From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Fetal Brainwaves
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:39:23 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <21416@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1992Aug26.162649.4866@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Squirming Fred) writes:
>>Then you are either blind or a liar.  John Iacoleti (sp?) even ARGED
>>with them.  All that stuff about how 'regressive' and 'progressive'
>>are defined with regard to taxation.  So, are you blind, a liar, or
>>merely stupid?

>You mean the one where you gave a definition or two?  Hell, I give
>definitions all the time.  Remember, you used the words "incredibly
>long" and "several" textbooks.

Well, John, how long must something be to be 'incredibly long' for
you?  How many textbooks do there have to be quotes from for it to be
'several' for you?  I have a pretty good idea of what those words mean
to English-speaking people.  I'm not so sure about you.

>I remember that posting.  It wasn't much to write home about.

Ah, so now we remember.  Funny how that works, isn't it?

>And what is an ARGED?  

Try putting in a 'U'.  It's an old keyboard, John.

>And where is that memory of yours if you can't
>even remember that his name is spelt Iaccollletttttiiiiiii.  You can
>spell hipicrit, right?

Gee, does this mean that it's now 'ok' under the John (net.ghod) Haugh
II Rules of Usenet Etiquette to harp on spelling, grammar, and typos?
If you get the rest of the net to agree to that, let me know, John. 

>>>you can "made it up, sorry I didn't fool
>>>you better", 
>>
>>This says more about YOUR honesty than about anyone else's.  Your
>>presumption seems to be that everyone will do this if you don't stop
>>them.  All that tells me is that YOU are less than trustworthy.

>Which is why I provide Author, Title, Publisher, ISBN, and Page
>Numbers - and why YOU provide "I heard it the other night while flipping
>channels."

Yes, you provide them because YOU are innately dishonest and hence
can't believe that other people wouldn't lie the way you would if you
thought you could get away with it.  So you twist, distort, and
selectively quote and try to lie that way, instead.

>>Sure you can.  How many people have the time to run and check out some
>>obscure publication, even assuming they can find the issue of it
>>claimed?  How many people WANT to go look for a 1984 copy of "Guns and
>>Bimbos Magazine" to check out some egregious piece of nonsense that
>>someone claimed they published?

>Uh, call your local library.

Uh, both I and my local library have more important things to do that
check up on you, John.  I used to assume you were honest.  Your
behaviour has, however, convinced me that unless I am willing to
thoroughly research the subject you are talking about myself, I should
ASSUME that you have selected biased sources and that what you say is
therefore meaningless.  

>Last summer I posted a reference about an article in "In Health" magazine
>which described how legal heroin in Poland was resulting in tens of
>thousands of heroin addicts =and= hundreds of thousands of AIDS cases.
>The general consensus was that "In Health" was an obscure publication.
>When Joe "I didn't really call the library" Mullany claimed the magazine
>didn't exist or couldn't be found, I went ahead and called the Houston
>library and located a complete set, dating back several years.

Well, that's all very nice, but, unlike Joe, I wouldn't assume that
you would make up a citation.  I would, however, having seen the way
you operate, assume that you were quite selective in your quotations. 

>Again, your complaint isn't that the magazine DOESN'T exist, but rather
>"I don't wanna check cuz you'll prove me wrong."  Well, yes, I will prove
>you wrong.

No, my 'complaint' is neither.  In fact, YOU seem to be the one doing
all the whining, so it must be YOUR complaint.

>>Yeah, like perhaps it says that you have a subscription and that
>>libraries, etc., don't carry it.

>See the above sad tale of woe ...

So what?  In case you haven't heard, the singular of data isn't
anecdote, and one example doesn't do to prove that libraries carry ALL
magazines.  They don't, because they can't afford to.

>>>It says the same thing that
>>>your "I heard it on the radio/TV/grapevine."
>>Then you are a dishonest man (and a lousy grammarian -- that's not
>>even a sentence).

>That's not likely.  Which is why I provide REFERENCES.

No, you provide references and demand them BECAUSE you expect people
to act the way your impulses tell you to act.  Except, of course, that
some of us are basically honest, so your initial assumption is bad.

>Besides, you do know how to spell hipicryt ...

>>When what I say is true, *I* don't need 'proof'.  Others can take it
>>or leave it, as they choose.

>But of COURSE what you say is true.  Which is why you don't provide
>REFERENCES.

References don't make truth, John.  

>>Like I said, please do us all a favor and hold your breath ...

>I'm sorry, but the first rule of SCUBA diving is NEVER, NEVER, HOLD
>YOUR BREATH.

>Which is why you won't EVER, EVER provide REFERENCES.  Because you'd
>rather I hold my breath - thereby letting you continue the "You can
>fool some of the people some of the time (or until they stop holding
>their breath ...)" game.

Well, I wish you would, because what comes out of your mouth is pretty
obnoxious.  But then, that's just you, isn't it?

>>Pardon me, but I believe the phrase is "human brainwaves".  In other
>>words, nervous activity by itself ain't it.

>What are they going to be, puppy brainwaves?  The quote from the book
>is "can be READ and INTERPRETTED."

Yeah, that's the phrase.  Now, tell me what that means.

>>>	2). Admit that you were wrong.
>>
>>If it turns out to be wrong (as I said, she will check her source),
>>then you'll get this one.  In the next week or two, maybe.  Which you
>>already knew, of course.  You DO read, don't you?

>Week or TWO?  Hell, it's already BEEN a week or two.

Well, life's a bitch, John.  You figure on dying in the next couple
weeks? If so, you'll just have to die unfulfilled.

>>"Squirm"?

>Yes, "Squirm".  It rhymes with "Worm".

Hey, it can RHYME.  And it even knows what it is.  Congratulations,
John.  Now why don't you wiggle off into the dirt where you live and
leave the people alone?

>>          Perhaps that is what YOU do when you try to lie by making
>>up a source and someone questions it, but since I'm not trying to lie
>>and could hardly have made up Jeanie (since she was around long before
>>I could have made her up), I don't feel any need to squirm.

>Of course you could have made Jeanie up.  How about, pray tell, you
>give us her phone number so we can leave a message on her answering
>machine and maybe look her up in a Criss-Cross directory?

Next time I talk to her I'll see if that's all right with her, if it
really means so fucking much to you, John.  Unlike you, I'm not likely
to just give out some woman's phone number to a bunch of people;
particularly when at least one of them is the kind of person you are.
Or maybe I could give you her CIS account instead.  Probably be safer
for her that way, given the kind of person you are.

>>After all, I'm honest.  I'm not John Haugh II (thank God).

>Bwhahhahahaahahahahahhaaha.

>REFERENCES, Boy.  I'll be on your ass like flies on shit until I get
>those REFERENCES from you.

Gee, and I didn't even know you cared.  Hey, if you want on MY ass,
you're going to have to send me flowers and candy first.

As for the rest, you're just going to have to continue to act like the
flaming idiot you are for another couple of weeks.  Have fun.


-- 
"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.