From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: BullShit
Date: 11 Oct 92 01:13:39 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Oct9.165934.16827@montagar.com> davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
>	You income is irrelevant, but your response and the way you dealt
>with it is relevant.  It provides additional clues to your character upon
>which we gauge the validity of what you say.

Which way that I dealt with it?  You'll note that I no time did I ever
post my income to the net.  This is the part you, in particular, seem to
be having a VERY HARD TIME dealing with.

I didn't "lie" about anything on the net.

The scenario is very simple.  Several people wrote very insulting and
inaccurate postings about me and hypothesised that I made some obscene
amount of money.  I explained that as an experienced programmer, etc.,
I have a "nice" income.  Note that I didn't say what it was.  These
people then went on to insult me in private, writing harassing mail and
the like.  So, I wrote back to some of these people and told them what
I "make".  Some of them apparently spread the disinformation around
until it reached James Berry.

I didn't ask to be harassed by these people, and I believe that I
didn't initiate any of the mail conversations.  When someone writes me
a threatening or insulting letter, I reserve the write to respond in
any way I feel like.

>	Whoa!  News to me!  So how much of your personal testimony was a lie?
>If you tell us, since it's obviously none of our business, it will probably be
>a lie as well...

Again, my PERSONAL beliefs having NOTHING to do with the validity of what
I argue.  Either the arguments are valid with the premises and conclusions
that are written, or they are invalid.  Arguments don't get stronger
because you believe something.  Even my "personal testimony" has nothing
to do with the validity of my arguments.  It is a fact that for several
months I worked as a welder at Avondale and Halter Marine shipyards.  This
doesn't make my statements about the Internal Brotherhood of Steelworkers
any more or less true.  Either they are, or they aren't.

>	John believes in abortion, believes that productivity in the U.S.
>is faltering, and Clinton is our man.  He is creating a net-roots support
>for these beliefs using being the Devil's Advocate (which is why he wants
>sources, but produces few himself:  He doesn't have to, and believes in the
>opposite).  If this is true, then John actually should be congratulated.
>He has successfully raised the conciousness of this portion of the net, as
>far as I'm concerned.

Again, if my arguments against abortion are "valid", it certainly isn't
because I believe abortion is right or wrong.  And as for not producing
sources, I've yet to see you produce a single one.  On the other hand,
I produced a total of five texts in addition to two from John Iacoletti.
All seven support the point I was arguing with Fred over.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org