From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:14:14 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <21467@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1992Sep4.181353.8255@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>No, John, once again YOU are caught lying.  You'll note that what you
>>claimed I said was NOT what was said.  I also note you didn't bother
>>to include context.

>Oh boy, I misquoted him.

Yeah, you sure did.  Obviously, though, you don't think distortions
you create by misquoting people are serious.  Otherwise you wouldn't
do it so often or twist things so much.

>Yeh, but I got the spirit of your quote CORRECT.  And you complain
>about context, OK.  I'll give you some CONTEXT.

>->In article <1992Aug26.162649.4866@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Squirming Fred) writes:
>->>In article <21416@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>->>>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).

>Happy now?  It still shows that you picked a grammar flame.  Strike two.

And does it show who picked the first one?  Of course not.  Still
short of context.

>>>I'll give you a clue - I keep a LOT of old netnews.
>>
>>Why am I NOT surprised?  Geez, I wish *I* didn't have a life so I
>>could spend my time keeping old netnews.

>Uh, it doesn't take any of my time.  I've been administer a netnews site
>for about 4 or 5 years now.  It takes no time because it is almost
>completely automated.  For example, this is how I keep a copy of every
>article I write:

>% grep SAVE_LOCAL /usr/lib/news/sys
>SAVE_LOCAL:all:L0:cat >> /usr/lib/news/local.art

>Don't take me a bit of time.  Now, if you'd like, I'll start saving every
>article YOU write the same way.  I've got plenty of CPU cycles to burn.
>I think the total daily CPU usage on this machine runs about 30 minutes
>per day.  I'm sure I could burn an hour or two collecting your articles.

Knock yourself out.  In case it never occurred to you, the 'time' part
of "collecting old netnews" is the assumption that you collect it to
DO SOMETHING WITH IT.

>>Yes, and like the remainder of your 'scorecard', it turns out that you
>>simply lie to the scorekeeper.  If you weren't such a dishonest
>>bastard, you'd stop trying to pick anecdotal data points and then
>>claiming that they are representative.  If you weren't such a disonest
>>bastard, you'd stop lying about and distorting what other people say.
>>If you weren't such a dishonest bastard, perhaps you'd have a life and
>>wouldn't be spending all your time selectively editing old netnews.

>Lie to the scorekeeper?

Right.

>Did you, or did you not, claim that there were few businesses in the
>part of LA that suffered from the riots?  

No, I didn't.  I notice, however, that you have now toned this down
from your prior claims that my statement was that there were NO
businesses in that part of LA.

[What my statement was, which I have repeated for you quite often
(recently, in fact), was that there were RELATIVELY FEWER businesses
when compared to the better off sections of the city.  If you still
maintain that that is not the case, perhaps you can explain just why
so many people in that part of the city were unemployed?  Were people
commuting INTO the ghetto to hold jobs at those businesses, or what?

>Was it not later pointed out
>to you that many thousands of businesses were destroyed?  

Yes, you did this after you lied about what I had said, claiming that
I had said that there were NO businesses.  This was your proof that
there WERE businesses, which was a proof against your own strawman
rather than against what I said.

>Was it not
>later pointed out that many thousands of businesses in that same area
>weren't destroyed?

Yes, you did this after you lied about what I had said, claiming that
I had said that there were NO businesses.  This was your proof that
there WERE businesses, which was a proof against your own strawman
rather than against what I said.

>Anecdotes?  Please, you've still not provided references for your
>assertion during the "School Voucher" debate that businesses in poor
>districts charge more and provide lower quality.  

Take a course in Urban Policy, John.  I've posted the name of a
reasonable book twice now.  I don't have time to try to teach you 4
1/2 months worth of material so that you can perhaps understand
something that you want to claim is untrue in the first place.  Oh,
and just by the way, that should read "charge more and/or provide
lower quality".

>Your claim that the
>cost of doing business in poor districts is higher has been disproved
>several times.  

Gee, I must've missed that 'proof'.  All I've seen is John (net.ghod)
Haugh II making assertions, giving a few anecdotal data points, and
then foaming at the mouth and screaming "liar".  None of that strikes
me as proof.  Well, not proof against anything I claimed, anyway.
Anything it proves, it proves about John Haugh.


-- 
"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.