From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:08:54 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <21525@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>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.

Yes.  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.

No, John.  One example merely shows that I did indeed comment on your
grammar one time.

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

But that's not proof that I started it.  That's simply proof that I
DID it, which I never disputed in the first place.  You could have
proven that by simply asking me.

>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.

Yes, and in Propaganda 101 they teach that you should play this game
with people who can't be bothered to save their entire Usenet history
in files.

>>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.

I can't prove that you 'started' it, any more than you can prove I
started it.

>>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.

No, I wouldn't be surprised at all, John.  I mean, after all, how much
time have you wasted on something this petty?

>>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.

John, I consider that you've had more than enough 'proof' at this
point.  The only way I think you would believe anything that is
counter to what you want to believe is if I came down there, ripped
your wife open, and stuck an EEG on the foetus and showed you.  Of
course, that would be kind of hard on both your wife and the foetus,
so you're pretty safe in assuming that I won't do that.

>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".

So you now dispute Gray's Anatomy and a nursing text with this book?
Who is this book published by, pray tell?  Why do I suspect it is yet
another pro-life bit?  Or else you are being somewhat disengenuous
here.  They may be cerebral LOBES, but with no cerebrum or cerebellum
(which we have both agreed do NOT exist at this point -- see the
anatomy book that you asserted proved nothing) they don't mean a whole
lot.  Mislabelling, perhaps? 


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.