From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: BullShit
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:59:34 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <21690@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> In article <1992Oct8.090615.16819@montagar.com> davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
>>In article <21677@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>> The problem with not bringing it up (I didn't) or not responding to
>>> statements that are made is if someone says "You don't know what it's
>>> like to be poor because you've always been rich" - what are you going
>>> to do?
>>
>>	Well, they may be right, but if they are going to use an argument like
>>that to "prove" that my ideas are wrong, it won't work.  You might be offended
>>by a statement like that and feel the need to defend yourself.  I do not.
>>Just because they read something they may not like and respond in a knee-jerk
>>reaction, doesn't make me feel like I have to lie to make them like me.
> 
> Well, when "they" are most of the liberals that read this group, it gets
> kinda tiresome.  Besides, it doesn't matter if they are right or wrong, my
> income is irrelevant to the discussion.

	You income is irrelevant, but your response and the way you dealt
with it is relevant.  It provides additional clues to your character upon
which we gauge the validity of what you say.

>>	Anyway, do such an accusation give reason to lie?  You appearently
>>think so, to your discredit.
> 
> I stated quite clearly when I "lie".  You seem to have some problem with
> this.  If my income is none of your business, it doesn't matter what I
> tell you - it was STILL none of your business.

	But, you *don't* state quite clearly when you lie, until much after
the fact.  Therefore, we are likely to start assuming you lie up front, much
like the boy who cried wolf too often.
>                                                  Likewise, my position on
> abortion is none of your business, and indeed, my arguments about abortion
> do not hinge on my personal views on the subject.  It is not my belief
> that abortion is wrong simply because I think it is wrong.

	Whoa!  News to me!  So how much of your personal testimony was a lie?
If you tell us, since it's obviously none of our business, it will probably be
a lie as well...

	Hey, this whole thing could be a sutble trick.  John F. Haugh may
only be a Turing project, and use reverse psychology to drive us away from
the beliefs he supposely "believes" in.

	John believes in abortion, believes that productivity in the U.S.
is faltering, and Clinton is our man.  He is creating a net-roots support
for these beliefs using being the Devil's Advocate (which is why he wants
sources, but produces few himself:  He doesn't have to, and believes in the
opposite).  If this is true, then John actually should be congratulated.
He has successfully raised the conciousness of this portion of the net, as
far as I'm concerned.

> At any rate, I've noticed no one is chastising James Berry for his severe
> breach of etiquette, so this is the last from me on the subject.

	Well, I didn't witness this act, so I'm really not sure what
happened here.  Not that it didn't occur, I either skipped the article, or
it was lost in my three-week news-blackout (disk crash).
> -- 
> John F. Haugh II           [  TSAKC  ]       UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
> Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151    [ DoF #17 ]            Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
David L. Cathey		                |INET: davidc@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts              |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260772, Plano TX  75026-0772  |Fone: (214)-618-2117
Newsgroups: tx.politics