From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: Fetal Brainwaves (was: Re: fetus vs. baby)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 23:34:05 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.171951.395@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Aug19.145921.17136@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com> darylb@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Daryl Biberdorf) writes:
>I find it difficult to believe that John Haugh ever changed his mind
>about anything, given the rigidity that I've seen.  I can't believe a
>new thought could find its way in without breaking something.

	He has changed his mind twice, and posted so. It's tough to 
get a thought through, but isn't it so with most people? Two times
in the (2 years) I've been posting here is substantial, in my book. John's
proved himself. Also, no thoughts posted here or elsewhere are _new_, and
such a reference, which is meant to support that the thought is _good_,
holds no water. 

>>I am not as, ummm..., confrontational as John Haugh.  I believe that
>>he does sometimes use language that is too strong when addressing
>>his political/ideological opponents.  However, I find your charges
>>that he wildly distorts facts and biases his presentations whenever
>>it suits him to be stretching the truth.  Obviously, there will always 
>>be some bias in a persuasive argument, but there are only a few Haugh 
>>discussions that I can think of where he probably did take too much 
>>liberty with his information.

(Directed at Daryl):
	John has become much more civil, of late, IMO. He still 
has childish tendencies, like not responding to my posts, but hey,
there's nothing wrong with being childish. It's tough to grow up.
That's not a slam, either. I'll admit to having childish tendencies,
as well. I'm still trying to grow up. I think we all should, until
the day we die. Oh, I forget: Are _you_ responding to my posts any
more? I can't understand what you guys are afraid of....can't I,
if I'm the fool y'all project, just make your arguments stronger?

>Yes, and his material is usually some right-wing or pro-life rag that
>STARTS with a biased presentation, and he just sucks it up.  Unlike
>him, some of us simply don't have hours and hours a day to browse the
>magazine shelves.  We work for a living, and that tends to come first
>and consume a lot of time.  Hence, we stay informed by doing things
>like listening to NPR in the car on the way to and from work (but
>that's not 'verifiable') and by catching the evening news while we eat
>(which is again not 'verifiable').

	But claims must be backed up, or don't make them. I've made 
claims here based on "hearsay"- you either must back them up when
it's requested, or remove the claim. Yes, this group is Claimsville,
U.S.A. (-: When requested, printed text is indeed the more believable
source. 

>Right or wrong, I don't expect to be embarrassed.  Unlike adolesents
>like John Haugh II, some of us don't wrap our entire ego up in every
>note we put on the net.

	John's got you fooled. He makes trouble on purpose. You make
trouble because you do wrap your ego around every argument you present.
You are beyond questioning. This could, I suppose, happen to a very 
mature person. It happens most commonly to immature people.




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"They say 'David, what shall I do? They wait for me in the hallway'.
I say 'Don't ask me- I don't know any hallways."- David Bowie, "Scary Monsters"