From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: SJM slur alert
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 23:57:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.063521.17533@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <C03BpE.G0w@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec29.175354.2917@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>> In article <C014v8.IGp@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) 
>>writes:
>>
>>> I'll type slow so you can keep up Paul...
>>> It is a fetus, not a child.
>>> Repeat that until you understand the difference.
>>
>>Gee, sounds just like mind-control.  Do you also run a Chinese-style reeducation camp for wayward pro-lifers?
>>
>No, but it's certainly not a bad idea. *Somebody* certainly needs to
>deprogram twits like you.

Grow up, Mark. You were the one who started patronizing Paul with that stale
old "I'll type slow" crap. If any twit around here needs deprogramming, it's
you. Perhaps all of that Novak/Keegan/Humphrey schoolyard bravado could be 
deprogrammed out of you, if the infection isn't too deep.

>>> >> ...not given the legal right to use their parents' bodies without
>>> >> permission.
>>
>>> >Here SJM raises the bogus concept that the government never dictates how 
>>> >we use our bodies.  In fact, it does as a matter of course.
>>
>>> Here Paul raises the bogus concept that because the government
>>> dictates some things, it should dictate all things. Guess we know why
>>> you're from a .mil site eh Paulie?
>>
>>Please point out exactly where I said, or even implied the word, "all".
>>
>See "as a matter of course" up there monkey boy? There's the
>implication. 

"As a matter of course" does not imply "all". It's a generalization, whereas
"all" is a universalization.

>>> Here Paulie demonstrates that he is incapable of differentiating between a 
>>> pro-lifer and a fetus fanatic.  Here's a clue Paulie. Pro-Life != forced 
>>> birth.
>>
>>I see, if one is against abortion he may have in mind just requiring the mother to keep her legs tightly crossed whenever the urge to push arises.  I'm just not right brained I guess.  Thanks for the clue.
>>
>Not at all monkey boy. Some, even here in t.a are capable of being
>against abortion without feeling it necessary to try and force their
>views on the rest of the world. It's not all pro-lifers who do this
>Monkey boy, just you control freaks.

More name-calling. Impressive.

>>> > I guess the millions of men let off the hook through the magic 
>>> >of the abortionist's wand is just incidental gravy.  Of course, men are 
>>> >just disinterested bystanders who have no stake whatsoever in keeping 
>>> >abortion legal.  And of course the concept of mothers killing their 
>>> >offspring is a good light to hold women to.  
>>> >
>>> Speaking of unsupported rhetoric....
>>> 
>>
>>Go ahead, speak.  Which part is unsupportable?
>
>Why, that should be obvious even to someone of your limited ability
>monkey boy. Everything you've ever claimed is unsupportable. The
>single time you provided citations, they were quickly shown to be
>either unreliable, inaccurate, or exactly contrary to the position you
>claimed they would support. And this debunking of your "sources" was
>performed by several people, not just one. I think it's safe to say
>your losing credibility quickly monkey boy.

Wow! "Several people" disagree, so obviously Paul must be wrong.

Good rhetoric (maybe). Lousy logic.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion