bernie@watarts.UUCP (07/14/83)
This discussion will not end. Ever. It may recede for a while (say a month or two) but ultimately it will start all over again. This is not necessarily a bad thing; however, it gets tedious for those of us who have seen it all before. Worse yet, it makes it difficult to follow any other discussions in net.women (or anywhere else that the discussion gets going). Surely there are other issues that concern and affect women besides abortion. (There *must* be). I say we should create net.abortion, move the discussion over there, and be done with it. --Bernie Roehl ...decvax!watmath!watarts!bernie
myers@uwvax.ARPA (Jeff Myers) (07/16/83)
A second for net.abortion. How does one go about seeing a new newsgroup born once it has been conceived? not a'feared of being flippant, Jeff Myers@uwvax
jack@rlgvax.UUCP (Jack Waugh) (07/18/83)
Hear, hear!
rh@mit-eddie.UUCP (Randy Haskins) (07/18/83)
Yes!!!! a net.abortion. I realize that there were groups created to handle the abortion "dialogue," so why weren't they named net.abortion???? I like having net.religion for flaming about religion, net.philosophy for flaming about philosophy, and net.women for finding out about women. Like others have mentioned, very few people are going to have their minds changed by this 1000 `C heat, and I know I'm not one of them (if I ever do change my mind, it won't be because of some half-reasoned narrow argument.) I might subscribe to net.abortion, but I will only read it when I can go at 9600 baud (never at home) so that I can lay on the space bar at will (and just watch that fire spit harmlessly by.) I COULDN'T GIVE A FLYING FROG ABOUT SEEING MORE ABORTION FLAME !!!! -- Randwulf (Randy Haskins) genrad!mit-eddie!rh or... rh@mit-ee (via mit-mc)
welsch@houxu.UUCP (07/19/83)
net.abortion was aborted. Larry Welsch