From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: BullShit
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:07:34 GMT

In <21704@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1992Oct9.165934.16827@montagar.com> davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
>>	You income is irrelevant, but your response and the way you dealt
>>with it is relevant.  It provides additional clues to your character upon
>>which we gauge the validity of what you say.

>Which way that I dealt with it?  You'll note that I no time did I ever
>post my income to the net.  This is the part you, in particular, seem to
>be having a VERY HARD TIME dealing with.

>I didn't "lie" about anything on the net.

Well, here comes the changing story.  Watch closely, folks.  We're
about to see John Haugh trying to tapdance his way out of another one. 

>The scenario is very simple.  Several people wrote very insulting and
>inaccurate postings about me and hypothesised that I made some obscene
>amount of money.  I explained that as an experienced programmer, etc.,
>I have a "nice" income.  Note that I didn't say what it was.  These
>people then went on to insult me in private, writing harassing mail and
>the like.  So, I wrote back to some of these people and told them what
>I "make".  Some of them apparently spread the disinformation around
>until it reached James Berry.

Ah, yes.  Here we go.  It now all happened in private, and John didn't
lie at all.  Yeah, right -- *I* believe that.  As I said earlier, I
recall some remarks by John that seemed to be making a pretty
definitive statement about what he and his wife made.  I have
exchanged no private mail with John, except for the note that he sent
me under another name in which he portrayed himself as a third party
supporting John Haugh.  

>I didn't ask to be harassed by these people, and I believe that I
>didn't initiate any of the mail conversations.  When someone writes me
>a threatening or insulting letter, I reserve the write to respond in
>any way I feel like.

Ah, now John wants to change the conditions under which he will lie
(or under which he admits that he will lie -- two quite different
things).  It would seem that John also reserves the right to respond
in any way he feels like any of the rest of the time, too.  So when
CAN he be believed?

>>	Whoa!  News to me!  So how much of your personal testimony was a lie?
>>If you tell us, since it's obviously none of our business, it will probably be
>>a lie as well...

>Again, my PERSONAL beliefs having NOTHING to do with the validity of what
>I argue.  Either the arguments are valid with the premises and conclusions
>that are written, or they are invalid.  Arguments don't get stronger
>because you believe something.  Even my "personal testimony" has nothing
>to do with the validity of my arguments.  It is a fact that for several
>months I worked as a welder at Avondale and Halter Marine shipyards.  This
>doesn't make my statements about the Internal Brotherhood of Steelworkers
>any more or less true.  Either they are, or they aren't.

No, arguments don't become more convincing because you happen to
believe something, but the interpretation of the facts and the
presentation sure seems to change.

>>	John believes in abortion, believes that productivity in the U.S.
>>is faltering, and Clinton is our man.  He is creating a net-roots support
>>for these beliefs using being the Devil's Advocate (which is why he wants
>>sources, but produces few himself:  He doesn't have to, and believes in the
>>opposite).  If this is true, then John actually should be congratulated.
>>He has successfully raised the conciousness of this portion of the net, as
>>far as I'm concerned.

>Again, if my arguments against abortion are "valid", it certainly isn't
>because I believe abortion is right or wrong.  And as for not producing
>sources, I've yet to see you produce a single one.  On the other hand,
>I produced a total of five texts in addition to two from John Iacoletti.
>All seven support the point I was arguing with Fred over.

Well, all seven did that if you argue the way John does, by selective
redefinition and reinterpretation of things.  All seven supported
FIRST ELECTRICAL ACTIVITY in the brain, NORMALLY AROUND 8 WEEKS.  For
John, this becomes "readable human brainwaves at 5 weeks".  He then
went on to talk about when the foetus looked human (except that it
didn't), reacting to 'sour' amniotic fluid (when it doesn't have taste
buds), feeling pain and having human reflexes when the brain isn't
even really functionally connected up yet, etc.

Oh, just by the way, John.  Jeannie (remember Jeannie, the woman you
insisted that I must have made up and who you demanded a way to
contact -- except that now that I gave you one, you just don't seem to
quite have the stomach for it anymore?) looked around a bit and came
up with the following things, which seem to pretty well refute your
presentation of the foetus as a human, pain-feeling person.  This is
all from _Pregnancy and Birth_ by Tracy Hotchner (and she reports that
books such as _What To Expect When You're Expecting_ and _Guide To
Pregnancy and Birth_ are in substantial agreement.  All times below
are from conception.  Just a few things for the edification of John,
who has been portraying things as if the foetus starts out after a few
weeks as a boredom-prone, thumb-sucking little baby.  The additions of
emphasis are mine.

End of third month: Fetus kicks; toes curl.  All movements reflexive
from the spinal cord; BRAIN NOT YET SUFFICIENTLY ORGANIZED to control
them.

END OF FOURTH MONTH: Sucking and swallowing reflexes appear.  At 16
weeks, thumb sucking begins.  Responds RELEXIVELY to noxious stimuli

Sixth months: Eyelids open, can look around.  Can hear well, and will
respond to loud noises.

"It is believed that FROM THE SIXTH MONTH AFTER CONCEPTION, the 
unborn child feels, senses and remembers."  

First mention of detectable brain waves is at the beginning of
the third trimester.
 

So, once again, we see that John Haugh equates 'proof' with tricks and
manipulation of arithmetic and language.

-- 
"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.