NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53441

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-29 | 5.3 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53441 alt.flame:17518
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!heifetz!rotag!kevin
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Who, me???
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:53:41 GMT
Lines: 95

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
> >In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> >
> > In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
> > >In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> > >>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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.

> >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.

> >> > [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?

> >> Besides, it's not just the size of your medical complex, it's how you use it :-)
> >
> >Indeed -- I guess that's why we have UTMDAH down here, and not up in some
> >ice mine in Michigan, eh?  (I wonder why we have such folks as Michael
> >DeBakey and Denton Cooley around here -- I guess they just couldn't stand
> >the competition for your pearls of "wisdom" up there at Moo U...:-)
>
> I think you're confused, Humpty. "Moo U" is Michigan State (MSU), not U of M.
> I've never heard anyone refer to U of M as "Moo U" before...
>
>I'm perfectly aware of where MSU and UM are, and the differences between the
>two schools -- now tell me, why should I care about either one of them?

Well, the documentary evidence indicates that you cared a GREAT DEAL whether
one of those "ice mines" might contain a larger medical complex than your
own beloved UTMDOODAH. You could have just let my statement slip, or affixed
the ever-popular, one-size-fits-all, not-sold-in-stores, operators-are-
standing-by "this statement is not correct" to it, but instead you decided to
make a Whine Festival out of the whole false issue. If you didn't care enough
to even get your geography straight, why did you start this whole pissing
match about medical centers? What was the point?

                                - Kevin