From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Fetal Brainwaves
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:45:41 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <21427@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1992Aug28.193923.8930@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>And what is an ARGED?  
>>
>>Try putting in a 'U'.  It's an old keyboard, John.

>Hey, you're a well-paid multi-degreed guy.  Buy a new keyboard.

Other things to spend money on, 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. 

>Bwhahahahahahah!

>You idiot, you are the one that pulls out the grammar flames.  Or don't
>you remember the "And that isn't a complete sentence" flame you tossed
>back at me.  I don't use grammar and spelling flames because I make so
>damned many mistakes of that nature.

You idiot, you do them more than anyone else I've ever seen.  The one
time I recall mentioning it to you the fragment was practically
incoherent. 

>So one more time, can you spell hiiplylcrit?

Yes, I can.  I spell it 'J' 'o' 'h' 'n' ' ' 'H' 'a' 'u' 'g' 'h' ' '
'I' 'I'.

>>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.

>No, I provide them because I am innately HONEST.  If I make a mistake,
>I want to be told about it.  Like I said, if I post something that is
>wrong, I want to know what is right so next week I can use that newly
>discovered correct position in my next argument.  You can't stand this
>because you realize it means I'm right just about all the time.

Or you think you are, anyway.  It's that tightly closed little mind of
yours that is the problem, Johnny.

>>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.  

>Uh, if you don't provide references no one can ever know if what you
>are saying is correct.  I provide references.  Providing make-believe
>references (or as you say "Maybe you should check your copy of the
>Constitution") would be found-out right away.

Gee, the Constitution is 'make believe' now?  I can believe that from
you, John.  Really I can.  

>>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.

>You have never heard of inter-library loan, have you?  Again, you are
>doing little more than demonstrate that you've never bothered to research
>a single thing in your entire life.  You honestly just expect people to
>believe you because you are Fred J. McCall.

And once again you are telling us how you know more about people you
have never met than they do about themselves, simply because you are
John 'net.ghod' Haugh II.  As I said before (you DO read, don't you?),
both I and my library have better things to do than chase down your
biased sources.

>>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.

>Fred, to this point in history, you have provided two pieces of
>verifiable information.  Two.  You have yet to provide any evidence to
>support the following claims that you've made -

Well, let's examine these claims that John SAYS I've made.  It's a
good window into this 'honorable man'.

>	* That there were no businesses in South Central LA.

I never said that.  Lie #1.  What I said was that there were fewer
than in other, more affluent areas.  YOU said the above, in an effort
to raise one of your little horde of strawmen.

>	* That poor people are systematically ripped off for
>	  goods and services.

I never said that, either.  Lie #2.  What I said was that businesses
in poor areas will generally charge more, have lower quality goods, or
both.  YOU said the above, in an effort to raise one of your little
horde of strawmen.

>	* That new businesses moving into a poor district will
>	  continue this trend.

If we replace the preceding point with what I actually said, this one
is something that I DID say.  Congratulations.  You got one right.

>	* That the cost of doing business in a poor district
>	  is greater than the cost of doing business in a
>	  wealthier district.

Misleading, but close.  FOR SIMILAR BUSINESSES, the cost in a poor
district will be higher.  This is due to a number of factors, among
which are higher loss rates to theft, higher insurance rates, and a
number of other things.

>	* That no businesses are going to locate in a poor
>	  district, even if money is to be made.

I never said that.  Lie #3.  What I said was that they would
preferentially not locate in those areas.  Do you understand what that
means, John, or do I need to explain it to you?  In any case, if you
really don't understand why this (and the one you started with about
fewer businesses being in poor areas) are true, you might want to read
_Urban Economics and Public Policy_ by Heilbrun.

>	* That a fetus below the age of 4 or 5 months has no
>	  human brainwaves.

Hey, he got another one right.  Will wonders never cease?  Yes, this
one I've said.  So far, what evidence I've found supports it, despite
your little 'right to life' chart and Dr. Nathanson's book.  I'll put
together a nice list for you as I get them together (they're at home
right now).  Have you ever checked any references that didn't have an
axe to grind, John?  You might want to start with Gray's Anatomy.
Look for when the cerebrum and cerebellum form.  Prior to this point,
you don't have 'human brainwaves', although you will most certainly
have nervous activity of more primitive types.  I went so far as to
ask a pathologist about the idea of human brainwaves from a 'primitive
brain' (which is what you have at 40 days, when your chart claimed
READABLE human brainwaves); his one word response was "hogwash".

>	* That a fetus below the age of 4 or 5 months is not
>	  able to feel pain.

I don't think I ever said that; I believe it was someone else.  Lie
#4.  I wouldn't argue it one way or the other, frankly, until you can
define what 'pain' means.  If you mean 'reacts to outside stimuli',
then there is no question that this can happen below 4 months.  But
that isn't generally what we mean by 'pain', or we would say that
microbes and plants feel pain.  If you assume 'consciousness' as a
prerequisite for 'pain', then I will agree.  There is no pain in the
undeveloped foetus.

>	  
>I was going to go on for a few more lines, but got bored.  In short, you
>make claims, and if someone else DISPROVES what you say, you mock them for
>being a "net.ghod".  

Sorry to disappoint you, John, but I've never seen you DISPROVE
anything.  All I've ever seen you do is make counter-assertions, throw
in a bit of biased citation, and then make personal attacks.  I "mock"
you as a "net.ghod" because you seem to think you are one.  Well, you
aren't.  You're just a petty, spoiled little liar who resorts to the
kind of vendettas we've seen here whenever someone disagrees with you
and declines to be bullied into submission.

>This isn't about "differences in opinion."  This is
>about YOU making things up and then getting pissed off because someone else
>catches you in a lie.  

This is a flat lie, since I haven't been "making things up".  Lie #5.

>I admit my mistakes.  I even admit when I'm wrong.  

Really?  You mean like you did when you were trying to tell GENE
SPAFFORD that you knew better than he what the word 'virus' meant with
regard to computers?  I note that you fell silent very quickly when he
showed up and told you you were wrong.  I saw no admissions on your
part, and no apologies to the people you had insulted in the course of
'proving' your correctness.

>YOU couldn't admit you were wrong if your very life depended on it.

How would you know?  You've never seen me shown to be wrong.  YOU have
certainly never shown any such thing.

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

>Actually, I'm your worst nightmare.  My sole purpose in life on this
>newsgroup is to force you to shut up, or post your references.  You have
>already lost credibility with quite a few people in this group.  My goal
>is to help you lose credibility with a few more.

YOU are my worst nightmare?  That's INCREDIBLY funny.  You aren't even
a pimple on a gnat's ass, John.

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

>"I'll provide references."  NOT!

>>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.

>Flaming idiot?  Nah.  I'm the voice of reason and tranquility.

Sure you are.  And, for anyone who believes that, I'm Tinkerbell.  So,
what have we seen about John (net.ghod) Haugh II, the 'honorable man'?
We've seen that he lies and engages in personal insult almost
continuously whenever someone disagrees with him, and then he lies
some more about what happened.

Thanks for the evidence, John.


-- 
"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.