From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Organization: The Nameless Mission
	<1992Dec27.231406.15929@rotag.mi.org>
	<PATRICK.92Dec28123520@rio-grande.is.rice.edu>
	<1992Dec29.225341.23703@rotag.mi.org>
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:29:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.225341.23703@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

   In article <PATRICK.92Dec28123520@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
   >In article <1992Dec27.231406.15929@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
   >
   > In article <PATRICK.92Dec27114646@blanco.is.rice.edu> patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
   > >In article <1992Dec26.233848.13472@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
   > >
   > > In article <BzuF2A.AIL@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
   > > >In article <1992Dec19.081855.14741@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
   > > >>In article <1992Dec18.165413.8758@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
   > > >
   > > >>>Considering his tendancy to
   > > >>>argue both sides of any given question, I'd say he is the one who
   > > >>>needs to be concerned with moral inconsistancy.
   > > >>
   > > >>Arguing a position and believing it aren't necessarily the same thing, schmuck.
   > > >
   > > >Sure, kebbin.  I bet Karl Marx was really an aristocrat, too.
   > >
   > > The inability to see the other side of an argument is a sign of superficiality.
   > >
   > >Silly me -- I thought it was a sign of just plain stupidity.
   >
   > Then take the matter up with Mark Cochran, who seems to think that seeing the 
   > other side of an argument is a sign of "moral inconsistancy" [sic].
   >
   >Why?  You're the one who proclaimed it's a sign of superficiality.  In that
   >case, you're definitely a superficial kind of guy.

 Among idiots, Humpty, you are King. Read my words again. I said that the
 INability to see the other side of the argument was a sign of superificiality.
 "INability", not "ability". Sheesh. The meaning you took was exactly OPPOSITE
 of what it says.

Very good, kebbin -- you've shown you can parrot phrases from your pal Steve
Chaney.  Here's a cookie for you.  Now, I *should* have said it the right
way -- but so what?  Why are you so intent on dragging Mark into this, if
for no other reason than to deflect attention away from yourself?
What Mark had to say has nothing to do with what I'm asking YOU.  Stick to
the subject, kebbin.

  > >The uncriticized, unanalyzed viewpoint is almost certain to be a worthless
  > >viewpoint. As for Karl Marx, he probably COULD argue convincingly for the
  > >aristocratic point of view in a debate, because although he ultimately didn't
  > >agree with it, he understood it and appreciated it up to the point of his 
  > >disagreement.
  > >
  > >Why am I reminded of a former grad student at NCSU who claimed he knew
  > >Aristotlean thought better than Aristotle?  
  >
  > I have no idea why you would think such a thing, Humpty. From his works, I
  > know that Karl Marx had sufficient intellectual depth to be able to argue
  > compellingly from an opposing viewpoint. In fact, I may have even read some
  > of his attempts to argue from an aristrocratic viewpoint, I can't remember
  > for sure. I can, however, speak with a fair amount of confidence on that
  > partciular point. Note however, that I never claimed to know Marx's thoughts
  > better than he did...
  >
  >Of course you have no idea -- but that's never stopped you yet from plunging
  >ahead with your quest for any excuse to flame certain people who have shown
  >you up before.  You're the one stating up there that Karl Marx understood
  >this, and appreciated that 

  Er, Humpty, YOU are the one who brought up Karl Marx, and expressed an 
  opinion as to whether or not he harbored aristocratic sentiments. If I'm
  guilty of attempted necrotelepathy, then it was only because I took my lead
  from YOU.

Darcy, you seem to have a conveniently defective memory -- I mentioned Marx,
but I said nothing about whether had or hadn't "aristocratic sentiments",
and you well know that.  You just like to play stupid, when it gives you the
opportunity to get in a little cheap shot of your own.

   > >> > [lots of pee-pee waving about largeness of medical centers]
   > >
   > > [...]
   >
   >What's the matter -- don't like people showing your errors?  Somehow, I'm
   >not at all surprised.

   Humpty, I mercifully tried to save you the embarrassment of having your
   puerile, petty competitiveness reposted for all the world to see. Must you 
   repay my efforts by compounding your original pee-pee waving with another
   helping of empty bravado?

Fuck your "efforts", Darcy.  You are just too dishonest to admit that I
pointed out a mistake of yours -- and we know how well *you* admit any error
of yours.  

   > >> Besides, it's not just the size of your medical complex, it's how you use it :-)
   > >
   > >Indeed -- I guess that's why we have UTMDAH down here, and not up in some
   > >ice mine in Michigan, eh?  (I wonder why we have such folks as Michael
   > >DeBakey and Denton Cooley around here -- I guess they just couldn't stand
   > >the competition for your pearls of "wisdom" up there at Moo U...:-)
   >
   > I think you're confused, Humpty. "Moo U" is Michigan State (MSU), not U of M.
   > I've never heard anyone refer to U of M as "Moo U" before...
   >
   >I'm perfectly aware of where MSU and UM are, and the differences between the
   >two schools -- now tell me, why should I care about either one of them?

  Well, the documentary evidence indicates that you cared a GREAT DEAL whether
  one of those "ice mines" might contain a larger medical complex than your
  own beloved UTMDOODAH. You could have just let my statement slip, or affixed
  the ever-popular, one-size-fits-all, not-sold-in-stores, operators-are-
  standing-by "this statement is not correct" to it, but instead you decided to
  make a Whine Festival out of the whole false issue. If you didn't care enough
  to even get your geography straight, why did you start this whole pissing 
  match about medical centers? What was the point?

You make me laugh, you miserable little man.  You don't know what I think,
no matter how much you fantasize that you do.  You shot your ugly mouth off,
I pointed out your error -- and I made my point.  You refuse to let it die,
but that's okay -- my point was nothing more than to give you the
opportunity to once again demonstrate why you deserve your position on the
council of net.idiots.  You earned it, and as always, you have come through
with flying colors...

--PLH, hoping Darcy never gets diagnosed with leukemia -- he might have to
come down here to that medical center he's so afraid of...

--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity