From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Fetal Brainwaves (was: Re: fetus vs. baby)
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:44:37 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Aug25.223330.24357@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:

>In article <1992Aug24.174255.16447@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>And precisely how did such a rule get put into effect in a Usenet
>>newsgroup?  Who put it into effect, and with what authority?
>>
>>This is Usenet, not an academic conference.
>>This is Usenet, not a sciences conference.
>>This is Usenet, not an engineering conference.
>>This is Usenet, not a high school debate.  In point of fact, is it
>>'supposed' to be a 'debate' at all?  Or is it 'supposed' to be a
>>*discussion*.? 
>>
>>(If you) want this kind of 'verifiability', all I can suggest is that you hie
>>yourself to some nice, academic conference.  This is Usenet.

>	Kinda reminds me of the "Not me" gremlin in "Family Circus". "Hey,
>this is Usenet". You did come into this group like a ball of fire. Perhaps,
>had you entered the group as though you don't know everything about
>everything, and had you not resorted to the word "wrong" over and over
>again, your current "This is Usenet" gremlin wouldn't be eating your
>own shorts. 

You've lost me, Joe.  Of course, that's not real unusual when it comes
to trying to follow some of the tortured reasoning you engage in.

>You've lost credibility. John has totally dismantled you,
>in my eyes. 

Then I guess it's a good thing I don't care about your opinions.

>Yes, he's insulting. He also backs up what he says, and
>even admits when there is no backup. So, what I see, watching your
>threads w/ JFH, is you being very inconsiderate of him, vice-versa,
>and he backs up his posts- you don't. Now, John's no saint (none of us
>are), but he's lapped you a few times. Will you settle for that? Or,
>will you back up your posts?

Pardon me, but John hasn't 'backed up' much of anything when it comes
to the places he elects to heap the most disagreement.  What he has
done is cite a few personal anecdotal bits of data, scream "liar" a
lot, and then claim 'victory', whatever that is supposed to mean.
Frankly, I'm convinced that he offers 'backup' through the use of
whatever slanted information he has to hand.  I consider that MORE
dishonest than no backup at all.  At least there is the CHANCE that
the person with no backup is honest -- John's kind of twisted
reportage has to be deliberate.

>	BTW, this all reminds me of the analogy I like to use for 
>Usenet- traffic. We all tend to be a bit more aggressive than if we sat
>in the same room together. Fine. But, what John doesn't understand
>(and apparently you either) is that being able to get away with any
>conduct is the ultimate test of how one conducts him/herself. It
>will quickly seperate those with self-respect from those with pride.
>Pride does not have to be earned.

SELF-respect doesn't have to be particularly 'earned', either, Joe.
I'm sure that John Haugh II has lots of respect for himself and the
way he acts.  All he has to do is delude himself a bit.  It's respect
of OTHERS that has to be earned; and frankly I don't much care about
that from either him OR you, given the way I've seen you both act.  To
be fair, you at least SOMETIMES come across as a genuine human being;
all John Haugh has managed to impress me with so far is his BILE.

One thing for you to consider, though, since you seem to like the
little introspective bits.  How do you know that YOU are right?  How
do you justify to yourself your pretensions about what I or John do or
don't 'understand'.  Maybe it's YOU who don't understand?


-- 
"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.