arndt@squirt.DEC (03/05/84)
Stuff it Quigley!!! Who died and made you keeper of what we can talk about? You certainly feel free to send long, long messages (which I have read with interest) on the topic. YOU said in one of them " . . . as a woman I have a vested interest in the topic . . . " Can it be because you can't answer my question about what makes the fetus different from the child that makes you want to stop the discussion? How come we can go on at great lengths about every other topic, but suddenly when someone who does not agree with YOU comes along YOU try to move them out of sight. Talk about censorship and closed minds! The idea that this argument deserves to be somewhere else is being made by people who in the same breath claim that abortion is a decision to be made only by the WOMEN involved. If this isn't a woman's issue than what the heck is? You can silence me anytime by answering my question so that it makes sense to continue the debate. But you're looking bad now, especially after your attempt to dictate (heil Sophie) free speech only for your side. Of course I know that you would be a big reader of net.abortion, :-). Warning: If you get in my way I'll pronounce you non-human and abort you! Power to the people (if we can find some way to tell who is a person)
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (03/06/84)
To arndt@squirt.DEC:
I have nothing to say to violent irrational attacks like yours except that
if you are going to behave in such a manner, you should at least sign your
trash. I sign mine.
Sophie Quigley
...!{decvax,allegra}!watmath!saquigleyjsq@ut-sally.UUCP (John Quarterman) (03/06/84)
It would be a real good idea if everybody would move the abortion
debate to net.abortion, which was created just for that.
--
John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas
jsq@ut-sally.ARPA, jsq@ut-sally.UUCP, {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsqtoml@oliveb.UUCP (Tom Long) (03/06/84)
. Ken Arndt owes us net.readers an apology for his vitriolic response to the net.abortion proposal. Perhaps his colleagues on the "squirt" system can ask him to behave like a gentleman. It is remarkable that Ken, who claims to love children, can behave so rudely to their potential parents. I wonder if his superficial "pro-life" opinion isn't based on a deeper "anti-sex" gut reaction. Tom Long
mazur@inmet.UUCP (03/08/84)
#R:decwrl:-604400:inmet:10900059:000:1459 inmet!mazur Mar 7 15:23:00 1984 > Can it be because you can't answer my question about what makes the fetus > different from the child that makes you want to stop the discussion? > How come we can go on at great lengths about every other topic, but suddenly > when someone who does not agree with YOU comes along YOU try to move them > out of sight. Talk about censorship and closed minds! > You can silence me anytime by answering my question so that it makes sense > to continue the debate. But you're looking bad now, especially after your > attempt to dictate (heil Sophie) free speech only for your side. Of course > I know that you would be a big reader of net.abortion, :-). He's kidding right??? If he is, forgive this. Who died and gave you the right to go against what the majority of people appeared to support? The point is, *many* people are sick and tired of the abortion debate, and don't want to read your views on the issue. Somebody, (not Sophie) posted a note saying he would create net.abortion if there wasn't any good reason not too. So *he* created it, and Sophie just wanted to make sure that everyone knew where to post their subsequent articles. If you don't have access to net.abortion, talk to your system administrator, 'cause the discussion is alive and well in that group. It is not censored, be serious. As far as looking bad, I think you're looking a lot worse right now than Sophie. Beth Mazur {ima,harpo,esquire}!inmet!mazur