From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 03:13:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.163639.25500@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan12.040613.6252@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan11.040034.20167@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan10.031610.14505@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>In article <1993Jan9.232819.14083@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>>In article <1993Jan6.160656.4107@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Is a sleeper sentient?"
>>>>>>Certainly. Just wake them up if you doubt it...
>>>>>
>>>>>Useless answer. A pro-lifer could just as easily say
>>>>>
>>>>>"Is a fetus sentient?"
>>>>>Certainly. Just give birth to them if you doubt it...
>>>>>
>>>>Could say? Looks to me like one just did...
>>>Look again. Without your psychological astigmatisms this time.
>>Quit your whining and accept what you are Kebbin...
>>>>To which I could reply
>>>>*You* give birth to it and ask it yourself.
>>>Relevance?
>>Since you expect others to give birth to them, you should be willing
>>to as well.
>>>>Of course, this overlooks the simple fact that by the time you give
>>>>birth to it, it is no longer a fetus.
>>>In *EXACTLY* the same way that your answer overlooks the simple fact that
>>>a person who has been woken up is no longer asleep.
>>>Why is it so difficult for you to admit a simple mistake? Is this an ego
>>>thing?
>>>
>>Nope, not at all Kebbin. I admited it was a poor answer when I replied
>>to another article in this thread. I also corrected the mistaken
>>answer to include examples of people carrying on conversation while
>>sleeping, quite intelligently. One example I used was that of a
>>hematologist I had occasion to discuss a patient with at 2AM. He was
>>quite responsive, and remembered none of it the next day. He stated
>>that he must have slept right through the conversation.
>
>Or maybe (a far more likely interpretation) he was just so tired he forgot 
>the conversation by the next day...
>
I tend to believe that he knows his own responses better then you do
Kebbin.

>>Now that I've admited (again, just for you) that the original answer
>>was a mistake, are you ready to admit your countless mistakes?
>
>If you're admitting a mistake, why did you bring up the hematologist
>example? Sounds like this "admission" is a hedged one.
> 
Kibble, I realise that this is difficult for you to understand, but
try to keep up. It is not at all uncommon to correct a mistake.

>>You can start with schizophrenia vs MPD, ...
>
>That wasn't a mistake. It was a perfectly valid point about the difference
>between specialized lexicons and common parlance. Any competent linguist 
>would back me up on it. You never seriously disputed the point on linguistic 
>grounds, so where do you get off labelling it a "mistake", anyway?
>
It was, as I stated before, factually incorrect. In "common parlance",
a mistake. And I suspect that "any competent linguist" would admonish
you to use the word properly, or not at all.

>>...them move along to some of the others.
>
>WHAT others?
>
The shear number boggles the mind Kibble.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism