NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/talk/abortion/54883

Text File | 1993-01-09 | 4.7 KB | 89 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!nigel.msen.com!heifetz!rotag!kevin
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: still more of the GROUP, kevin darcy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Who, me???
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 20:34:29 GMT
Lines: 78

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>}In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>}>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>}>}In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>}>}>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>}>}>(Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>}>}>}I have never argued affirmatively for restrictions on abortion, Mark.
>}>}>}Deal with it as best you can.
>
>Uh, you have said you don't like absolutes, certainly where abortion
>is concerned.   You have disagreed with the statement that there
>should be absolutely no restrictions on abortion.

Incorrect. This merely underscores your lack of intellectual depth, Galen.
What I have argued is that there is no INHERENT reason why all restrictions
should be opposed. It is my opinion that SOME restrictions should be decided
by popular concensus, but I express no preference as to the outcome of that
concensus. I'd be happy if no restrictions existed whatsoever.

>}>}Do you believe everything that Keegan tells you, without even bothering to
>}>}check out the facts for yourself, Galen?
>}>
>}>No, I read the article myself.  But now that you ask, if Keegan were to
>}>assert that the earth was edible, and you were to say it was made of
>}>rocks and dirt and other stuff that was inedible, I would probably take
>}>a bite.
>}
>}I'd trust my OWN judgment long before I resorted to such behavior...
>}
>}Galen, are you _really_ so insecure in your beliefs that you'd start chomping
>}dirt just because of a silly disagreement between two guys on the Net?
>
>Yeah, it would be a bit stupid, if that were the case, but it isn't.  I
>said that I would eat it if you, Kevin Darcy, said that the earth was
>inedible.  An assertion like that from anyone else might give me
>some pause, but coming from you, it would be entirely different.
>There are a few other people on the net that would rather insist
>they are right than actually be right.  The name Peter Niykos comes
>quickly to mind.  But no one has elevated it to the "art" that
>you have Kevin.  My impression of you has not been created over
>this most recent disagreement we have had in talk.abortion.  Rather,
>it has been formed over years of witnessing your rather bizarre
>behavior in several many groups on the net.  Sometimes you say
>good things, I'll grant you that, but other times you say some
>really off the wall things, and then steadfastly defend them, no
>matter how ridiculous your subsequent statements.
>
>I'm not the only one who has noticed this behavior, either.  It
>seems like I run into one of your meta-discussions with someone
>else all too frequently.  More often than not, it seems that you
>spend much of your time protesting that you haven't said what
>you have, or you didn't mean it that way.  You hide behind
>things like context, definitions, spelling, etc. in a way
>that boggles the mind, all the while asserting that
>calling people by the wrong name or whatever you do in error
>doesn't really matter anyway.
>
>You claim to have convictions, and that you only need be true
>to those convictions, and damn everything else.  But on investigation,
>you are extremely hazy or vague as to what some of those convictions
>entail, or what they might mean.  Oh, I imagine they seem clear
>to you, but you, above all others that I have seen, have great
>difficulty expressing them to others in a fashion that, to
>be rather charitable, is less than ambiguous.
>
>Kevin, you didn't enter the net with a reputation, you entered
>as everyone else with a tabula rasa.  Face it, you have had to
>work very hard to earn your reputation.  With some people I
>have to ask if they are a complete fool or just in training.
>I don't have to ask the question of you -- you teach.

Your opinion of me has been conditioned at virtually every step by a
constant barrage of smear tactics implemented by expert practitioners of
the art. Do you deny that? As an objective opinion, it's worthless.

                                - Kevin