donald@utcsrgv.UUCP (Don Chan) (07/22/83)
<<flame on>> Apparently people who subscribe to net.religion don't read what is actually posted; they just flame at random. A while ago I posted an article entitled "Abortion: a plea for reason". After a short absence I read in the backlog of followups an article from Ken Cochran (hou5d!kwmc), which is quoted in part: On the subject of abortion it was said in one article that "People who argue vehemently against abortion seem to have already made up their minds" ... and that only people who had had abortions were qualified to speak on the subject. RUBBISH ! ..... do I need to kill someone before I can argue that murder is wrong. Also is it not possible that people who have had abortions are more interested in justifying their guilty consciences than people who have taken a responsible attitude to sexual activity ? <<Fahrenheit 451>> Well, re-reading my article I'm wondering what the hell Mr. Cochran is talking about. Nowhere did I say that "only people who had had abortions were quali- fied to speak", nor did I even remotely imply that. <<Fusion reactions begin>> Is Mr. Cochran fluent in the use of the English language at all, like, can he read? This forum is damn hard to follow as it is. We don't need gorns wildly misinterpreting (deliberately?) what we say. Mr. Cochran is free to disagree with me, but at least he might have the common courtesy to read correctly before gracing us with his dribbles of wisdom. Nasty when misquoted, Don Chan
yali@utcsrgv.UUCP (Yawar Ali) (07/22/83)
Really folks, let's try to foster an atmosphere of tolerance and make allowances for people holding differing viewpoints. How can we expect to hold amicable discussions if we persist in casting aspersions on the motives of other contributors and attacking them without even properly reading and attempting to understand their articles --- indeed, often misquoting them in the process? I am referring to exchanges such as the following one which took place recently in this newsgroup: - An attempt by one contributor to stifle debate on the abortion issue by arguing that only those who had themselves had abortions were qualified to speak on the matter. - A response by an anti-choicer suggesting that those who argued for a woman's right to choose were sexually irresponsible, suffered from guilty consciences, and were akin to murderers. - A retort by the first debater to the effect that the anti-choice viewpoint would flourish well in a totalitarian state, such as the one depicted in the science fiction novel Fahrenheit 451, and suggesting that a resort to fusion-based thermonuclear devices would solve that problem. Let's all try to be a little more charitable in our submissions to this newsgroup. A little moderation never hurt anybody.
emma@uw-june (Joe Pfeiffer) (07/25/83)
rom: donald@utcsrgv.UUA(Don Chan) Lines: 32 [Top] --More--