[net.religion] Flame on people who can't read

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--