From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 06:50:30 GMT

In article <PATRICK.93Jan3195627@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <1993Jan2.230352.9739@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>   In article <PATRICK.92Dec30142900@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>   >In article <1992Dec29.225341.23703@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>   >
>   >In article <PATRICK.92Dec28123520@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>   >>In article <1992Dec27.231406.15929@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>   >>
>   >> In article <PATRICK.92Dec27114646@blanco.is.rice.edu> patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>   >>>In article <1992Dec26.233848.13472@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>   >>>
>   >>> In article <BzuF2A.AIL@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>   >>>>In article <1992Dec19.081855.14741@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>   >>>>>In article <1992Dec18.165413.8758@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>   >>>>
>   >>>>>>Considering his tendancy to
>   >>>>>>argue both sides of any given question, I'd say he is the one who
>   >>>>>>needs to be concerned with moral inconsistancy.
>   >>>>>
>   >>>>>Arguing a position and believing it aren't necessarily the same thing, schmuck.
>   >>>>
>   >>>>Sure, kebbin.  I bet Karl Marx was really an aristocrat, too.
>   >>>
>   >>>The inability to see the other side of an argument is a sign of superficiality.
>   >>>
>   >>>Silly me -- I thought it was a sign of just plain stupidity.
>   >>
>   >>Then take the matter up with Mark Cochran, who seems to think that seeing the 
>   >>other side of an argument is a sign of "moral inconsistancy" [sic].
>   >>
>   >>Why? You're the one who proclaimed it's a sign of superficiality.  In that
>   >>case, you're definitely a superficial kind of guy.
>   >
>   >Among idiots, Humpty, you are King. Read my words again. I said that the
>   >INability to see the other side of the argument was a sign of superificiality.
>   >"INability", not "ability". Sheesh. The meaning you took was exactly OPPOSITE
>   >of what it says.
>   >
> # Very good, kebbin -- you've shown you can parrot phrases from your pal Steve
> # Chaney.  Here's a cookie for you.  Now, I *should* have said it the right
> # way -- but so what?  
>
>   Note: this is how Humpty graciously "admits" a mistake.
>
>What can I say?  You set such a good example with your behavior towards
>Susan and Don...

I can always tell when people are desperate -- they start dredging up
ancient net.history...

> # Why are you so intent on dragging Mark into this, 
>
>   Er, Humpty, Mark and I were having this conversation before *YOU* barged
>   in here. I'm not "dragging" Mark in -- Mark was already here, and you're 
>   desperately trying to drag -yourself- in...
>
>Mark said his piece and moved on, bozo.  

Wrong. Mark was still actively in the conversation when you butted in with 
your drivel. He hadn't "moved on".

>   >>>The uncriticized, unanalyzed viewpoint is almost certain to be a worthless
>   >>>viewpoint. As for Karl Marx, he probably COULD argue convincingly for the
>   >>>aristocratic point of view in a debate, because although he ultimately didn't
>   >>>agree with it, he understood it and appreciated it up to the point of his
>   >>>disagreement.
>   >>>
>   >>>Why am I reminded of a former grad student at NCSU who claimed he knew
>   >>>Aristotlean thought better than Aristotle?  
>   >>
>   >>I have no idea why you would think such a thing, Humpty. From his works, I
>   >>know that Karl Marx had sufficient intellectual depth to be able to argue
>   >>compellingly from an opposing viewpoint. In fact, I may have even read some
>   >>of his attempts to argue from an aristrocratic viewpoint, I can't remember
>   >> for sure. I can, however, speak with a fair amount of confidence on that
>   >>partciular point. Note however, that I never claimed to know Marx's thoughts
>   >> better than he did...
>   >>
>   >>Of course you have no idea -- but that's never stopped you yet from plunging
>   >>ahead with your quest for any excuse to flame certain people who have shown
>   >>you up before.  You're the one stating up there that Karl Marx understood
>   >>this, and appreciated that 
>   >
>   >Er, Humpty, YOU are the one who brought up Karl Marx, and expressed an 
>   >opinion as to whether or not he harbored aristocratic sentiments. If I'm
>   >guilty of attempted necrotelepathy, then it was only because I took my lead
>   >from YOU.
>   >
> # Darcy, you seem to have a conveniently defective memory -- I mentioned Marx,
> # but I said nothing about whether had or hadn't "aristocratic sentiments",
>
>  You said "I bet Karl Marx was really an aristocrat, too". That was the very
>  FIRST mention of Karl Marx in the whole discussion. You are condemned by your
>  own words, Humpty.
>
>Hardly -- perhaps you'd care to include the line of yours to which I was
>replying, which you again so conveniently deleted:
>
>(from <1992Dec19.081855.14741@rotag.mi.org>, kebbin prefixed by **, me by *)
>
>**Arguing a position and believing it aren't necessarily the same thing,
>schmuck.
>
>*Sure, kebbin.  I bet Karl Marx was really an aristocrat, too.
>
>Now, I was the first one to bring Marx up -- I never questioned *that*.
>However, consider what I was responding to.  I just questioned your
>assertion.  

In what way does what you posted question my assertion?

It sounded to me far more like a classic Humpty non-sequitur.

>   >>>>> [lots of pee-pee waving about largeness of medical centers]
>   >>>
>   >>> [...]
>   >>
>   >>What's the matter -- don't like people showing your errors?  Somehow, I'm
>   >>not at all surprised.
>   >
>    Humpty, I mercifully tried to save you the embarrassment of having your
>    puerile, petty competitiveness reposted for all the world to see. Must you 
>    repay my efforts by compounding your original pee-pee waving with another
>    helping of empty bravado?
>   
> # Fuck your "efforts", Darcy.  You are just too dishonest to admit that I
> # pointed out a mistake of yours -- and we know how well *you* admit any error
> # of yours.  
>
> Humpty, stop with the Keegan shit -- as simplistic as it is, you're not even
> very good at it. I have NOT in any way, shape or form, denied that maybe
> UMMC _isn't_ the largest medical center in the world; I have NOT in any way,
> shape or form failed to admit that I may be mistaken. In fact, I really don't
> give a shit about medical centers -- the whole thing is tangential to the
> issue being discussed here. You are making up this so-called "inability to 
> admit" crap out of thin air to try and make me look a lot more strident than
> I really am. If I had a word to describe this "medical center" sub-thread, it
> would be "disgusted". Disgusted, specifically, that a supposedly grown man
> such as yourself would be so insistent on engaging in an infantile "my medical
> center is bigger than your medical center". Can we just drop it? I don't care
> how big your medical center is, or your dick, or whether your Dad can beat
> up my Dad, or how much money you make, or how many people you have working
> for you, or how big your mainframe is, or how long you've been on the Net,
> or how often you get laid, or... or... or... It really doesn't matter to me. 
> It just disgusts me that YOU think such things are so damn important that
> they're worth blazing up talk.abortion bandwidth. Capische now?
>
>This is hilarious.  If I think it's so important, why are YOU doing all the
>whining, and begging me to stop?  You've only consumed about 10x the disk
>space I have on this one thread, after all.

Disk space flames. You really ARE desperate, aren't you?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion