merrill@rex.DEC (11/29/84)
>From: decwrl::"decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!randvax!rohn" >Subject: Re: Abortion and Capital Punishment >Yet another appeal. Please get the #*%&$ abortion articles OUT OF ^^^^^ YOU are not showing a lot of "courtesy" with this flame. >ALL NEWSGROUPS EXCEPT NET.ABORTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHO are YOU to lay down the categorical imperitives? >The newsgroup was created to keep abortion articles out of other >newsgroups. Please recall the suggestions for net courtesy. The >discussion of abortion doesn't belong anywhere other than net.abortion. I disagree because this (abortion) is a moral, ethical, sociological, and very IMPORTANT issue of our time. I do dislike seeing multiple postings -- it is usually the mark of a "flamer". Therefore let us take care to make comments that are appropos to a particular news group and put them there. My suggestion is religious doctrine about abortion: net.religion should the state/fed govt be involved: net.politics when should abortion be done (trimester): net.abortion, net.medical where to find one: net.abortion psysiological consequeces: net.medical Rick Merrill [All ionoclasts are wrong, including this one.]
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Cheshire Chuqui) (12/01/84)
In article <84@decwrl.UUCP> merrill@rex.DEC writes: >>Yet another appeal. Please get the #*%&$ abortion articles OUT OF > ^^^^^ >YOU are not showing a lot of "courtesy" with this flame. Courtesy hasn't worked, so why not? >>ALL NEWSGROUPS EXCEPT NET.ABORTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > >WHO are YOU to lay down the categorical imperitives? Just one of the many who really don't want to hear ANYTHING about abortion. That is why net.abortion was created, so that those that wanted to argue about it could freely, while the rest of us unsubscribed. >>The newsgroup was created to keep abortion articles out of other >>newsgroups. Please recall the suggestions for net courtesy. The >>discussion of abortion doesn't belong anywhere other than net.abortion. > >I disagree because this (abortion) is a moral, ethical, sociological, >and very IMPORTANT issue of our time. It may very well be, but please be courteous enough to those of us that don't want to be involved in this moral, ethical, sociological, and very IMPORTANT issue and not shove it down our throat against our will. If we wanted to discuss abortion, we'd subscribe to net.abortion. >I do dislike seeing multiple postings -- it is usually the mark of a "flamer". Very true-- case in point the current abortion articles creeping out onto the rest of the network.... >Therefore let us take care to make comments that are appropos to a particular >news group and put them there. My suggestion is > religious doctrine about abortion: net.religion > should the state/fed govt be involved: net.politics > when should abortion be done (trimester): net.abortion, net.medical > where to find one: net.abortion > psysiological consequeces: net.medical Ah, by this rationale, since single people sometimes have sex and sometimes get pregnant, all articles in net.singles with the words 'sex' or 'pregnancy' should be sent to net.abortion as well. Since religious people sometimes have sex and sometimes get pregnant, all net.religion articles with the words 'sex', 'pregnant' or 'God' (since God is teh divine force that creates all new life, of course) should go to net.abortion as well. Since hackers sometimes have sex (when the computer goes down) then everything in net.unix-wizards should go to net.abortion. I could go on, but i think I've made my point. Just because YOU think it is important doesn't mean everyone has to. Keep the abortion discussions where they belong-- net.abortion. If we are interested, we'll join you. If we aren't interested, you didn't want to bother us anyway... chuq -- From the center of a Plaid pentagram: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA ~But you know, monsieur, that as long as she wears the claw of the dragon upon her breast you can do nothing-- her soul belongs to me!~
rsk@stat-l (Rich Kulawiec) (12/01/84)
In reference to merrill@rec.DEC's article about multiple
newsgroups, in particular this statement:
> WHO are YOU to lay down the categorical imperitives?
I would like to respond with some questions of my own:
1. Who the hell are you?
2. Are you incapable of reading the periodic postings in net.news.group
showing the purpose of each newgroup, or do you just ignore them?
3. Do you think perhaps you should reconsider the incorrect
statments you made in your previous article, and try again?
Footnote: Wombats do not like being awake this early in the morning.
--
Rich Kulawiec @ Purdue University Computing Center
{ decvax, ihnp4, uiucdcs } !pur-ee!rsk & { decwrl, hplabs, ucbvax } !purdue!rsk