Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!ihnp1!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: \"Words mean what I pay them to mean . . .\"
Message-ID: <1361@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 31-Jul-85 12:10:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1361
Posted: Wed Jul 31 12:10:29 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 2-Aug-85 01:38:17 EDT
References: <399@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 49

>>>And if you do believe so strongly in this premise, why did you spend so
>>>much time trying to convince us of a falsehood ("the fetus is not alive")
>>>instead of addressing the main issues? [NEWTON]

>>Actually, I don't remeber [sic] Rich making this assertion.  You keep
>>claiming he does.  Maybe if you listened to what Rich really said, you'd
>>learn something. [FORSYTHE]

> I can't believe that you're actually claiming this, given the number of
> messages that he posted.  But you made a mistake.  You didn't wait long
> enough for all of his messages to have disappeared from our VAX:
> 
> |    >  My grandmother would
> |    >   cease to function if we stopped caring for her -- and I'll beat you
> |    >   silly if you call her a fetus.
> |
> |    Pardon me, but I assume your grandmother is and has been alive.  A fetus
> |    is not.
> |    ...
> 
> I'm sure that any other site that has a longer backlog of messages could post
> more examples.  [NEWTON]

This has got to be the single most evasive, most abusive, and lamest attempt at
argument I have ever seen in the history of the net.  An empty assertion is
one for which related evidence is not provided.  How do you "prove" that
someone who backs up his statements with such evidence is simply "making empty
assumption"?  Just quote him, but leave out the parts of the articles in which
he gave supporting evidence of his position!!  That should be proof enough!

Why not tell the readers what was contained in "..."?  Perhaps you avoid doing
so because to do so would tarnish your position.  YOU'RE the one who's been
making the assertions, bud, based solely on your opinions.  It seems only
others are required to back up their statements to make a point, but not you.
It seems NOW, after reading this, that even when they DO, you'll just edit out
those parts when replying to prevent your position from being shattered.
This is not an argument.  This is a fraud perpetuated by Thomas Newton in the
guise of an argument.  You and Samuelson should get together.  Form a club of
people who argue by intimidation, who are more interested in pushing their
arguments by ANY means (when rational discussion has failed due to lack of
evidence/ability to reason) as long as it's accepted.  This seems to be the
new technique of arguing, used by people like Rosenblatt as well: the validity
of an argument is not in its basis in reason, but in its ability to be
convincing to listeners, no matter how deceptive the "convincing" process is.
                                        -- Thomas Newton
                                           Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA
-- 
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
					Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr