NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53987

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-03 | 10.0 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53987 alt.flame:17569
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!agate!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!yale!gumby!destroyer!cs.ubc.ca!uw-beaver!newsfeed.rice.edu!rice!news.rice.edu!patrick
From: [e-mail] (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of Sat, 2 Jan 1993 23:03:52 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: This is 12A.  You want to go two doors down, *then* left.
References: <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 01:56:27 GMT
Lines: 178

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] (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.
   >
 # 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...

 # 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.  I asked why you were dragging his
name back in, when it had nothing to do with what WE were arguing about.
(I know you conveniently deleted that, but then I expect no less from you.)

   >>>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 <[e-mail]>, 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.  You *do* seem to have a defective memory -- there was no
question over who brought him up first, but you seem to think I stated he
was an aristocrat.  The above fragment that you deleted would seem to cast
your assertion in just a slightly different light.  (Not that that's
unusual, or anything.)

   >>>>> [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.

 >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?
 >
 # You make me laugh, you miserable little man.  You don't know what I think,
 # no matter how much you fantasize that you do.  You shot your ugly mouth off,
 # I pointed out your error -- and I made my point.  You refuse to let it die,
 # but that's okay -- my point was nothing more than to give you the
 # opportunity to once again demonstrate why you deserve your position on the
 # council of net.idiots.  You earned it, and as always, you have come through
 # with flying colors...
 #
 # --PLH, hoping Darcy never gets diagnosed with leukemia -- he might have to
 # come down here to that medical center he's so afraid of...

   Grow up.

I did that long ago.  Obviously, you haven't got the hang of it yet -- but I
refuse to let you make that my problem.  Thanks for once again showing that
you earned your title (other than Unicorn Bait, of course -- that one was
painfully obvious) of Net.Idiot...

--PLH, the Oilers' loss was tough to take, all things considered -- but
reading this by Darcy makes me feel a LOT better...

--