From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion
Date: 15 Sep 92 03:56:36 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep14.132551.6046@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <21501@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John (net.ghod) Haugh II) writes:
>>NO, you stupid idiot.  I'm asking you to prove YOUR STATEMENT.
>
>NO, you stupid idiot.  I'm asking you to prove YOUR STATEMENT.

Oh.  That game.

>>YOU claimed that I did the first grammar flame.  I said that you started
>>it, and even showed where you did.  
>
>No, you simply showed one example.  However, SOME OF US have better
>things to do than save scads of old netnews so we can play your kind
>of stupid games.

Fred, I only need to show ONE EXAMPLE.  This is how proof and disproof
works.

I say, "You started it."
You say, "No, you started it."
I say, "Here is my proof - <example deleted>"

Your response is not "No, you really started it.", you only disproof
can be an example (again, one is sufficient) of something which
contradicts the example I gave.  This is taught in any Logic 101
course.

>In other words, as I and others have noted, *I* am supposed to prove
>somthing that you claim you can't prove for various reasons.

No, you are supposed to prove YOUR claim.  If you want to claim that
I started a grammar flame fest, you must prove that by posting the
evidence.  I've made my claim - that you started the grammar flame
fest - and I've posted my evidence - the "first" exchange.  It is up
to YOU to prove YOUR claim by providing an example which predates mine.

>Well, like I said, most of us have better things to do than save old
>netnews so we can 'prove' assholes like you wrong.  I could just as
>easily have written your preceding paragraph, since I don't do
>spelling and grammar flames "unless provoked", either.

You'd be surprised (or maybe not ...) at how many people actually
keep chunks of netnews.  And as I showed you, I keep my netnews quite
automatically.  I wrote that script 3 years ago, and haven't meddled
with it hardly at all since then.  Every week an old batch goes out
and a new batch begins.

>Please get a life, John.  You'll sleep better, your digestion will
>improve, and the rest of us won't have to read your continual flames
>and hyperbolic bullshit.

In other words, you still aren't going to prove your assertion.  Just
like you aren't going to prove the bit about brainwaves either.  We
=are= still waiting to here from Jeanie, you know.

And speaking of human brainwaves, Jeanette brought home another book.
This one shows pictures of a six-week old fetus with clearly developed
cerebral lobes.  You can see them so clearly because the skull hasn't
finished forming and the skin is transparent.  There is even a caption
which points out that they are cerebral lobes.  The book is titled
"The Making of a Child".
-- 
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