NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/abortion/57231

Text File | 1993-01-21 | 6.1 KB | 149 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!bogus.sura.net!opusc!usceast!nyikos
From: [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: What's the SAT deal?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 93 23:00:40 GMT
Lines: 137

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Larry Margolis) writes:

>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Larry Margolis) writes:
>>
>>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Well, to present a fair picture, one must note that the original claim
>>>>was that Nyikos was "ignorant of set theory".
>>
>>>No, to present a fair picture, one should note the truth, which is that I
>>>said PHoney *displayed* ignorance of logic and set theory, which is correct.
>>
>>It is not correct.

>Is too.

See below.  I stand by what I said.

>>Besides, Larry, if you told the truth, you would repeat what you really said,
>>which is that I had SHOWN MYSELF TO BE ignorant of logic and set theory.

>Correct; the above was a paraphrase (I didn't bother digging up the original
>quote).  Neither statement is the equivalent of what Kevin said.

And the "paraphrase" is not the equivalent of the statement it purports
to paraphrase.

"You have shown yourself to be ignorant of the most elementary rules of
fair play"--let other networkers judge what this sentence says.  I believe
Keegan would say that I have slandered you by accusing you of being
ignorant of the most elementary rules of fair play, if he did not know
the context in which I said it.

And Adrienne Regard would say I lack the *balls* to apologize for
so slandering you.

And Kaflowitz would say she is mistaken, I did not slander you, I libeled
you.

And Garvin would say that "PHoney" has one more thing to apologize for.

And Cochran would say that my credibility is at a vanishingly small point,
and ask whether he should take another number and wait in line behind you.

And you would say, in capital letters, HOW ABOUT APOLOGIZING TO ME FOR
ACCUSING ME OF BEING IGNORANT OF THE MOST ELEMENTARY RULES OF FAIR PLAY?

Such a shame y'all know the context.  It would have been great fun to
try this out on you, and watch you trip all over yourselves.

As it is, Chris Lyman will probably say I am being anal-retentive in
saying what I have just said above.

And he will probably say I am being super-anal-retentive in the preceding
paragraph.

But I can live with that.

>>You who are so literal minded when it suits you to be, why is it that
>>you are so incapable, over and over again, of telling people what you REALLY
>>said about me?

>I *have* quoted it precisely before.

Where?  In posts where I quoted it, and you failed to delete it?  Can you
show me a single exception to this rule?

>>>>Funny how no-one remembers how WRONG the original poster was who questioned
>>>>the credentials,
>>
>>>Funny how you don't remember how when I asked PHoney to resolve his claims
>>>with some of his statements that were totally illogical, he was unable to.
>>
>>You are wrong, Larry.  I did resolve these claims, only it looks as though
>>the post in which I did this defaulted to the local net, even though I
>>put "world" in.

>You're wrong, because you explicitly refused to answer.  The last time, you
>said "I see no reason to repeat any more of Margolis's tedious post."

That was the FIRST time.  It was far from the last time.  And now I "know"
the last, crucial time defaulted to the local net, because otherwise
you would have seen it, since you told me you read all my posts.

And I wouldn't dare accuse you of lying. :-)

>>If you will re-post these alleged "totally illogical"
>>statements--I believe you are deliberately confusing the empirical with
>>the logical, BTW--I will then explain them, and this time I will take
>>the precaution of e-mailing you a copy of my reply.

>In <[e-mail]> I wrote:
>#OK, a quick question.  Given the set I, with a subset DKI which has a
>#subset DAKI which has a subset DAKFI, and a person who is only given
>#negative information about the set I (i.e., you don't know of any members
>#of the set), if this person were to claim that DAKFI is a non-empty set,
>#would you say they're more ignorant of logic or set theory?
>#
>#For I, substitute cases of incest in South Carolina,
>#For DKI, substitute doctors who know about cases of incest,

Empirical data to which I do not have access.  In an amended version
of the "Coerced abortions may be legal
in some cases of incest" post I give you full credit for impressing
on me the need to deal with this dearth of information.

This post made it, because Linda Birmingham posted a cute response to
it.  Is this a counterexample to your claim about reading all my
posts?

>#For DAKI, substitute doctors who perform abortions who know
>#about cases of incest,

See above.

>#For DAKFI, substitute doctors who perform abortions who know
>#about cases of incest and fail to report them,

Ditto.

>#For the person who appears to be ignorant of logic and set theory,
>#substitute yourself.

For the person who cannot distinguish between logic and empiricism,
if the shoe fits, wear it.

>#Now, it's possible that you're just swallowing anti-abortion propaganda
>#and spitting it back at us without thinking about it, and if you actually
>#thought about it, you'd realize that what you were saying isn't logical.
>#I have no way of knowing this, so I can only go by what you post.  Note
>#that I didn't say that you *are* ignorant of logic and set theory, just
>#that this is what you've shown us.

Wrong.  I have shown you something quite different.  Free clues on request.

Peter Nyikos