From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Fetal Brainwaves
Date: 27 Aug 92 13:32:41 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Aug26.162649.4866@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Squirming Fred) writes:
>Then you are either blind or a liar.  John Iacoleti (sp?) even ARGED
>with them.  All that stuff about how 'regressive' and 'progressive'
>are defined with regard to taxation.  So, are you blind, a liar, or
>merely stupid?

You mean the one where you gave a definition or two?  Hell, I give
definitions all the time.  Remember, you used the words "incredibly
long" and "several" textbooks.

I remember that posting.  It wasn't much to write home about.

And what is an ARGED?  And where is that memory of yours if you can't
even remember that his name is spelt Iaccollletttttiiiiiii.  You can
spell hipicrit, right?

>Well, so can broadcasts.  Someone else could have heard it, or you
>could call up the broadcasters and ask them.  This is about as useful
>a way to verify things for those of us who have to work for a living
>and find it better to accept peoples' veracity until they demonstrate
>we shouldn't as taking time we don't have to find some obscure
>publication or other.

Your claims could be backed up if you'd

	* Provide the network name
	* Provide the broadcast date
	* Provide the program name
	* Provide the topic

You provide NONE OF THE ABOVE.  In fact, your statement was that you
heard the item on "some" channel, "some" time after the riots, on
"some" program.  When I provide written references, I provide some or
all of the following -

	* Author
	* Title
	* Publisher
	* ISBN
	* Page Number

>>you can "made it up, sorry I didn't fool
>>you better", 
>
>This says more about YOUR honesty than about anyone else's.  Your
>presumption seems to be that everyone will do this if you don't stop
>them.  All that tells me is that YOU are less than trustworthy.

Which is why I provide Author, Title, Publisher, ISBN, and Page
Numbers - and why YOU provide "I heard it the other night while flipping
channels."

>Sure you can.  How many people have the time to run and check out some
>obscure publication, even assuming they can find the issue of it
>claimed?  How many people WANT to go look for a 1984 copy of "Guns and
>Bimbos Magazine" to check out some egregious piece of nonsense that
>someone claimed they published?

Uh, call your local library.

Last summer I posted a reference about an article in "In Health" magazine
which described how legal heroin in Poland was resulting in tens of
thousands of heroin addicts =and= hundreds of thousands of AIDS cases.
The general consensus was that "In Health" was an obscure publication.
When Joe "I didn't really call the library" Mullany claimed the magazine
didn't exist or couldn't be found, I went ahead and called the Houston
library and located a complete set, dating back several years.

Again, your complaint isn't that the magazine DOESN'T exist, but rather
"I don't wanna check cuz you'll prove me wrong."  Well, yes, I will prove
you wrong.

>Yeah, like perhaps it says that you have a subscription and that
>libraries, etc., don't carry it.

See the above sad tale of woe ...

>>It says the same thing that
>>your "I heard it on the radio/TV/grapevine."
>Then you are a dishonest man (and a lousy grammarian -- that's not
>even a sentence).

That's not likely.  Which is why I provide REFERENCES.

Besides, you do know how to spell hipicryt ...

>When what I say is true, *I* don't need 'proof'.  Others can take it
>or leave it, as they choose.

But of COURSE what you say is true.  Which is why you don't provide
REFERENCES.

>Like I said, please do us all a favor and hold your breath ...

I'm sorry, but the first rule of SCUBA diving is NEVER, NEVER, HOLD
YOUR BREATH.

Which is why you won't EVER, EVER provide REFERENCES.  Because you'd
rather I hold my breath - thereby letting you continue the "You can
fool some of the people some of the time (or until they stop holding
their breath ...)" game.

>Pardon me, but I believe the phrase is "human brainwaves".  In other
>words, nervous activity by itself ain't it.

What are they going to be, puppy brainwaves?  The quote from the book
is "can be READ and INTERPRETTED."

>>	2). Admit that you were wrong.
>
>If it turns out to be wrong (as I said, she will check her source),
>then you'll get this one.  In the next week or two, maybe.  Which you
>already knew, of course.  You DO read, don't you?

Week or TWO?  Hell, it's already BEEN a week or two.

>"Squirm"?

Yes, "Squirm".  It rhymes with "Worm".

>          Perhaps that is what YOU do when you try to lie by making
>up a source and someone questions it, but since I'm not trying to lie
>and could hardly have made up Jeanie (since she was around long before
>I could have made her up), I don't feel any need to squirm.

Of course you could have made Jeanie up.  How about, pray tell, you
give us her phone number so we can leave a message on her answering
machine and maybe look her up in a Criss-Cross directory?

>After all, I'm honest.  I'm not John Haugh II (thank God).

Bwhahhahahaahahahahahhaaha.

REFERENCES, Boy.  I'll be on your ass like flies on shit until I get
those REFERENCES from you.

>See you around the net, Junior.

See you around, too, Squirmer.
-- 
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