From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Peter Goofs (was Re: You Should Have Known I'd Do This (to Galen et. al.))
Keywords: hang glider, rights, harness, viable
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:24:20 GMT

In <1992Sep12.154232.28046@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

>In article <nyikos.716154519@milo.math.scarolina.edu> 
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>A bunch of stuff that I can't make heads nor tails of, except that
>I think it has something to do with hang gliding and from the 
>news.froup name I think it somehow relates to abortion.  Darned
>if I can figure out how, though.

Perhaps I should follow-up to my own post, this time comparing passages
to the ones in the July 9 post of Adrienne Regard on which they are based.

>  Besides, Peter, I know you are 
>lying and making this whole thing up about how you speak for my
>hang glider because you couldn't.  No one could.  At this very time
>I do not own a hang glider. 

The word "your" was, I admit, misleading.  And by the way, a pro-choicer
to whom I just replied (Chris Lyman, I think) assured me that your
hang glider was bought and paid for by you.  [And I took him at his word!!
We pro-lifers have a lot to learn from you pro-choicers about how to
be skeptical about every little thing.]  I wonder where he got that idea?

If you don't own the hang
gliders you teach people with, substitute whichever one you use in order
not to get rusty.  

Oh, by the way, a fetus does not own its mother
either, but a pro-choicer talked about the relationship in terms of
abject slavery, as you know all too well. (That's the thing that
started this exchange between us!)  Or did he mean the woman is a
slave to the people who would keep her pregnant?  Even better, 
because then you can substitute ANY hang glider you use to instruct
others in the art.

> Neener neener.  Talk all you want, 
>but if you think you are speaking for my hang glider you are
>either seriously deluded or mistaken.

How can you be sure of that, Massa Galen?  (Put "my" in quotes now,
of course.)  

>}	Your hang glider further informs you that, should you make 
>}yourself potentially viable by wearing a parachute, it will not 
>}expel you unless you endanger its health, as for example if you
>}attempt to engage an eagle in a duel. 

>}	Should you attempt such a foolish thing, your hang glider
>}reserves the right to expel you with such force as to knock you
>}unconscious and render your parachute's automatic opening
>}mechanism inoperable.

>Furthermore, parachutes are designed to carry both the hang
>glider and the pilot to earth.  It is rare, if not unheard of,
>for a pilot to disengage from the hang glider before throwing
>or activating the 'chute.

Ah, but if your hang glider had such nefarious designs on you, would
you not prefer a parachute attached to you alone?  Or would you want
to risk it tangling up the 'chute?

>  Also, I know of no "automatic opening
>mechanisms" currently used by any hang glider pilot.  (There is
>a balistic style of 'chute, but it is quite unlike any of the 
>altitude devices sometimes found on skydivers, who do sometimes 
>employ AADs, I believe they are called.)

Yes, that's the sort of thing I had in mind.  Can't be too careful
with those would-be-emancipated hang gliders.

>Peter, you really ought to get at least these simple bumps straightened
>out before you post.  I think you mentioned that a close friend or
>relative of yours was a pilot.  A simple conversation could
>have covered a bunch of these things. 

Do you have any idea how much a long distance call to Australia costs?

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion