From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Football Failures at Bowie Force end of Season
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:02:19 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Nov16.210626.28945@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:

>fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
>: Been there.  Done that.  Perhaps you need to do the same?  Let's take
>: a look at what is REALLY being said here and see.  I have asserted
>: that the proportion of high school graduates is lower (actually that
>: the proportion of non-high school graduates is higher) in the criminal
>: population than in the general population.  You disagree with that,

>Wrong.  I don't have enough information to make a decision one way or another.

Excuse me, but that isn't what you seem to have been saying.  You've
even gone so far is to assert that you think no-pass/no-play was
randomly imposed as an arbitrary rule because the people making up the
rules felt like playing those kind of 'power games'.

>:                      You insist that I must have 'proof' for my
>: assertion with regard to the relative proportions of non-high school
>: graduates in the criminal and overall population.

>Right, because you made the assertion.

And you made the counter-assertion.

>: You insist that you
>: need provide no such proof for your assertion with regard to the
>: relative proportions of non-high school graduates in the criminal and
>: overall population.

>You seem to think that if I can't prove you wrong, then you must be right.
>Yes, you do need to take a logic course.

No, I seem to think that if you can provide no more evidence for your
assertions than you chastise me for with regard to mine, that you both
have failed to demonstrate your assertion and are behaving in a most
hypocritical manner.

>: Well, if you're going to make up what I say, why should I bother?  I
>: told you were to look.

>Oh sure you did:  "Hell, check practically ANY report on crime."  That's your
>standard cop out when you don't know the answer.

No, it's my 'standard cop out' WHEN YOU CAN FIND THE ANSWER BY
CHECKING ************ ANY ************ REPORT ON CRIME that contains
the demographics.  Hell, pick one.  Check the FBI reports.  Check the
Texas state reports.  Check ANY of them.  Hell, EVERYONE apparently is
aware of this correlation but you, John.  Even John Haugh has stated
that the correlation does, in fact, exist.

>: I use them the OBVIOUS fucking way, John.  Libertarian (capital 'L')
>: is the party.  Libertarian (small 'l') is all the self-proclaimed
>: libertarians who are mostly practicing 'Jack' politics (as in, "I've
>: got mine, Jack.  Screw you.").

>Well, I'm not a "self-proclaimed libertarian", so by your definition, I'm
>not a (small 'l') libertarian.  Nor am I a (big L) Libertarian--you can check 
>with the party if you'd like.

So I'll ask the OBVIOUS question, John.  Just what the hell ARE you,
since the stands you take seem to be pretty much in accord with what
people would call 'libertarian'.  Who did you vote for (for example)? 

>: The former is GENERALLY a subset of
>: the latter, and the latter tends to include a lot of people who aren't
>: REALLY libertarians (this has become another abused label,

>Oh, this is good.  What is a REAL libertarian, Fred?

A 'real' libertarian is one who is interested in liberty for
EVERYBODY, and not just interested in their own profit and
aggrandizement.  More cute games, John.  Stupid, but cute.

>: >I call you a socialist for two major reasons.  You advocate the redistribution
>: >of wealth, and you advocate governmental control of business.  
>: 
>: First, you need to look up what 'socialist' means.

>I will if you look up "libertarian".  Deal?

Pardon me, but I've GIVEN definitions for 'libertarian'.

>:                  Note that I have advocated NEITHER of the things that
>: John claims I have, in any absolute sense.
>: . . . 
>: Once again, you need to correct your absolutist misperceptions about
>: anyone who disagrees with your positions.  I have never done this,
>: either, except in limited and specific cases.

>OK.  You're a limited and specific socialist.  Feel better?

Only in the understanding that you are entitled to be as wrong and
stupid in public as you like.

>: Well, let's not look at all, then.  I'll shoot you, and then we won't
>: need anyone to check it out.

>Reality check:  A medical examiner determines cause of death.  Period.  I guess
>you need to add this to the growing list of classes you need to take.

Or you do.  Gee, John, just who is it, do you think, that determines
little details like time of death, if the body has been moved or not,
and all those other little things that help determine whether the guy
was really shot breaking and entering at the time claimed or whether
he was shot elsewhere and then dragged inside so it could be claimed
he was a burglar?

>: >Why not?  He obviously doesn't need it anymore.
>: 
>: Gee, don't you think we'd like to know that John didn't just shoot
>: somebody who pissed him off and then drag to body onto his property?
>: People DO do this sort of thing sometimes, you know.

>This, of course has nothing to do with how you dispose of dead bodies.  Sorry,
>I don't see the point in planting somebody in the ground in an ornate box at
>public expense.

Sorry, but it has EVERYTHING to do with calling an M.E., since he's
the guy who does the autopsy that tells you these things.  If you just
tip the body into a dumpster, how do you find that stuff out?  Are you
really this dense in person, too (to coin a phrase)?

>: The point behind educating children is so they LEARN to make these
>: kinds of calls.  If you don't do the education first, why bother at
>: all?  When they're five, turn their asses out onto the streets and let
>: them make it as best they can.

>I never said that we shouldn't educate five-year-olds.  But don't let reality
>get in the way of your little tirade.  You find me a five-year-old in high
>school, and maybe I'll make an exception.

Well, it has been done, but the principle is the same.  Funny how you
engage in all this rhetorical excess, but suddenly want to talk
restrictions and facts if someone else plays your game.  

>: >What I propose is that it's up to them to decide what they do.  They're the
>: >ones who have to live with their choices.
>: 
>: Until they choose to take it away from you, of course.  Why do you
>: have such an aversion to examining possible logical consequences of
>: the things you espouse, John?

>I'm sure glad you don't run the legal system.  Let's just save ourselves a
>lot of work and arrest everybody who we think MIGHT commit a crime in the 
>future.  Good idea.  Why wait until they actually commit a crime first?

See my remarks above with regard to 'rhetorical excess'.  

-- 
"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