From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: BullShit
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:59:20 GMT

In <21690@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>Well, when "they" are most of the liberals that read this group, it gets
>kinda tiresome.  

John, given your politics (which, under your rules, you will lie about
since you probably consider them none of anyone's business), I don't
think you can identify a liberal.  Are we, then, all a 'liberal plot'
and only read and write to this group to be 'tiresome' for you?

[And, by the way, since I don't see any need to be particularly
ashamed of whether I am a liberal or a conservative, I will tell you
that I am neither.]

>I stated quite clearly when I "lie".  You seem to have some problem with
>this.  

He's probably having the same 'problem' with it that I'm having, John.
First, how is anyone to know when you've decided that something is
"nobody's business" and you are free to lie about it?  Secondly, if
you'll lie some of the time as a matter of personal policy, why should
we believe that there are any kind of restraints on your deciding to
lie the rest of the time?  Because you tell us so?  But you've already
said you'll lie when you decide it's none of our business, and perhaps
you've decided that whether you'll lie or not is none of our business?

Oh, I assume that little note you sent me a while back written under
another name, in which you supported yourself as being right and
talked about how you were glad you were around to keep me in my place
was the truth, too?  Or, perhaps, somehow, you managed to convince
yourself that SOMETHING in there was none of my business?

>If my income is none of your business, it doesn't matter what I
>tell you - it was STILL none of your business.  

And if you lie about it, it is still a lie.

>Likewise, my position on
>abortion is none of your business, and indeed, my arguments about abortion
>do not hinge on my personal views on the subject.  It is not my belief
>that abortion is wrong simply because I think it is wrong.

Now here is a real exercise in casuistry.  Would you, perhaps, think
abortion was wrong if you thought it was right?  Perhaps you'd like to
spend the next month supporting abortion, just to demonstrate to us
how the views and positions of the expositor have nothing to do with
the content of the exposition?

Oh, by the way, Jeannie (Remember Jeannie?  Did you ever write her,
after the big stink you made about getting in contact with her?  She
tells me not -- so obviously, for you, creating the excuse to attack
someone was more important than the ostensible content.) sent me some
more things on foetal development.  She still insists that you're full
of manure.  Are you interested in hearing it?  Oh, she said by all
mean, you should write to her.

[And just so you'll know, Jeannie is pro-choice.  I dislike the
euphemisms people use on this issue, so I am in favor of abortion
remaining legal (vice pro-choice).  John thinks that his position is
none of anyone's business, and so can probably be expected to lie on
this issue.]

>In the same manner, whether or not wealth redistribution is wrong has
>nothing to do with how much income I earn.  Either my arguments are sound,
>or they're not.  If I make $40K per year they will still be sound - even if
>I get a raise all the way to $1M the next year.

If you think a person's positions are unaffected by their
circumstances, I think you're kidding yourself.

>At any rate, I've noticed no one is chastising James Berry for his severe
>breach of etiquette, so this is the last from me on the subject.  Next time
>I hear some interesting gossip I'll be sure to spread it around.  Seems
>like gossip is quite acceptable in this group ...

Uh, John, don't look now, but I distinctly recall you stating that
your income was in 6 figures (8 if you count cents) and that in a good
year the combined income of you and your wife approached $200k.  Now,
of course, I know that all that was probably a lie.  However, it looks
like YOU were the source for this little piece of 'gossip' to me.

-- 
"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.
Newsgroups: tx.politics