NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/abortion/58192

Text File | 1993-01-28 | 8.6 KB | 192 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!sgiblab!swrinde!emory!gatech!news.ans.net!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews!admin!The-Village!waterbed
From: [e-mail] (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: FETAL AGE ESTIMATES (with apology to LM about LMP)
Sender: [e-mail] (NNTP News Poster)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 06:19:30 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Lines: 176
            <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: netslip63.watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>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] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>[excess atributions deleted]
>>>
>>>Oops! Looks like my eye glossed over the  LMP in ...>>>LMP both
>>>now and in previous
>>>posts.  My apologies to Larry, who is *not* full of it in this instance,
>>>but was correct in stating that vengeanc@...  was full of it in this
>>>instance.  I stated otherwise, due to these glosses and/or lapses of
>>>memory.
>>>
>>>>No, your general posting style is uncivil - you're the one that started
>>>>with the nicknames, not me; you throw in gratuitous insults in posts
>>>>where I'm not even involved; you lie about me; etc.
>                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>You were the one who started being uncivil to me, by horning in on a
>delicate negotiation with Sarah McCabe in re her fisting offer, ending
>by hurling at me the contemptuous phrase, "Up yours."

You're omitting a bit of context there, PHoney - you used a phrase suggesting
someone "up" something (up the ante or something; I don't remember exactly),
and I said something on the order of "they don't need to up their ante, Peter -
up yours."  It's a play on words.

>>>Present what you take to be evidence of this, or retract this claim.
>>>
>>>I admit I have made bad judgments of you, Larry [see above instance]
>>>but they were all in good faith.
>
>>I could dig into my archives and see what I've saved, but you include an
>>example in this post:
>
>>>>>You have behaved dishonestly towards him, Larry.
>
>>You didn't say I was wrong, you said I was behaving in a dishonest manner,
>>which implies a willful perversion of truth.  The suggestion that I was
>>wrong is, as you've admitted, wrong.  The imputation of malicious motive
>>is a lie.
>
>I made the statement in good faith, on the basis of a simple misreading of
>the evidence.  That is not the same thing as a lie.

Reread what I wrote above.  Had you said I was incorrect, you would merely
be wrong.  You accused me of dishonesty, which is a lie.

>>>it is customary to say that pregnancy starts with implantation, not
>>>fertilization.
>
>>Actually, I think it's more customary to refer to when the sex act took
>>place, rather than to either implantation *or* fertilization.  ("Do you know
>>when you got pregnant?"  "It was the night we went on the hay ride.")
>
>Seems like there is a little inconsistency in the preceding few paragraphs.

I'm addressing your "it is customary", and not suggesting that we should
actually use the night of the hay ride in preference to anything else.

>>>>>You still have not answered my question of what these lexicographers
>>>>>think the intermediate entity (end of 8th week to beginning of 3rd month)
>>>>>is called.
>
>>I just noticed *when* the question was asked.  Since you are pointing out a
>>failure to answer, perhaps you care to respond now?
>
>Who, me?  I asked the question.  I thought you knew how attributions work:

Yes, you asked the question about the intermediate entity in an apparent
attempt to change the subject after you screwed up with "athiest".  Do you
care to respond to what I said in the article?

>>In article <[e-mail]> I wrote:
>>#In  <[e-mail]>  [e-mail] writes:
>>#> Just what do these lexicographers think the intermediate (8 weeks to
>>#> 3 months) entity is *usu* called?
>>#
>>#Does this relate in any way to the definition of "atheist", or are you
>>#attempting to change the subject?  I would speculate that you're doing the
>>#latter because you realize that you blew it.
>>#
>>#(Note that when I *do* speculate, I label it properly.  :-)
>
>Note that you are not answering the question.  You are ducking it.

Nonsense - *you* were ducking the following, by trying to change the subject.
#> >> >  Atheism refers
#> >> >to the belief in a god; it has nothing to do with a belief in an afterlife
#> >>
#> >> This either/or thinking is typical of pro-choicers on talk.abortion.
#> >> "Nothing to do with" is downright silly.
#>
#> >Why silly?  That's what the word means:
#> >   atheism (n)
#> >   DEFINITIONS:
#> >   1a  disbelief in the existence of deity
#> >   1b  the doctrine that there is no deity
#> >   2   UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
#> >   (c) G. & C. Merriam
#>
#> You have a naive faith in the Merriam-Webster people.
#
#Well, considering that every dictionary I've checked says the same thing,
#I have a lot more faith in that definition than in yours.

>>> The discussion of who's right and who's wrong is
>>>>in regards to the erroneous claim that the majority of what is aborted
>>>>is in the fetal stage (a claim which *you* made).  As I stated above:
>>>
>>>I did not make the claim.
>
>>If I say you did, it's a pretty good bet that you did.  In the future, you
>>might want to hedge by saying that you don't *remember* saying it.
>
>Simmonds made the claim.

He made a later claim, on a thread in which you made the earlier claim.

>>Did you not write the following, with the subject line "Nyikos and the one
>>bad apple theory of forced pregnancy."?
>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>>   (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>#Meanwhile, 1,600,000 unborn children, most of them already in the
>>#fetus stage, are aborted each year in the USA alone.
>
>>Is this another example of "Down the Nyikos memory hole"?  :-)
>
>No, it's an example of assuming one meant age since fertilization instead
>of LMP.

Nonsense.  Previously I wrote:
>>>>in regards to the erroneous claim that the majority of what is aborted
>>>>is in the fetal stage (a claim which *you* made).

You said you didn't make this claim, so I showed you where you did:
>>#Meanwhile, 1,600,000 unborn children, most of them already in the
>>#fetus stage, are aborted each year in the USA alone.

If you want to argue that "the majority is in the fetal stage" is
different from "most of them already in the fetal stage", go ahead.

Neither quote mentions age since fertilization or age since LMP.
That's irrelevant to whether what I said you said is an accurate
statement of what you said.

>>>How am I doing in this post, by your reckoning?
>
>>Better, although your statement "I hold [that your love of wordplay and
>>mindgames is inexorably making a fundamentally dishonest person out of you]
>>in abeyance, pending further evidence." contains an implication that I have
>>a tendancy towards dishonesty, which is not true.
>
>That remains to be seen.

By the way, you're doing worse now, since it appears that you're attempting to
weasel out of admitting that you also said that most of what's aborted is
fetuses.  Granted, denying that you said it looks a bit foolish, considering
the way you've been throwing around false charges of dishonesty, but
continuing to deny it after being showed your quote makes you look a lot more
foolish.

>>That doesn't answer the question.  First, saying that using an estimation
>>with a month's leeway doesn't correlate well with something that attempts to
>>pinpoint the exact age says nothing about whether the woman's statement of
>>when the *reference point* for the first estimation occurred is accurate.
>
>A month's leeway makes hash out of all claims that most abortions occur
>in the embryonic stage.

Stephen Matheson's calculations took this into account.  Didn't I email them
to you?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), [e-mail] (Internet)