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, 27 Aug 1992 17:49:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.164437.5503@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>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:
>>>(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.

	It's not unusual for you to get lost; I'll accept the possibility
that my reasoning is tortured. Had you acted as though you were other than
the only source of truth, when you first enetered this group, had you 
framed any of your posts in humility, then this humble appeal- "This is
Usenet"- would suffice. Instead, you look like an idiot. Understand, would
you- you don't have to reply, especially not "in kind".  

>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.

	Then prove it with some research! That's what this is all about.
"This is Usenet" just don't cut it, pal, especially bundled with the
extra excuse that you don't have time. If "This is Usenet" is your 
reason, fine. If time is your reason, fine. Time-wise, how long did the
15 daily posts take you? 

>  At least there is the CHANCE that
>the person with no backup is honest -- John's kind of twisted
>reportage has to be deliberate.

	Right. This is a political newsgroup, not a cocktail party. There
are gossip and hearsay newsgroups where people "discuss" things, I'm sure-
this ain't one of 'em. None of us are experts, and much of what we bring
to these arguments is cocktail-party level knowledge. That's where it
begins, not ends. Do some research, or don't. Suit yourself. You're
still going to lose credibility, if you don't.

>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.

	 Do you respect yourself when you "respond in kind"? Does
this require delusion? I suppose self-respect could always be tainted
by self-delusion. Still, I would like to make the distinction I'm drawing:
Pride is an "inside-out" feeling, self-respect an "outside-in". To 
examine yourself and your actions as though they were from someone else-
to step outside your self, examine those actions, and perform actions 
up to a level you can respect in others. Pride is a feeling that you
were born okay, and haven't to earn it.

>  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.

	That's a matter of interpretation. John posts a lot of bile,
but have you yet made the distinction between his just being rude
because he's pissed, and his taunting? You "kneejerk", so he taps
your knee when he feels like it- works every time. Now, I'm sitting here
watching this puppet show. A moment's worth of "outside-in" would do
you some good. 

>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?

	Well, it's been well-documented that I don't think I know
anything for sure. I can demonstrate what I claimed, however. What I
claimed was that John doesn't, and you apparently don't, understand 
that one can conduct oneself w/ self-respect _especially_ when one
doesn't have to. You respond in kind. That guarantees you won't 
self-reflect before responding; your reply is dependant on the post
you reply to. If the post was friendly, you likely will be. If the
post was hostile, you likely will be. John made it painfully obvious
(to me) that he hadn't a clue about conduct when he couldn't let your
congrats lie. He, too, HAD TO reply. 


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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"
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4614 alt.politics.clinton:3489