 92 16:46:42 GMT
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <1992Dec11.115825.21571@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> In <Bz1y7D.1xA@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Dec9.144520.17597@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> >> My book on international economics doesn't seem to agree.  It also
> >> puts the 'free trade is best' position in context in the quote I typed
> >> in from it.
> > 
> >Well, that's a minority view.  
> 
> Mainstream economic theory hardly qualifies as a "minority view",
> Doug. 
 
It's not "mainstream economic theory" Fred.  Free trade is one of the
areas where economists are almost in total agreement.  The only people who
think protectionism makes economic sense are unions,
uncompetitive industries and politicians.
 
> >You haven't protected any evidence that,
> >for example, protection of the steel industry has an overall benefit for
> >the US, while I've shown plenty of data that the opposite is true.
> 
> Evidence?  No, I don't think either of us has shown any 'evidence',
> because it's almost impossible to produce such evidence one way or the
> other; there are simply too many factors involved.  What you've done
> is make assertsion in an effort to establish a logical case.  You've
> shown that some people CLAIM they are being adversely affected.
 
No, I've shown that steel prices are considerably higher than they would
be in a free trade situation.  Which means that users of steel are
adversely impacted.  Unless you want to argue that paying higher costs for
parts doesn't hurt a company.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Social Security Buyout Plan.
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:36:14 GMT

In <1992Dec15.230503.1259@cpqhou.compaq.com> thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com (Thomas Rush) writes:

>In article <1992Dec14.152653.14694@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <8086@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1992Dec11.121142.21939@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>>For those who don't opt out, make it into a real annuity administered by
>>>>the government.
>>
>>>Remember, though, that the US government has the Midas Muffler touch:
>>>everything it touches turns to shit. Why would this be any different?
>>
>>Asserting that doesn't make it so, Jay.  There are any number of
>>government programs that work quite well; in fact, many that do things
>>that the private econommy can't or won't do for itself.  

>Asserting that doesn't make it so, Fred.

Might I suggest a few economics texts for your perusal, then?  Try
_Business and Government_ (Petersen - Harper & Row) and _Urban
Economics and Public Policy_ (Heilbrun - St. Martin's) for a starter
on this issue.  It's not something that's going to be proven over a
limited forum like Usenet.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: John Haugh's Brain redux (was - Re: Clinton has won...watch your
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 00:16:46 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
:                                             Oh, and can that brainstem
: activity really be identified with a human, or is it just brainstem
: electrical activity and the only way to tell what it comes from is to
: look and see what's on the other end of the wires?

I don't know.  Why don't you ask your experts?

: I call it 'brainstem electrical activity', because that it what it is.

I call it 'human brain waves'.  This is a semantical argument.

: No, my argument is frontwards.  The fact that you elect to SEE it
: backwards is your problem, not mine.  Have you written to the list of
: experts I posted who agree with me?  

Your "experts" have only made statements about when certain parts of the
brain are formed.  They have not (to my knowledge) made any statements about
what kind of electrical activity can be called a "brain wave".

: If I show you a door off a Corvette, can I claim that it is a Corvette?

I'm honking the horn on the Corvette, and you're saying it's not a Corvette
horn because the Corvette emblem hasn't been mounted on the hood yet.  It's
still a Corvette horn.

: >Let me ask you something:  If you had a severe brain injury and had to have
: >part of your brain removed, would you no longer emit "genuine" human 
: >brainwaves under your definition?

: Depends on which parts they had to remove, doesn't it?

Well then, human brainwaves can be emitted from a not yet fully developed
human brain depending on what parts haven't been formed yet.

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Look, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a
 system of government"
From: miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: John Haugh's Brain redux (was - Re: Clinton has won...watch your
Date: 16 Dec 92 14:52:19 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Western Geo. - Div of Western Atlas Intn'l Inc., Houston, TX

In article <1992Dec15.144018.16025@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1703@airgun.wg.waii.com> miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec11.113742.21191@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>How about all the way back to the first signs of pregnancy? That's where
>>the potential begins.

>Oh no.  The potential begins much further back than that.  What makes
>the fact that you've put to cells together 'magical' insofar as
>'potential' (which was the basis of your prior argument) goes?

An unfertilized egg has no chance of becoming a baby.

BTW, please stop using "'magical'" like you are quoting me. I don't think I
ever used that word in the context of this discussion.
--
Griff Miller > miller@monarch.wg3.waii.com < use this for email.

          *** My opinions are mine, not Western's. ***

   "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but 
    fools despise wisdom and discipline."   - Proverbs 1:7
From: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: John Haugh's Brain redux (was - Re: Clinton has won...watch your
Date: 12 Dec 92 05:06:00 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: None

mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

> In <5y7FVB1w165w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris
> Winemiller) writes:
> 
> >mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> 
> >> My turn?  You act like you've posted some sort of refutation or
> >> something.  You haven't.
> 
> >With respect to a 26-week birth, I most certainly have. I can produce
> >the living child for you any time you wish to see her... I
> >can assure you, she is quite alive and healthy.
> 
> Yes, but you talk as if this is proof that human brainwaves were
> present at birth.  It isn't

What???  A human child is born, obviously alive, and she didn't have
human brainwaves?  What did she have?  Cow brainwaves?  Alien
brainwaves?   She obviously had enough brainwaves to be alive by
anyone's standards!

> your 'proof' seems to be more a refutation of his [Haugh's] position
> than of mine. 

Perhaps, since my example is closer to a 3rd trimester birth.  (I did,
after all, say that I proved a 26-week birth, not a 20 week birth.) 
Still, it is pre-3rd trimester, with support leaning earlier, not later.

> Thanks for supporting my position, Chris.  If you have a problem with
> it, might I suggest writing to some of the experts who made the
> statement that you THINK you're disproving?

If an expert had said that it's impossible for a human child at 26 weeks
to have human brainwaves, even when that child is born and survives and
is normal, then the expert is obviously missing something.  Experts are
supposed to derive theories that describe reality; when the theories
don't describe reality, then the theories are wrong.  (BTW, I'm not
aware that anyone has asserted that some expert(s) made the claim stated
at the beginning of this paragraph---including me.)

Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Subject: Re: Protectionism and Japan
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 13:10:52 GMT
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

In article <1714@airgun.wg.waii.com> reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com writes:
>The recent tariffs on steel introduced by the US were set to compensate
>for any government subsidies the steelmakers in the country of origin
>received.  Consequently,  German steel only had a small (10%) tariff,
>while heavily subsidized Mexican steel had a very large (300%) tariff.

>If other governments are subsidizing their steel production, while
>we are not, our steel manufacturers will go out of business in the
>long term, that's just simple micro-economics.  

If every country in the whole world has joined together in a grand
effort to sell us steel at way below cost, the we should not look
a gift horse in the mouth.  We should take it.  We should close
down our steel plants, sell them for scrap metal, retrain those workers
to do something else, and with all the billions of dollars left over,
buy ourselves all new cars.

If we take the free steel, we can make cars cheaper and sell them
here and sell them in other countries with a huge competitive advantage.
And if Japan won't let us sell cars there either, there's still lots
of other countries to sell to.

>Trade barriers do exist.  We can ignore them to our nation's detriment,
>or we can try to force their removal by playing some hardball with
>our trading partners.  If rice is a "sacred" product in Japan, why 
>can't flat computer screens be a "sacred" product here?  If we hit
>them where it hurts, they will open their markets.  Unilateral
			You don't know that.  It is irrational that
	their markets are closed now.  What make you think protectionism
	will make them rational.  They can still sell elsewhere.  This
	is not the only country.  They can't subsidize ALL their industries.

>free trade on our part hurts only ourselves.

	It helps us.  We're getting stuff for free.  

-- 
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to my employer's    |        Austin, TX
 There'll be too many elderly in 30 years for your kids to afford all the FICA.
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Protectionism and Japan
Date: 12 Dec 92 19:39:23 GMT
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <1992Dec11.231229.14255@watson.ibm.com>, johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
> Doug Andersen (hari@NeoSoft.com) wrote:
> : That's a blanket statement that simply isn't true.  There are clearly
> : markets that are totally closed, like rice.  And there are some industries
> : that are fairly open.  Look at how much business IBM and Apple and Coke
> : and companies like that do in Japan.  Cars are a horrible example since a
> : lot of Americans won't even buy American-made cars.
> 
> Have you read Louis Leclerc's paper, "Does America Say Yes to Japan?"?  
> Somebody recently passed it on to me, and I found it fascinating what they
> do in Japan to keep out foreigners.
 
Fortune did a fairly in-depth analysis of the open-ness of different
markets in Japan a few months ago and they truly range from totally closed
to very open.  The typical Japanese answer to why Americans haven't
pentrated Japan's market's is that Americans don't do their homework.  In
some cases that bullshit, but it rings very true in many others.  Many
Japanese executives know English, how many US executives know Japanese
(even a few token workds) or anything about the Japanese culture. 
Japanese companies are well known for studying markets extensively before
entering, how many US companies have really studied the complicated
distribution networks in Japan?
 
> If you say so.  I think the Japanese government throws us a bone now and then
> to make us go away, without really changing anything.
> 
 
It's at their own expense.  They are simply re-distributing wealth frmo
consumers to giant companies.  Japanese consumers have practiced austerity
for year (imposed by their government) but I think that's changing.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: tx.politics