NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/abortion/58401

Text File | 1993-01-28 | 7.7 KB | 199 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!amdahl!rtech!sgiblab!swrinde!gatech!news.ans.net!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews!admin!news
From: [e-mail] (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Back to you, Larry
Sender: [e-mail] (NNTP News Poster)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:35:05 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Lines: 183
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
References: <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: margoli.watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>[He also uses a definition of "lie" that
>makes it synonymous with "untruth".]

Note that I do distinguish between your lies and your (many) errors.

>Anyway, here too [below] we have a case of me interpreting his words
>one way, him interpreting them another, and him at least *appearing* to
>accuse me of lying [you can't always tell with Larry] as a result.
>
>Also, Mark Cochran has accused me of being condescending towards people,
>in that I used words to the effect, "Now, come on, Son."  In this post appear
>THREE of the FIVE such expressions I recall using in the last SIX months,
>and I will let readers judge how justified I was in using them.
>
>Here we go:
>
>Date: 24 Sep 92 18:31:05 GMT
>Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.consciousness
>Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
>Distribution: world
>References: <[e-mail]>
>
>In <[e-mail]> Larry Margolis <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>>In  <[e-mail]>  [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>[addressing Ron Bense:]
>
>>> Are you trying to pull a Larry Margolis on me?  Did you see what I wrote
>>> about the Merriam-Webster definitions of "fetus" and "embryo" in the
>>> J'ACCUSE thread?
>
>>Did you see where I pointed out that that was unrelated to the definition I
>>was quoting (one for "atheist", which you claimed related to a belief in
>>an afterlife)?
>
>Still up to your old conditioned reflexes ("I pointed out that"), I see.

Still making nonsensical asides, I see.

>> Did you see where I pointed out that *every* dictionary
>>I've checked says "atheism" refers to lack of a belief in a God, and does
>>not mention an afterlife at all?
>
>Sure, but we're talking about the real world, and a Methodist minister
>therein, who was thoroughly convinced that there was no life after death.

The latter having nothing to do with atheism.

And in fact, I thought we were talking about Joan Campbell, and the dozens
of church leaders who wrote to Bush.

>If he believed in a "God" at all,

.. then he is not an atheist.

>You, Larry Margolis, are welcome to dismiss all this as baseless
>speculation, but I am addressing the other people on this net as well
>as you, and telling them that Larry Margolis goes by a very well chosen
>definition of "speculation" that allows him to label as such almost
>anything with impunity.

Using the standard definition of "speculation" allows me to label
speculation as speculation.  Since you appear to not understand what
the word means, perhaps you would provide us with the definition *you*
use.

>> Did you see where I speculated that you
>>were trying to change the subject because you knew you were wrong about
>>"atheism"?  Just wondering, since I didn't see a response...
>
>Now this fits MY definition of baseless speculation.  I saw it,

.. then you also saw my comment:
# (Note that when I *do* speculate, I label it properly.  :-)

>lots of posts to reply to, and don't always have time to respond to the
>rattling of empty barrels.

Sometimes you're unable to face the truth.

>>> Bottom line: I believe that even the faintest awareness of one's sensations
>                          ^^^^
>>> is enough to qualify one for protection as a person, maybe not to the
>>> extent of the 14th amendment, but certainly enough not to be deprived of
>>> life without some very extreme circumstances, obtaining in well under
>>> 10% of all pregnancies.
>
>>And that awareness isn't possible before 28 weeks.
>     ^^^^
>
>Careful what you say, son.  If your "that" goes with mine, you have
>just slandered me, and you know it.

Learn to parse English, fool.  I'm not speaking about your beliefs; I'm
stating that that awareness to which you referred (i.e., "the faintest
awareness of one's sensations"] is not possible before 28 weeks.
(And, as Ron pointed out, it's written, not spoken, so it would be libel
if anything.)

>>> after Margolis had accused me of ignorance of set theory and logic?
>
>>Please stop lying about what I said.  I said you've *shown* ignorance,
>>not that you *are* ignorant.
>
>I'll let readers judge for themselves just which of us is lying.

Well, it's clear that you lied about what I said, since the following
proves I said "shown", which is what I said above.

>            *********************
>
>>> >You've certainly shown no sign of it; in fact, you've shown yourself
>>> >to be rather ignorant of logic and set theory.
>>>
>>> Careful what you say, son.  I am one of the world's leading experts
>>> in set-theoretic topology and have reviewed 9 articles for the Journal
>>> of Symbolic Logic, and over a hundred for Mathematical Reviews.
>
>[A tedious passage using set theoretic language, yet having only trivial set
>theoretic content, and using the word logic, yet having to do with
>empirical data, deleted.]
>
>>Note
>>that I didn't say that you *are* ignorant of logic and set theory, just
>>that this is what you've shown us.
>
>Sorry, son, you don't get off the hook so easily.  Perhaps your
>literal-minded brain sees a substantial difference between:
>
>">> >you've shown yourself
> >> >to be rather ignorant of logic and set theory."
>and
>":-(  you've proven
> :-(  you are rather ignorant of logic and set theory."
>
>but to a normal person, the connotations of these two clauses are
>essentially the same.

To a dullard, perhaps.  "Proven" is much stronger.  "Shown" is generally
considered synonymous with "exhibited".

Since the words *are* different, and have different connotations, please
don't lie by saying I said one when I really said the other.  Even if you
can't distinguish between them, many of us can.

>All kidding aside, I don't think you are as ignorant of connotations
>as you are pretending to be here.  You are very adept at using the
>clause "pointed out that" to create the connotation that the things
>"pointed out" are verifiable facts.

Are you perhaps not a native speaker of English?  I don't want to
call you an idiot if it's the fact that English is not your primary
language that makes you unfamiliar with common expressions.

To "point out" is to direct your attention to.  There is no connotation
that what your attention is being drawn to is a verifiable fact.  When I
wish to make that claim, I say "I pointed out the fact that...".

>[Surprise, Larry! I now know how to convert files into posts.]

I suppose I should be impressed, if it took you less time than it took
Chaney how to figure out how to make a kill file.

>> When I gave an example, you ran away.
>
>Your example was laughably elementary.

Then it should have been easy for you to answer, no?

>It was a piece of propaganda

The only "propaganda" was your speculation about SC doctors.

>dressed up to look like a piece of set theory.  And the "logic"
>had to do with empirical data, not reasoning.

And that was the point - none of your speculation demonstrates any grasp
of reasoning.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), [e-mail] (Internet)