From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Documenting claims for Mark Cochran (Was: Proposed...FAQ)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 03:37:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.064609.34574@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <nyikos.727389915@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <1993Jan17.165453.17871@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>>
>>>In <1993Jan16.204812.14124@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>In article <1993Jan11.211657.23247@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>>>In <1993Jan11.155025.21735@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>>>In article <1993Jan6.045359.13257@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>>>>In article <1993Jan5.070455.20287@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>>>>>In article <1384@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I've never seen Beth Bartley lie about anything on t.a.  I find
>>>>>>>>>her extremely credible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Do you believe her informed claim that she is "pro-choice"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Certainly. She states quite plainly that she is pro-choice early in
>>>>>>>the pregnancy, and in favor of restrictions for late term abortions.
>>>>>>>Given that she doesn't try to lie about or hide her views, I have no
>>>>>>>problem viewing her as pro-choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"i think anyone who would ask if someone who openly supports anti-choice
>>>>>> legislation (and who would go as far as imprisoning women who have abortions)
>>>>>> as ms. bartley does is pro-choice is a complete and utter fool."
>>>>>>                               James G Keegan Jr, keegan@pan.crd.ge.com
>>>>>>                               5 Jan 93 12:48:50 GMT
>>>>>>                               <1993Jan5.124850.10173@crd.ge.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So now you're a "complete and utter fool", eh, Mark?
>>>>>
>>>>>Not according to what you quoted, Kevin.  Since we've seen how easily
>>>>>confused you are by complicated sentences, let's trim it down a little:
>>>>>  "i think anyone who would ask if ...
>>>>>   ms. bartley ... is pro-choice is a complete and utter fool."
>>>>>
>>>>>You're the one who *asked*; Mark was *answering*.
>>>>
>>>>Who is the more "foolish", Larry: he who asks a question (thereby at least
>>>>indicating that he knows the span of his knowledge, and a way to increase it),
>>>>or he who rushes in with an incorrect answer?
>>
>>>Oh, I'd say that the person who asks a question and, on receiving an answer,
>>>posts a statement that the *asker* is a "complete and utter fool" and suggests
>>>that the quote implies that the *answerer* is a "complete and utter fool" is
>>>definitely the more foolish.
>>
>>Larry feigning literal-mindedness again.  Why let reason get in the way
>>of a few debating points scored against nemesis Darcy?
>>
>>Larry ignores the *direction* in which Keegan's question was intended,
>
>The intended direction of the original poster does not appear to be relevant
>to the fact that the asker, and not the answerer, is the one deemed to be
>the fool according to the quote, which is not (one would assume) the conclusion
>intended by the person who both asked the question and reposted the quote.

Such nebulous assertions of error don't prove a thing, Larry. I detailed the 
reasoning behind my conclusion in an earlier post -- if you continue to 
insist that I erred in my reasoning, you now have the means to show 
specifically WHERE I erred. Please avail yourself of them.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women