From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Mark Cochran, master of the Big Lie technique, Part 2
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:44:25 GMT

I was going to add "Was: Loren...dictator" but these subject lines tend to
get squashed in the middle on my "index" [better term: table of contents], 
rendering them unintelligible.

Part 1 was not lableled as such, it's the thread where I took Mark to task for
claiming that informed consent prior to abortions is a requirement, quoting
from Chief Justice Burger, dissenting, in *Thornburgh*.  At the time I was
not yet ready to accuse Mark of being a master of the Big Lie technique,
but now I am.  The biggest piece of evidence will come in Part 3, coming
your way soon.

In <1992Dec17.180016.6709@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <16DEC92.21143872@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>In a previous article, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) wrote:
>>>In <16DEC92.07023222@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>>In a previous article, chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) wrote:
>>>>>In <14DEC92.21004172@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>An unfertalized egg, on it's own, left in it's environment, will not grow into
>>>>>>a human adult.  A fertalized egg will.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, let's see...
>>>>>
>>>>>An unfertilized egg has a few different environments. It starts its
>>>>>life in the ovaries, and later migrates through the fallopian tubes
>>>>>and into the uterus. Now, the interesting thing about the uterus
>>>>>is that it sometimes has sperm cells in it. Therefore, an unfertilized
>>>>>egg, on its own, left in its environment, can in fact grow into a
>>>>>human adult. It's not 100% certain, but it isn't 100% certain that
>>>>>a given fetus will survive to adulthood either.
>>>>
>>>>That is why I specified the difference between a fertalized egg, and an
>>>>unfertalized one.  An unfertalized egg will neververrow into a human adult.
>>>>It may become fertalized, but then it wouldn't be unfertalized.

Larry Margolis tells the truth below: he does hate to clue Loren
in; so, rather than cluing him in, he regales us with his own brand
of pseudoscience.  [Note in particular his substitution of "become" for
"grow into."  Larry is a master of equivocation and subtle terminology
shifts.]
 
>>>I hate to clue you in, but by the same reasoning a fertilized egg will
>>>never develop into an adult, either.  It might become an embryo, but then
>>>it wouldn't be a fertilized egg any more...

Refusing to get sidetracked from "grow", Loren replies:

>>Except the fertalized egg will grow into an embryo...adult.  There is a 
>>difference between growing into something (fertalized egg -> Embryo), and 
>>being changed into something by outside forces (unfertalized egg -> fertalized 
>>egg)

>*SIGH*

Here it comes.  Note the masterly misdirection below.  Mark makes it look
like he is rehabilitating Larry Margolis's pseudoscience, but if you
read what he says carefully, Larry remains refuted.

>Loren, have you ever taken a biology course? Do you know *anything*
>about the biology of reproduction?

Of course he does, he was just using the word "will" in somewhat
nonstandard fashion, as in "the sun will rise tomorrow", which to be
correct should read, "We will see something tomorrow that is conventionally
referred to as the rising of the sun, even though it is an illusion due
to the rotation of the earth, unless we are late in getting up, or it is
cloudy, or..."

>You statement above, in order to be correct, should read:
>"Except the fertalized egg [your spelling. I'll be happy if you get
>the biology correct. Somebody else can undertake to teach you to
>spell] may, under circumstances which occur for perhaps one out of
>three fertilized [correct spelling, since it's my word this time...]
>egg, implant,

Source, please, for the "one out of three" statistic.

> and begin the process by which it may (again, against
>the odds) eventually become an embryo, a fetus,

Source, please, for "against the odds".  I've seen this kind of talk
bandied about for months in talk.abortion, all without a scrap of
documentation.

> and (potentially and
>eventually) a child."

What does the word "potentially" mean in this context?

And why do I not see flames against Larry for his pseudoscience, 
nor Charles Don Hall for his gross understatement in re "not 100%"?
 
Could it be because Cochran does not give a hoot about correct
information (despite his words below) and is only interested in
seeing the pro-choice/pro-abortion/pro-abortionist faction win
debates?

>Does anyone remember if Loren has ever posted an article which
>contained any correct information?

>--
>                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
>These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
>your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
>Ghost of Elvis. So there.
		 ^^^^^^^^
He knows how to pout, too.  I thought at first he was Keith Cochran's
kid brother because of this.  Turns out it's the other way around.

Peter Nyikos


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame