From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: Biological reasons against male choice
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 14:03:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.223928.148948@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1992Dec12.211049.26996@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec10.223329.28942@bmw.mayo.edu> bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
>>>
>>>Children are closer relations then parents?
>>
>>Children are genetically related to their parents.  Parents are
>>usually not related to one another, except probably in Mr. Cameron's
>>family.
>>
>>Mr. Cameron, if you insist on putting in your two cents, you might want
>>to consult your cerebral cortex before doing so in the future.
>>
>>If you are only posting to illustrate your complete and total
>>ignorance, then you are doing a magnificent job.
>
>The same comments might be addressed to you.  Some idiot said that children
>are a person's closest relatives, ignoring the fact that a person's
>relationship to their parents is just as genetically close as their
>relationship to their children.

Joel Clark, whom you refer to as some idiot, stated in a previous post
that children are our closest relatives.  He did not state what Mr.
Cameron posted in question form.  And both of you just happened to
notice that we are also children, a kind of recursion of the parent
being the child of another parent being the child of another parent,
and so on.  Hey, maybe ol' Joel Clark wasn't so dumb when he said that
children are a parent's closest relatives.  Maybe he was right.  Maybe
he just left off the visa-versa and the jump up one generation.  Maybe
it wasn't needed, due to recursion.  I mean, like, "Duh!"  Maybe
stating it so blatantly that even ol' Larry Margolis would get it,
would have been redundant for the rest of us.  Maybe ol' Larry Margolis
has really been picking some nits lately.  What's up, Larry?  I don't
remember you ever being this contrary.  Oops.  Scratch that.  My memory
has not failed me.  There's a good Larry and a bad Larry.

Oh, and I still stand behind my previous statements that Bruce
Cameron's post contained more misinformation than just about any I've
seen in this forum in a long time and he made all his statements with a
air of authority--like he knew what he was talking about.  He didn't.

So, what's next Larry?  Typos?  So, how are things in YOUR world now?
Everything peachy?   Would you like to throw out some of your
sentiments and see if they stand up to Phaedrus's analytical knife?
What's your ideal world?  Go ahead, make my day.

Aaron L. (Ra) Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 

P.S.  There are several different types of posters in USENET and
probably several types of lurkers.  I have no idea what the lurkers do
and how they do it.  But the posters are obvious.  There are: 1) the
flame-baiters--posting their deranged lunatic ravings trying to sucker
anyone into giving them any attention; 2) The questioners--thinking
this a one-stop answer machine, they ask their question, get their
answer (maybe) and move on; 3) the "last worders"--always having to
have the last word on everything, when two of these get locked in a
debate, well, does about 170 posts, mostly from four people about
ponies and vacations sound familiar?; 4) the "I think I've got
its"--proposing solutions to problems, then trying to defend those
solutions as the next group of people takes shot at it; 5) the "nope,
never, uh-uh, nay-sayers"--rarely presenting solutions or opening their
ideas up to scrutiny, sometimes so close minded they they will not
acknowledge another perspective, they attack the logic, the
poorly-turned phrase, the typos, the sentence structure, whatever there
is they can take a swipe at, they will take a swipe at it, some are
quite humorous, others not at all, many are from Missouri and you have
to show 'em, many are very skeptical of anything that is outside their
experience--they are not bad guys, they serve a purpose; 6) the
"posters"--regurgitating others' ideas, articles, statistics, they
often post announcements and articles, they try to start discussions,
bring up new topics--archivers all.  There are others, my analytical
knife is quite tired right now.  Few can be exclusively categorized in
one of these groups, many of us have taken on a number of positions or
roles.

So this begets intellectual discourse.  It's not pretty, and the
accomplishments can be argued.  The goal is enlightenment.  It's why we
are doing this.

"It takes a big man to cry, but it takes an even bigger man to laugh at
that man."
	-- "Deep Thoughts" by Jack Handy
Newsgroups: talk.abortion