From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Fetal Brainwaves
Summary: Squirm, Fred, Squirm.
Keywords: see fred squirm
Date: 26 Aug 92 01:52:37 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

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."

The reason that people require PRINTED references is that they can be
independently verified.  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, you can "made it up, sorry I didn't fool
you better", or any other number of stunts.  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.

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.  It says the same thing that
your "I heard it on the radio/TV/grapevine."

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

	"I heard on NPR that Blacks in LA are regularly ripped off
	 by Sears stores out there."

	"Are you sure it was just Blacks?  Wasn't it whites, too?"

	"Hey, if you don't believe me, call NPR."

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

No, Fred, the burden of supporting your argument RESTS ON YOUR
SHOULDERS.

>>I like John's postings - I may not always agree with him but they do
>>tend to be well researched.  
>
>Some are indeed good.  However, all too many (I would say the
>majority, but I haven't counted them) seem to consist mostly of
>distortion of what other people on the net have said and/or of
>personal insult to impugn what they say.  I tend not to care for that
>(large) segment of John Haugh's postings.

MOST of my postings can be backed up.  And when I can't, I ADMIT it.

You have a problem understanding the way I work.  I am perfectly
willing to be proven wrong.  You see, if you prove me wrong, I'll be
back NEXT WEEK taking the new information that I have and arguing it
to death.  The problem, from your perspective, is that you only get
to prove me wrong ONCE.  Because, you see, the second time when you
get pissed off that I'm right, I =am= right.

Now, I'm STILL waiting on you to

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

Either one will be nice.  In the meantime, you will continue to
squirm.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard