From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: SAT worship
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  3 Oct 92 23:07:59 GMT

In <19ngipINNed8@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <1992Sep21.165259.2332@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>>In article <19ctqdINNktk@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>, regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>>> How 'bout you post your SAT scores, too?
>>Are y'all just being sarcastic, or do Americans really worship SAT scores?
>>I don't have any...  Is it ok for me to practice rational thought anyway?


>Oh, absolutely, Brian.

>We only ask for SAT scores for those folks who *don't* practice rational
>thought......

>Adrienne Regard

Considering how irrational you were in the little exchange below,
and also how you keep on crowing over a silly little in-joke about SAT's,
I wonder whether you even got far enough in high school to *take*
SAT tests.

|>> Linda Birmingham (by the way, does anyone know what became
of her?)

|> Peter Nyikos

| Adrienne Regard

|>>You can not force a
|>>fetus weighing 6lbs and up, through the vaginal opening
|>>without causing tearing and subsequent scaring. 

|>I know this is false as regards pregnancies other than the
|> first.

| You are wrong.

This much was from an e-mail correspondence between us.  In a series
of posts to talk.abortion there emerged the following:

~Date: 28 Aug 92 22:27:48 GMT
~Message-ID: <nyikos.715040868@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
~Newsgroups: talk.abortion
~Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....

~In <17glukINN3jn@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) 
~writes:

~>In article <nyikos.714846005@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.
~>scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

[I was paraphrasing below from memory until the |'s ceased.]

~>>|||- Ms. Birmingham
~>>||- Dr. Nyikos
~>>|- Ms. Regard
~>>||| You cannot fit a baby's head through a birth canal without some
~>>||| tearing.
~>>|| I know this is false as regards pregnancies other than the first.
~>>|  You're wrong.
~>>I'm right.  Our second and third children came out with no tearing
~>>whatsoever.  And one of my wife's sisters had only one child, and he
~>>came out with no tearing whatsoever.

Now comes the really irrational part.

~>Ah.  I see.  That your wife didn't need a second episiotomy means that
~>ALL WOMEN NEVER need a second episiotomy.  That your wife had one with the
~>first child means ALL WOMEN DO.  Your wife is all women.  I *get* it.

~As you would say: "Scuse please, reality check time"

~Linda said, "You cannot." No exceptions. Not my wife, not her sister,
~not Linda, not Adrienne.  How is it that you read it another way?

[Still working on the assumption that my wife had an episiotomy with
our first child:]

~>Also note: Linda said "tearing", which includes but is not limited to
~>the tearing one hopes to avoid via episiotomy.

Also note: you were even wrong in your assumption that my wife had
an episiotomy with our first child.  You flipped a mental coin, and
it came down tails when it should have come down heads.

While you're still figuring that one out, I'll exit and write "The Genesis
of this Whole Silly SAT Flap."  [I was tempted to write "Crap" instead
of "Flap" but the latter is more broadly descriptive of what is going
on.]

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame