From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Fetal Brainwaves
Keywords: see fred squirm
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:26:49 GMT

In <21407@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1992Aug24.174255.16447@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <BtAwpq.Ko6@rice.edu> rbutera@owlnet.rice.edu (Robert John Butera) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1992Aug20.171951.395@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>>Well, let's look at the incredibly long note I posted a while back
>>>>with citations from several economics texts.  Turns out that that was
>>>>'not good enough'.  I've cited NPR as the source of several things,
>>>>etc.  If you feel the need to 'verify', call them up!  Otherwise, you
>>>>have simply established the 'rule' that only printed matter 'counts'.
>>>>And that, I'm afraid, simply doesn't make sense.

>I have not EVER seen you post a single note with a SINGLE citation, and
>particularly, not an "incredibly long note ... with citations from
>several economics texts."

Then you are either blind or a liar.  John Iacoleti (sp?) even ARGED
with them.  All that stuff about how 'regressive' and 'progressive'
are defined with regard to taxation.  So, are you blind, a liar, or
merely stupid?

>The reason that people require PRINTED references is that they can be
>independently verified.  

Well, so can broadcasts.  Someone else could have heard it, or you
could call up the broadcasters and ask them.  This is about as useful
a way to verify things for those of us who have to work for a living
and find it better to accept peoples' veracity until they demonstrate
we shouldn't as taking time we don't have to find some obscure
publication or other.

>You can call a bookstore, or a library, or
>whatever, and go look at the text yourself.  With "I heard it on NPR",
>you can "heard" it wrong, 

Possible, but the liklihood goes down with the simplicity of the
information.  

>you can "made it up, sorry I didn't fool
>you better", 

This says more about YOUR honesty than about anyone else's.  Your
presumption seems to be that everyone will do this if you don't stop
them.  All that tells me is that YOU are less than trustworthy.

>or any other number of stunts.  

I'll leave the 'stunts' to you.

>But PRINTED materials
>don't get "heard" wrong, "made up" or anything like that.  Leastwise,
>you can't pull the stunt and expect to get away with it.

Sure you can.  How many people have the time to run and check out some
obscure publication, even assuming they can find the issue of it
claimed?  How many people WANT to go look for a 1984 copy of "Guns and
Bimbos Magazine" to check out some egregious piece of nonsense that
someone claimed they published?

>If I said, "Well the Journal of Practical Abortion says <xyz>" and you
>go look for "The Journal of Practical Abortion" and find no such
>publication exists, and EVERYONE ELSE in the group has the same
>experience, it says something about me.  

Yeah, like perhaps it says that you have a subscription and that
libraries, etc., don't carry it.

>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).  People tend to view other peoples' actions on the
basis of how they would act themselves, so your assumptions here tell
me quite a bit about YOU.

>Expecting someone to do incredible amounts of leg work to locate
>sources off of the TV or radio is daring them to disagree.

Just like expecting them to do incredible amounts of legwork (one
word) to locate some obscure piece of print.

>And when they can't DISPROVE what you've said, you take it as proof
>that what you said is true.

When what I say is true, *I* don't need 'proof'.  Others can take it
or leave it, as they choose.

>Now, I'm STILL waiting on you to

Like I said, please do us all a favor and hold your breath, since the
person in question (that I got it from and who was going to give me
the citation for HER source, since it has been disagreed with here) is
on vacation in Florida this week.  So please hold your breath until AT
LEAST Monday, John.  Maybe longer, as I think she has a business trip
to Atlanta on tap next week.

>	1). Provide the citation you made up to prove your
>	    contention that a fetus of 40 days gestation has
>	    no brainwaves.

Pardon me, but I believe the phrase is "human brainwaves".  In other
words, nervous activity by itself ain't it.

>	2). Admit that you were wrong.

If it turns out to be wrong (as I said, she will check her source),
then you'll get this one.  In the next week or two, maybe.  Which you
already knew, of course.  You DO read, don't you?

>Either one will be nice.  In the meantime, you will continue to
>squirm.

"Squirm"?  Perhaps that is what YOU do when you try to lie by making
up a source and someone questions it, but since I'm not trying to lie
and could hardly have made up Jeanie (since she was around long before
I could have made her up), I don't feel any need to squirm.

After all, I'm honest.  I'm not John Haugh II (thank God).

See you around the net, Junior.

-- 
"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.