NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/abortion/57647

Text File | 1993-01-24 | 3.9 KB | 84 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!heifetz!rotag!kevin
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Who, me???
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 00:17:01 GMT
Lines: 73

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>>>>>>>
> long time ago, and many attribution lines away, I wrote:
>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>
>>>No Kebbin, I said "he stated he must have slept right through the
>>>conversation"
>>
>>You also said "He ... remembered none of it the next day". I merely repeated
>>what you said, with a speculation as to the cause.
>>
>Which merely proves that you are incapable of reading the entire
>paragraph.

Mindless comment. Obviously I read the entire paragraph.

>>>You squirm very nicly Kebbin. Now just admit that you're wrong.
>>
>>If I was "wrong" [sic], it's only because you gave me incorrect information,
>>namely, that the hematologist "remembered none of it the next day". If you
>>want to point a finger of blame, point it at yourself.
>>
>Further proof that the problem lies in your inability to read an
>entire paragraph, and comprehend it. Try reading it again.

Blather.

>>>The fact that schizophrenia is not the same thing as MPD, no matter
>>>how much you try to pretend it is.
>>
>>The common meaning of the term "schizophrenia" >>IS<< the same as the
>>medical acronym "MPD". They denote exactly the same thing.
>>
>So, according to Kevin "Lets be precise in our terminology' Darcy, the
>ignorance (according to your claim) about the meaning of the word
>within the general population is your excuse for displaying yoru own
>ignorance?

I use terms that people will understand, Mark. "Schizophrenia" is understood
by most people the same way "MPD" is understood by the Medical Elite. But
since we have, as far as I know, only one member of the Medical Elite in the
audience, I used the term mostly likely to be understood by the most people.
That's not "wrong"; it's just an attempt to facilitate communication.

>>>Which does not change your error into a correct usage of the word
>>>schizophrenia. Cut is medically correct in the same sense that girl is
>>>medically correct for a young female. This is an accepted usage of the
>>>word. Schizophrenia is never correct when used to describe MPD, as you
>>>used it.
>>
>>I never said "schizophrenia" was "medically" correct, Mark. Are you such
>>a medico-geek that you can't see the rest of the world that exists outside
>>of the medical realm? According to the OED, "schizophrenia" has, in general
>>usage, the meaning I gave it. T.S. Eliot and George Orwell have used it in
>>the same way I did. It may be "incorrect" in Stethoscope-Land, Mark, but
>>the word can have a different meaning in other contexts.
>>
>So it is your desire to foster and encourage the incorrect usage of
>words. Thank you for admitting that Kevin. It says volumes about you.

Stop trying to impose the jargon of the Medical Elite on the rest of the
population.

                                - Kevin