[net.abortion] Planned Parenthood posting

regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (08/06/85)

Re T.C. Wheeler's Planned Parenthood posting.

>Abortion as a birth control method is very much an issue in the discussions
>I have seen on this net.

Depends on your slant, perhaps and how many articles you "n" past.  Abortion
is very much an issue.  ". . .as a birth control method. . ."  I'm not so
sure about.

>Quite a few posters in this group defend abortion as a method of birth
>control.

Define "quite a few".  Quite a larger number than a few defend abortion as
a woman's right to her own body and it's functions.  Most have stated that
they consider birth control in all it's forms to be of primary importance
to an intelligent woman's life.  Most have also stated or implied that
other methods are the smarter way to go, and that they support preventing
unwanted pregnancies at least as strongly as they support a woman's right
to choose abortion. In the _final_ analysis, same thing: abortion = the
control of a birth.  On the way to the final analysis, abortion is a
practice that may ensure the woman's fundamental rights, even if never used.
And is recognized as many as a less desirable method than prevention.

>The Planned Parenthood office in our area encourages this form of birth
>control and has discontinued counseling for other methods of control.

Along with numerous others, I've never heard of this myself. I don't go
to Planned Parenthood myself, either, but my sister does.  This has not
been her experience.  Maybe your local office has blown it's charter and/or
maybe it isn't affiliated with the national Planned Parenthood organiza-
tion.  I do question the _intent_ of your comment, (particularly since it
is only hearsay, see below, and you don't exhibit a very reasonable attitude
with respect to the _truth_ of the issue) but then, I stand on the other
side of the fence, so I'm likely to do that, aren't I?  (Yes, similarly
my sister's experience is also hearsay -- but I didn't make a bald asser-
tion concerning a national organization that appears to violate that
organization's stated purpose).

>In the second place, my information comes from two women who went
>to PP for birth control advice and were told to go to their own
>doctor.  That's good enough for me.

That's not good enough for me (nor, obviously, for numerous others).  That
the clinic may not have given them birth control advice may be due to any
number of factors (local regulation, specific charter, economic standing,
health concerns, downright rudeness, etc.).  If you care to outline the
factors that they were given for being turned away, I'm sure people will
read them.  In their absence, your statement can hardly be considered "good
enough" in that it tells us absolutely zip about the birthcontrol
counselling practices at that local clinic.

>The same information, from other sources, has been printed on this net
>several times.  That is also good enough for me.

LOTS of information has been posted on this net from other sources -- that
doesn't make it fact.  Blind assertion may be good enough for you, but
it's not good enough for lots of others.

But, hey, you want to bump into walls, that's your business.  I won't
legislate against your right to do so.

Adrienne Regard

ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (08/08/85)

> >Abortion as a birth control method is very much an issue in the discussions
> >I have seen on this net.
> 
> >The Planned Parenthood office in our area encourages this form of birth
> >control and has discontinued counseling for other methods of control.
> 
Planned Parenthood has a new slogan, "Say 'NO' to pregnancy, Say 'YES' to your
future.  This was reveled to 2000 teen-agers in Washington D C recently.
Upon reading the slogan, one realizes that Planned Parenthood and their 
many abortion establishments is not actually telling kids to say NO to sex,
only NO to getting pregnant.  Thus abortion is used as birth control.

Planned Parenthood has a $204 million budget of which more than half comes from
the taxpayers.  They have become a rich organization.  Sort of like the
tobacco industry.  The tobacco industry does not acknowlege the health hazards
of tobacco, this would hurt revenues.  Similarly, PP does not acknowlege the
health hazards of 10, 11, 12, etc year olds ingaging in sexual relations, this
would hurt revenues and put them out of business where they belong.  Oh I 
know, they usually counsel the children first, usually for about 5 or 10
minutes before giving them pills and later an abortion when the child naturally
forgets to take one daily, ever try to get a child to remember to take their
vitimins daily.

Why do I keep refering to children.  A few years ago I had a conversation with
the head of PP here in Rochester.  I said "If a 10 year old came to you for
an abortion would you give her one?", he said "Yes, definitely."  And he
said that in no way would he feel obligated to tell her parents.

Any responsible parent would definitely tell their children not to have sex.
But here is a respectible organization (on the outside) full of ADULTS who
a child would naturally look up to like they would a teacher or counselor
telling them "Well if you must have sex, here, have some pills."  This to
the mind of a child must make it seem really OK to go ahead and have sex.
How would you feel if someone was secretly giving your child cigarettes and
drugs or alchohol.  Suppose there exists Planned Cigarette Habit.  OK here we
go, a child walks into their office: "My parents said I was not aloud to smoke
but some of my friend do, they told me I could come here and you would help me.""Well little (boy or girl) you shouldn't really smoke but if you must we have
some very low tar ones that are fairly safe.  And if you don't tell your parentswe won't either."  "By the way, if you get sick from smoking these, we'll give
you a secret operation that only you and I will know about."

What the hell makes PP think that an adolescent is mentally responsible for
making decision about sex and abortions, young minds can be broken for life
by trumatic experiences.  The standard argument of PP is that kids are going
to have sex so why not help them not to get pregnant.  What PP must realize
is that they are in no way dealing with the problem of teen sex, they are only
fooling around with the symtoms.  Unfortunately the morals of society filter
down to our children and the buck stops there.  We must educate children about
the harms of early sex, not give them the right to do.  PP must stop putting
kids in the drivers seat, they just are not old enough, PP might respond; "well,
kids are going to drive anyway, we're just giving them the cars."

krossen@bbncca.ARPA (Ken Rossen) (08/09/85)

So much of Ray Frank's article is based on inappropriate analogies and 
distorted ideas of what Planned Parenthood's function is.  Most of these
are reflected in his concluding paragraph.

>     What the hell makes PP think that an adolescent is mentally
>     responsible for making decision about sex and abortions, young minds
>     can be broken for life by trumatic experiences.

Why do you believe PP thinks that at all?  Of course young minds can be
broken for life by traumatic experiences.  I am sure that Planned
Parenthood is aware of that, along with the fact that an unplanned
young-age pregnancy is a traumatic experience.

>     The standard argument of PP is that kids are going to have sex so why
>     not help them not to get pregnant.  What PP must realize is that they
>     are in no way dealing with the problem of teen sex, they are only
>     fooling around with the symtoms.

I expect that it is closer to the mark to say, "PP's standard argument is
that kids who come to them have already decided to be sexually active, and
it is in the interest of their safety to help them not to get pregnant."

Planned Parenthood is not in the practice of helping children make the
decision whether or not to have sex.  Far too many children have already
decided "yes" either in defiance or in the absence of the advice of their
parents and teachers.  Planned Parenthood tries to make life safer for
these kids.  As to getting to the root of the problem, I doubt they can,
and I think they would if they could.  I don't believe, as Ray does, that
they have a hand in making it worse.  See below.

Sex with contraception at a young age is safer than pregnancy at a young age,
and abortion at a young age is less fraught with risk (for both mother and 
child) than carrying the pregnancy to term.  I suspect it is with this in
mind that the PP person Ray spoke to would have avoided calling the
pregnant 10-year-old's parents.  If she came to PP and NOT to her parents
it's because she doesn't believe she can turn to her parents.  If PP
betrays her fragile trust they cannot act in the interest of her safety
because she will probably cut out and run.

Ray seems to assume much more burden and ability on the part of Planned
Parenthood to change these kids' minds than I believe they have.  Earlier
in the article, he writes:

>     Any responsible parent would definitely tell their children not to
>     have sex.

I agree that a responsible parent will discourage their child from sexual
activity during childhood and teenage.

>     But here is a respectible organization (on the outside) full of ADULTS
>     who a child would naturally look up to like they would a teacher or
>     counselor telling them "Well if you must have sex, here, have some
>     pills."  This to the mind of a child must make it seem really OK to go
>     ahead and have sex.

Wrong!  A child entering Planned Parenthood for contraceptives or abortion
has already decided about sex.  I can hardly believe Ray has thought this
through.  Planned Parenthood counselors are strangers to these kids.  If
the real, established authority figures in their lives have failed to
convince these kids that sex at a young age is a bad idea, why
assume that a Planned Parenthood counselor will succeed?  Kids don't come
to Planned Parenthood saying, "Help me decide whether or not I should have
sex."  They say, "I need some pills so I won't get pregnant while I'm
having sex,"  or worse yet, "I've been having sex, and now I'm pregnant."
What is the kid liable to do if the counselor says, "I really don't think
you should be having sex at all, so I won't give you pills," or "I'm
calling your mother immediately, young lady." ... what then?

The wisdom behind many of the proposals concerning parental notification
and the like put forth by the Reagan administration and behind "family bill"
legislation says that the child will stop having sex.  But it doesn't seem
to work that way, and the matter doesn't go "back to the family" to be
worked out.  Instead the child is left alone without the maturity to make a
good decision, and without the information or protection he/she needs.

"I can't tell my parents, I just can't" is extremely widespread for a
number of unfortunate reasons which PP hasn't the ability to address, and a
child who has made the immature decision to have sex at a young age isn't
likely to turn around and reconsider that decision because no contraception
is available.

>     Unfortunately the morals of society filter down to our children and
>     the buck stops there.  We must educate children about the harms of
>     early sex, not give them the right to do.

The idea that decreased availability of contraceptives leads to less
teenage sex is a popular one, as has been the (related) notion that
teaching kids about sex will send them out to try it.  Neither of these
notions have been borne out by reality.  It's the kids who are in the dark
about sex who get pregnant, and it's  the well-informed kids who are more
likely to make the right decisions.  Planned Parenthood doesn't give any
more "rights" to kids than they already believe they have.

>     PP must stop putting kids in the drivers seat, they just are not old
>     enough, PP might respond; "well, kids are going to drive anyway, we're
>     just giving them the cars."

They already have the cars.  PP is handing out safety belts.  Your comment
would be more appropriate if Planned Parenthood were in the practice of
dispensing genitals.

I welcome corrections from someone affiliated with Planned Parenthood as to
their practices.  I'd also be interested in evidence that shows that
decreasing the availability of contraceptives, abortions and information is
likely to curb teenage sexual activity.  I don't believe it, and Ray seems
to.
-- 
Ken Rossen	...!{decvax,ihnp4,ima,linus,harvard}!bbncca!krossen
... or ...  	krossen@bbnccp.ARPA

ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (08/10/85)

Ken Rossen writes: 
> 
> I expect that it is closer to the mark to say, "PP's standard argument is
> that kids who come to them have already decided to be sexually active, and
> it is in the interest of their safety to help them not to get pregnant."
> 
I don't believe that all kids who go to PP have entirely made the decision one
way or the other.  I've known kids who've gone there out of curiosity or at
the advice of their friends.  What they received was a ten minute discourse on
perhaps one of the most important decisions of their young lives.   

> 
> Sex with contraception at a young age is safer than pregnancy at a young age,
> and abortion at a young age is less fraught with risk (for both mother and 
> child) than carrying the pregnancy to term.  I suspect it is with this in
> 
No sex is even safer.  Too often this is considered an imposible alternative.
Groin control works if you try it.
> 
>>     But here is a respectible organization (on the outside) full of ADULTS
>>     who a child would naturally look up to like they would a teacher or
>>     counselor telling them "Well if you must have sex, here, have some
>>     pills."  This to the mind of a child must make it seem really OK to go
>>     ahead and have sex.
> 
 
> Wrong!  A child entering Planned Parenthood for contraceptives or abortion
> has already decided about sex.  I can hardly believe Ray has thought this
> through.  Planned Parenthood counselors are strangers to these kids.  If
> the real, established authority figures in their lives have failed to
> convince these kids that sex at a young age is a bad idea, why
> assume that a Planned Parenthood counselor will succeed?  Kids don't come
> to Planned Parenthood saying, "Help me decide whether or not I should have
> sex."  They say, "I need some pills so I won't get pregnant while I'm
> having sex,"  or worse yet, "I've been having sex, and now I'm pregnant."
> What is the kid liable to do if the counselor says, "I really don't think
> you should be having sex at all, so I won't give you pills," or "I'm
> calling your mother immediately, young lady." ... what then?
> 
Again, you insist on a non-gray area concerning the preconcieved motives of
a child entering PP.  Too often they are frightened and confused about the
whole issue of early sexuality and have no real idea about the consequences.

Sure the counselors are strangers to these kids, but so are their teachers in
schools, whom they were taught in advance to respect, obey, and look on as
a source of knowledge and wisdom.  This is called respecting your elders.

The parents are the established authority figures but the ideals taught at
home are in a constant state of errosion outside the home.  There is a tide of
parental reinforcement real world erosion that must constantly confuse kids.
Too often the scales are tipped through outside interferance, i.e. peer pres-
ure, or even a misguided PP counselor.

I suggest that PP insist that children come back for several counseling sessionsto give impulse reactions a chance to be filtered out.  Second thoughts are onlygood if you have a chance to use them.
> 
> >     PP must stop putting kids in the drivers seat, they just are not old
> >     enough, PP might respond; "well, kids are going to drive anyway, we're
> >     just giving them the cars."
> 
> They already have the cars.  PP is handing out safety belts.  Your comment
> would be more appropriate if Planned Parenthood were in the practice of
> dispensing genitals.
> 
Yes my anology was rather silly here, PP doesn't give out cars, just a sort of
drivers license.  PPs' saftey belts don't always prevent accidents either,
expecially if they forget to "buckel up."

csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (08/12/85)

As probably the only teen-ager on this newsgroup, I feel obligated to
speak on behalf of the millions of young people that Ray Frank has
decided to call children.

In article <10977@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes:
>I don't believe that all kids who go to PP have entirely made the
>decision one way or the other.  I've known kids who've gone there out of
>curiosity or at the advice of their friends.  What they received was a
>ten minute discourse on perhaps one of the most important decisions of
>their young lives.

The decision has been made for them. It's been made for them on
television, in the movies, on the radio, by their friends and by their
own hormones.

>Groin control works if you try it.

This is a silly idea that was out of date a long time ago.

>Again, you insist on a non-gray area concerning the preconceived motives of
>a child entering PP.  Too often they are frightened and confused about the
>whole issue of early sexuality and have no real idea about the consequences.

Which is a good reason to get some no-nonsense advice. My girlfriend
learned everything she knows about sex and birth control from her
friends. Luckily, she's very smart (she got into MIT) and her friends
were all pretty smart as well. Thus, she didn't learn some of the gems
of wisdom that I've heard from the peers I had in high-school not to
long ago.

Some girls believed:douches are reliable birth control, abortion makes
you sterile, only married people can get pregnant (I didn't believe she
said that either), guys who smoke marajauna become sterile (sperm count
drops *slightly*).

The "confused children" who go to PP are PLANNING TO HAVE SEX. That's
right. I'm sure I'll never convince Ray of that because he would sit
them down and say:"Do it once and *Bango* you're pregnant!" This would,
of course scare the young lady into abstinence and create yet another
misinformed teenage girl. What happens when her friend says,"I did it
once, and I didn't get pregnant." She says,"OK, I'll do it once." Maybe
she'll beat the odds like her friend.

If you tell teen-agers the no-nonsense truth about birth control, they
will use it. If they are not planning to have sex they won't. If they do
have sex, they were either raped, or had planned on it.

>Sure the counselors are strangers to these kids, but so are their teachers in
>schools, whom they were taught in advance to respect, obey, and look on as
>a source of knowledge and wisdom.  This is called respecting your elders.

This is not a silly idea, but is way out of date. Kids in high-school
know the weaknesses of their elders. They often become disillusioned
with the LACK of knowledge and wisdom they have. Telling somebody to
respect elders is one things, but respect must be earned. (I know, you'd
suggest it could be "beaten" it).

Although most of the problem can be found in the ignorance of
teen-agers, a lot can be found in the lack of wisdom of "the elders".
What makes you think the teachers get any respect?

>The parents are the established authority figures but the ideals taught at
>home are in a constant state of errosion outside the home.

I beg to differ. Adolescence is a time of self-discovery. More often
than not, this leads to a rebellion. All the the teen-agers I knew
considered their parents as enemies. The parents didn't seem to
understand what was going on. A teen-agers could go out in the early
evening and get stoned with his friends, but if he came in after midnite
because of a late movie, he'd be grounded. Such non-sequitorial
authority is NEVER respected.

I happened to have liked, and respected, my parents during high-school.
If, however, I told anyone this, I was immediately put on the defensive
wherein I'd have to illustrate some "cool" behavior they'd exhibited in
order to win the respect.

The "constant state of errosion" is as a result of parents describing
the world as one thing, and the kids finding out it's totally different.

>I suggest that PP insist that children come back for several counseling
>sessionsto give impulse reactions a chance to be filtered out.  Second
>thoughts are only good if you have a chance to use them.

This is not a bad idea, but impractical. Teenagers are impatient by
nature. You do not account for the "I'm spending the weekend with my
boyfriend in two days" scenario. Sure pills take a month to start, but a
diaphragm can be gotten in a day.

>Yes my analogy was rather silly here, PP doesn't give out cars, just a sort of
>drivers license.  PPs' safety belts don't always prevent accidents either,
>especially if they forget to "buckle up."

Would you drive on a road with unlicensed drivers? The police will stop
unlicensed drivers, who will stop "unlicensed" teen-agers.

If I may be so bold, Ray: when were you a teenager? 50's? 60's? (I'd be
hard pressed to believe 70's).

Maybe the kids of today have problems (I've sure seen enough), but as
engineers (for the most part), we all know that you can't solve todays
problems with yesterdays solutions.

You say, "the kids just shouldn't have sex, don't encourage them." They
ARE having sex (a lot, too). The DON'T need any encouragement. What they
DO need is guidance. If you can guide them into celebacy, fine -- more
power to you -- but I bet you can't. If they really didn't need
guidance, there wouldn't be a Planned Parenthood.

The difference between a child and an adolescent is that a child can be
told what to do and an adolescent must be helped to make the right
decisions -- for him/herself!

-- 
Charles Forsythe
CSDF@MIT-VAX
"I was going to say something really profound, but I forgot what it was."
-Rev. Wang Zeep

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/12/85)

> Why do I keep refering to children.  A few years ago I had a conversation with
> the head of PP here in Rochester.  I said "If a 10 year old came to you for
> an abortion would you give her one?", he said "Yes, definitely."  And he
> said that in no way would he feel obligated to tell her parents. [RAY]

Great!!  (I suppose the author sees something wrong in this.  Never mind.)
Children are not the property of their parents (though some might like to
think so) and they are entitled to such rights.

> Any responsible parent would definitely tell their children not to have sex.

Any sensible American child would definitely ignore that "responsible" (and
I most certainly question the use of the word) parent.  Which is precisely
why real information should be passed on to kids, precisely because of
parents whose sex education for their child consists of that responsible
statement "Thou shalt not have sex".

> But here is a respectible organization (on the outside) full of ADULTS who
> a child would naturally look up to like they would a teacher or counselor
> telling them "Well if you must have sex, here, have some pills."  This to
> the mind of a child must make it seem really OK to go ahead and have sex.

As opposed to the wishes of the "responsible" parent.

> How would you feel if someone was secretly giving your child cigarettes and
> drugs or alchohol.  Suppose there exists Planned Cigarette Habit.

There is.  It's called mass media and peer pressure.  Cigarette companies
depend on the image provided by these factors, to promote the "adult"-like
(responsible?) image of cigarette smokers.

> What the hell makes PP think that an adolescent is mentally responsible for
> making decision about sex and abortions, young minds can be broken for life
> by trumatic experiences.

This is why the "responsible" parents MUST shield their child from ever having
to make a decision in order to avoid traumatic experiences.

> The standard argument of PP is that kids are going to have sex so why not
> help them not to get pregnant.

And a valid argument it is, unless you're an impositional moralist.

> What PP must realize is that they
> are in no way dealing with the problem of teen sex, they are only
> fooling around with the symtoms.  Unfortunately the morals of society filter
> down to our children and the buck stops there.

Equally unfortunately, some of those bad morals are obtained from 
"responsible" parents.  And a lot of those parents, with the hellfire
attitudes, get ignored by their children who just go in exactly the opposite
direction.  Not very effective.  Or responsible.

> I don't believe that all kids who go to PP have entirely made the decision one
> way or the other.  I've known kids who've gone there out of curiosity or at
> the advice of their friends.  What they received was a ten minute discourse on
> perhaps one of the most important decisions of their young lives.   

That's certainly a lot longer then the one sentence "Thou shalt not have sex"
brand of sex education that you proposed earlier.  I'd say it's an improvement
by one hundred fold.

> Sure the counselors are strangers to these kids, but so are their teachers in
> schools, whom they were taught in advance to respect, obey, and look on as
> a source of knowledge and wisdom.  This is called respecting your elders.

This is called a load of crap.  Especially when uttered by people who just
expect respect as a given.  Respect is earned, my friend.  If you give your
kids brimstone lectures about not having sex, do you honestly expect them
to listen to you?  You might, if you've trained them to be like sheep.
Many have.  Intelligent people respect the words of people that they have
come to know as respectable and reliable sources of information.

> The parents are the established authority figures but the ideals taught at
> home are in a constant state of errosion outside the home.  There is a tide of
> parental reinforcement real world erosion that must constantly confuse kids.

Thank god (in some cases).  At least they MAY get some real information on
the outside, in those cases.  Better to be confused through the addition of
real world information than to know only one side.

> Too often the scales are tipped through outside interferance, i.e. peer pres-
> ure, or even a misguided PP counselor.

But often enough the fire and brimstone parents seem to THINK that they can
tip the scales toward them with their lectures.  In most cases they will have
the opposite effect.

>>>     PP must stop putting kids in the drivers seat, they just are not old
>>>     enough, PP might respond; "well, kids are going to drive anyway, we're
>>>     just giving them the cars."

>>They already have the cars.  PP is handing out safety belts.  Your comment
>>would be more appropriate if Planned Parenthood were in the practice of
>>dispensing genitals.

> Yes my anology was rather silly here, PP doesn't give out cars, just a sort of
> drivers license.  PPs' saftey belts don't always prevent accidents either,
> expecially if they forget to "buckel up."

That's why PP teaches them to do just that, instead the nagging "Thou shalt
not..." nonsense.
-- 
Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus.
						Rich Rosen   pyuxd!rlr

mjv@ihu1e.UUCP (Vlach) (08/13/85)

> Planned Parenthood has a new slogan, "Say 'NO' to pregnancy, Say 'YES' to your
> future.  This was reveled to 2000 teen-agers in Washington D C recently.
> Upon reading the slogan, one realizes that Planned Parenthood and their 
> many abortion establishments is not actually telling kids to say NO to sex,
> only NO to getting pregnant.  Thus abortion is used as birth control.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^??
[Ray Frank]

Whoa!  How is there logic in this?  If you don't get pregnant, why would
you need an abortion?  They distribute birth control.  What does this have
to do with abortion?  And can't you also say no to pregnancy by saying no
to sex?  Why do anti-abortionists keep trying to give PP a bad name, when
they help prevent so many abortions?!?  

Marcia Bear

ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (08/14/85)

> > Any responsible parent would definitely tell their children not to have sex.
> 
>From Rich Rosen:

> Any sensible American child would definitely ignore that "responsible" (and
> I most certainly question the use of the word) parent.  Which is precisely
> why real information should be passed on to kids, precisely because of
> parents whose sex education for their child consists of that responsible
> statement "Thou shalt not have sex".
> 
I seem to have touched a raw nerve with Rich concering parents.  He is having
a great deal of trouble remaining objective.
Why would a sensible American child or any child for that matter ignore his
parents?  Who should they decide not to ignore?
So you want to pass on "real information to kids"?  Who are you going to elect
to do this?  At what age are they going to receive this information?
Let's see, we can start with Santa Clause.  People can come around the home
and convince 3 year olds that Santa doesn't exist.  To hell with the joys of
Christmas and the wonderful imagination of a child.  How about pictures 
graphically depicting death camps during WW2.  Why should a child be told that
the the world is a pretty and safe place to be alive.  C'mon folks let's here
it for 'real information'.  To blazes with the petty concern of parents wishing
to buffer their children from the horrors of the real world till their old
enough to understand.
I will agree that some parents are only that in name alone, and don't deserve 
the responsibility of raising kids and perhaps are not capable of properly
raising children.  Let's face it, almost anyone can be a parent, it doesn't
take any special education or intelligence, just doing what comes natural
causes parents to exist fortunately or unfortunately depending on how their
children affect society.  But on the whole, the responsibility of children
rests on the parents, it has always worked just fine that way.  If, as of
late, it is not working out so well, then not only are some parents to blame,
but also the interference outside the home.
Someone said, I don't remember who, but I agree whole heartedly, "The way
to destroy a society is to erode its base, which in essence is the family."
I don't give a crap what you or anyone else on the net thinks, but I
personally believe that this very erosion is going on all around us all the
time right now.  Nothing could make us weaker than 250 million alienated
estranged Americans.

garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (08/14/85)

> As probably the only teen-ager on this newsgroup, I feel obligated to
> speak on behalf of the millions of young people that Ray Frank has
> decided to call children.

I didn't know you were a teen-ager.  That might explain some things.
(Yes, that was a cheap shot; my ability to resist temptation is a
little weak today.)  More seriously, have these millions of young people
agreed to let you be their spokesman?  As to being called children,
the first step to maturity is to realize that you're not there yet.
Though I could be twice your age (I doubt it, since you're out of
high school), in some ways I am still a child, which to me means only
that I have more to learn.  Not so bad, if you think of it that way.

> In article <10977@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes:
> >I don't believe that all kids who go to PP have entirely made the
> >decision one way or the other.  I've known kids who've gone there out of
> >curiosity or at the advice of their friends.  What they received was a
> >ten minute discourse on perhaps one of the most important decisions of
> >their young lives.
> 
> The decision has been made for them. It's been made for them on
> television, in the movies, on the radio, by their friends and by their
> own hormones.

I am sorry that the people you know have given up their ability to
make decisions.

> >Groin control works if you try it.

> This is a silly idea that was out of date a long time ago.

First, the age of an idea, per se, has nothing to do with its validity.
Second, there are millions of people who can testify that self-control
can work (they probably constitute a minority, but they still number
in the millions).  Have *you* tried it?  Probably not, if you have
let the media and your friends make your decisions for you.  And if
you haven't tried it, on what basis have you decided that it is silly?

> >Again, you insist on a non-gray area concerning the preconceived motives of
> >a child entering PP.  Too often they are frightened and confused about the
> >whole issue of early sexuality and have no real idea about the consequences.
> 
> Which is a good reason to get some no-nonsense advice. My girlfriend
> learned everything she knows about sex and birth control from her
> friends.

How unfortunate that her parents didn't teach her, as is their
responsibility.  (If her parents were not available, that's also
unfortunate.)

But what good is "some no-nonsense advice" if they have let the
media and their peers make the decision for them?

> Luckily, she's very smart (she got into MIT) and her friends
> were all pretty smart as well.

"Smartness" has little to do with the facts available to you.

> Thus, she didn't learn some of the gems
> of wisdom that I've heard from the peers I had in high-school not too
> long ago.

> Some girls believed:douches are reliable birth control, abortion makes
> you sterile, only married people can get pregnant (I didn't believe she
> said that either), guys who smoke marajauna become sterile (sperm count
> drops *slightly*).
> 
> The "confused children" who go to PP are PLANNING TO HAVE SEX. That's
> right.

All of them?  How do you know?  Ray says he knows some who visited
PP because they were curious.  Do you say that he is lying, or that
the kids he knows lied to him?  "That's right," is, I suppose,
intended to be proof, or substantiation?

> I'm sure I'll never convince Ray of that because he would sit
> them down and say:"Do it once and *Bango* you're pregnant!"

I don't think Ray would say that.  Putting words into someone's
mouth is not very nice.  I imagine that Ray would say, "It only
takes once to become pregnant."

> This would,
> of course scare the young lady into abstinence and create yet another
> misinformed teenage girl. What happens when her friend says,"I did it
> once, and I didn't get pregnant." She says,"OK, I'll do it once." Maybe
> she'll beat the odds like her friend.

> If you tell teen-agers the no-nonsense truth about birth control, they
> will use it.

If they don't forget.  If they're not too excited to stop long
enough to use a condom or a diaphragm, if that's the method of
contraception they chose.

I'm all for telling teen-agers the "no-nonsense" (is there another
kind?) truth about birth control.  I'm also for telling them about
the risks of VD.  And *all* the facts about abortion, like the
problems it can cause later (increased chance of miscarriage for
future pregnancies, etc.), and the developmental stages of the
fetus.  They should know exactly what it is that's being aborted.

> If they are not planning to have sex they won't. If they do
> have sex, they were either raped, or had planned on it.

Or decided on the spur of the moment -- didn't you consider that
possibility ?

> >Sure the counselors are strangers to these kids, but so are their teachers in
> >schools, whom they were taught in advance to respect, obey, and look on as
> >a source of knowledge and wisdom.  This is called respecting your elders.
> 
> This is not a silly idea, but is way out of date.

Again, the age of an idea has nothing to do with its validity.
If it's not a silly idea, what does how old it is have to do
with anything?

> Kids in high-school know the weaknesses of their elders.

Do they know their own weaknesses?

> They often become disillusioned with the LACK of knowledge and
> wisdom they have.

And they think they know better than their elders, until years
later, when they (we) finally figure out that their (our) elders
weren't so dumb after all.

> Telling somebody to
> respect elders is one things, but respect must be earned.

> (I know, you'd suggest it could be "beaten" it).

There you go again, putting words in someone else's mouth.

> Although most of the problem can be found in the ignorance of
> teen-agers, a lot can be found in the lack of wisdom of "the elders".
> What makes you think the teachers get any respect?

You have a point here; teachers will only get respect if parents
have taught their children to respect both the parents and the teachers.

> >The parents are the established authority figures but the ideals taught at
> >home are in a constant state of errosion outside the home.
> 
> I beg to differ. Adolescence is a time of self-discovery. More often
> than not, this leads to a rebellion. All the the teen-agers I knew
> considered their parents as enemies.

Sad, isn't it?

> The parents didn't seem to
> understand what was going on. A teen-ager could go out in the early
> evening and get stoned with his friends, but if he came in after midnite
> because of a late movie, he'd be grounded. Such non-sequitorial
> authority is NEVER respected.

Yes, consistency is very important.

> I happened to have liked, and respected, my parents during high-school.
> If, however, I told anyone this, I was immediately put on the defensive
> wherein I'd have to illustrate some "cool" behavior they'd exhibited in
> order to win the respect.

That may be the saddest thing you have said.  You didn't have a whole
lot of respect for your parents, if you were ashamed to admit it.  Nor
did you have a lot of respect for yourself, if you felt you had to
give in to others' demands that you be "cool."

> The "constant state of erosion" is a result of parents describing
> the world as one thing, and the kids finding out it's totally different.

Until they turn around and become parents, and find that it isn't
so different after all.  But why would you listen to me?  After all,
I am not a teen-ager anymore; I am a parent.  So, my ideas must
be silly and out-dated, even though they are the same ideas (to a
large degree) my parents had when *I* was a teen-ager and thought
that the same ideas were silly and out-dated.

> >I suggest that PP insist that children come back for several counseling
> >sessions to give impulse reactions a chance to be filtered out.  Second
> >thoughts are only good if you have a chance to use them.

> This is not a bad idea, but impractical. Teenagers are impatient by
> nature.  You do not account for the "I'm spending the weekend with my
> boyfriend in two days" scenario. Sure pills take a month to start, but a
> diaphragm can be gotten in a day.

Far from not accounting for it, that scenario is exactly the thing
Ray's suggestion is supposed to deal with.  Remember talking about
"getting some no-nonsense advice"?  This is where it should come in
(actually, it should come in earlier).  Ray says teen-agers are
impulsive, and suggests that they should be advised to take time
to reconsider.  You're saying that that won't work, because they
are impulsive.  I.e., the solution won't work, because the problem
exists.

> If I may be so bold, Ray: when were you a teenager? 50's? 60's? (I'd be
> hard pressed to believe 70's).

What makes you think that ten or twenty years make so much difference?

> Maybe the kids of today have problems (I've sure seen enough), but as
> engineers (for the most part), we all know that you can't solve todays
> problems with yesterdays solutions.

What makes you think that today's problems are so much different
from yesterday's?  I guess every generation thinks that they're
the first.

> You say, "the kids just shouldn't have sex, don't encourage them." They
> ARE having sex (a lot, too). The DON'T need any encouragement.

Ray is simply saying that they need *less* encouragement (to be
promiscuous), which comes from the TV, the radio, the movies, peers;
why should it come from PP also?

> What they
> DO need is guidance. If you can guide them into celibacy, fine -- more
> power to you -- but I bet you can't. If they really didn't need
> guidance, there wouldn't be a Planned Parenthood.

Teen-agers definitely need guidance.  Ideally, this guidance is
supposed to come from their parents.  The world is sometimes less
than ideal, and so the guidance does not always come from the right
place and/or is faulty.  The guidance that says that it's OK to
have sex with anyone at any time for any reason, as long as one
takes "precautions," is faulty.  Now, as far as I know, PP doesn't
ever tell anyone that having sex would be a bad idea at this point
in his/her life.  If this impression is wrong, *please* let me know.
(I.e., tell me under what circumstances they advise against having
sex.)

> The difference between a child and an adolescent is that a child can be
> told what to do and an adolescent must be helped to make the right
> decisions -- for him/herself!

But the adolescent often doesn't think he needs any help, except from
other adolescents.  Thus, one of the things a child needs to be taught
is how to make decisions, so he will be ready for adolescence.

> -- 
> Charles Forsythe
> CSDF@MIT-VAX
> "I was going to say something really profound, but I forgot what it was."
> -Rev. Wang Zeep

Gary Samuelson
ittvax!bunker!garys

csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (08/16/85)

In article <11043@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes:
>Why would a sensible American child or any child for that matter ignore his
>parents?

Maybe their parents are assholes, Ray. Some people are -- therefore you
can conclude that some parents are too. Why do you keep beating this
dead horse of kids-listening-to-their-elders? Why? Maybe you grew up and
listened to everything everyone told you, but most kids I know are a
little more independent.

>To blazes with the petty concern of parents wishing to buffer their
>children from the horrors of the real world till their old enough to
>understand.

Case in point:
	When I was little, my parents said,"Stay away from the deep end,
	until you know how to swim! You might drown!" (Horrid parents!)

	My neighbor's parents would get the Ray Seal of Approval. They
	told their kids,"Don't go to the deep end! There are monsters
	in it!" 

	I learned to swim early. My neighbors were always afraid of the
	water. Hmmmm. At least they never had a chance to drown...


>But on the whole, the responsibility of children rests on the parents,
>it has always worked just fine that way.

Oh really? Then how come we have some many messed up kids in this world?
They didn't start out that way -- it can't be their fault. What about
the kids of the strictest parents who get pregnant or into drug habits?

>If, as of late, it is not working out so well, then not only are some
>parents to blame, but also the interference outside the home.

Ray is telling us: PP exists, therefore teenage sexual activity
increases. Had control back to the parents and everything will be "just
fine." I reiterate: If kids didn't need guidance, there wouldn't be a
planned parenthood!

>Someone said, I don't remember who, but I agree whole heartedly, "The
>way to destroy a society is to erode its base, which in essence is the
>family."

This idea is deeply buried in Hebrew/Christian tradition. This is not to
say it's wrong a priori, but to point out that it is a cultural
assumption. 

Some families work out, others don't. Some families that "do everything
together" are not nearly as close as some families "that never even eat
dinner at the same time." The "back to the family" movement may have
it's good points, but anyone who believes that it will "save America" is
being led by the emotional "standing tall" sensationalism that put
Ronnie in office in the first place (not that his opponents were any
good...)

>I don't give a crap what you or anyone else on the net thinks, but I
>personally believe...

To use a favorite Kenny Arndt expression: this is the credo of the
"willfully stupid."

On a more resonable note -- let's try to steer this argument away from
blatent sensationalism, emotional argument and personal attacks. Ray,
can I see some proof? Can I see some statistics on how planned
parenthood has raised teenage sexual activity? Would you be interested
in seeing some statistics on how it has lowered teenage pregancy? Or
don't you "give a crap?"

Let's get serious here.

-- 
Charles Forsythe
CSDF@MIT-VAX
"Live on time. Emit no evil.
 Wait! I got that backwards!"
-Rev. Wang Zeep

ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (08/16/85)

> 
> >To blazes with the petty concern of parents wishing to buffer their
> >children from the horrors of the real world till their old enough to
> >understand.
> 
Charles Forsythe comments:
> Case in point:
> 	When I was little, my parents said,"Stay away from the deep end,
> 	until you know how to swim! You might drown!" (Horrid parents!)
> 
> 	My neighbor's parents would get the Ray Seal of Approval. They
> 	told their kids,"Don't go to the deep end! There are monsters
> 	in it!" 
> 
Hopefully in either case, no kid drowned.  BECAUSE they believed what their
parents.
> 
> >But on the whole, the responsibility of children rests on the parents,
> >it has always worked just fine that way.
> 
> Oh really? Then how come we have so many messed up kids in this world?
> They didn't start out that way -- it can't be their fault. What about
> the kids of the strictest parents who get pregnant or into drug habits?
> 
Ask Osie the crazy rock star who eats bats on stage, or all the other crazy
lunatic acid rock that promotes crazed sex, orgies, drugs, violence, murder,  
etc.
Ask the drug dealers who slime around playgrounds giving drugs to 4th graders.
Or ask the adults who do drugs in front of children.
Ask the senile justices on the Supreme Court about the effect of porno shops
on every street corner in just about any neighborhood.  Their response:"snoor."
The way things are going Captain Kangaroo is liable to have an 'R' rating in
the murky future.

> Ray is telling us: PP exists, therefore teenage sexual activity
> increases. Had control back to the parents and everything will be "just
> fine." I reiterate: If kids didn't need guidance, there wouldn't be a
> planned parenthood!
> 
If kids didn't need guidance, there would't be a need for parents. 

> >Someone said, I don't remember who, but I agree whole heartedly, "The
> >way to destroy a society is to erode its base, which in essence is the
> >family."
> 
> This idea is deeply buried in Hebrew/Christian tradition. This is not to
> say it's wrong a priori, but to point out that it is a cultural
> assumption. 
> 
Are you for a moment suggesting that families didn't exist intimately until
the advent of Christianity?  That families didn't make up the back bone of
societies?  I'm not at all sure what you are trying to saying here.

> Some families work out, others don't. Some families that "do everything
> together" are not nearly as close as some families "that never even eat
> dinner at the same time." The "back to the family" movement may have
> it's good points, but anyone who believes that it will "save America" is
> being led by the emotional "standing tall" sensationalism that put
> Ronnie in office in the first place (not that his opponents were any
> good...)
> 
True some families don't work out, so what else is new?
Again you are making some sort of strange inference that if familes are
strangers they will be closer than if they are not strangers.  If this is
true than single people with no family who are strangers in a new neighbor-
hood will be welcomed with open arms by the community.  Hah.  The U.S has
been refered to as the loneliest country in the world with its 20 million or 
so people who live alone.

> >I don't give a crap what you or anyone else on the net thinks, but I
> >personally believe...
> 
> To use a favorite Kenny Arndt expression: this is the credo of the
> "willfully stupid."
> 
I said that to indicate that my position is cast in cement and it is.

kew@bigburd.UUCP (Karen Wieckert) (08/17/85)

In article <10929@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes:
>Planned Parenthood has a new slogan, "Say 'NO' to pregnancy, Say 'YES' to 
>your future.  This was reveled to 2000 teen-agers in Washington D C recently.
>Upon reading the slogan, one realizes that Planned Parenthood and their 
>many abortion establishments is not actually telling kids to say NO to sex,
>only NO to getting pregnant.  Thus abortion is used as birth control.

I assume you mean revealed rather than reveled, although some might want to
revel in non-pregnancy :-).  

Actually, this is not strictly true.  In the mid-70's, I worked at a Planned
Parenthood center as a peer counselor when I was just a teenager.  Each
person, male or female, who came in for help had the option of seeing not
only a Planned Parenthood staffer but also a peer counselor.  It is true that
we would talk to each person about the options available for birth control;
the risks, the effectiveness, etc.  However, a fair amount of discussion
about the circumstances of the person's life would also be discussed, if the
person wanted to talk.  If they were not interested in talking about their
circumstances, it was our obligation to make their decision about an active
sex life as safe as possible and therefore gave them the birth control method
which was safest for them and of their choice.  Also, it was better to give
them an option on birth control rather than have them face the trials and
tribulations of abortion later.  

If a counselor found that there were other things the person had to deal
with, for instance incest, rape, etc, they were referred to other counseling
agencies for help in addition to the birth control counseling.  We found a
number of teenagers would start into the system of help for child abuse,
sexual assault, incest, etc by first coming to Planned Parenthood.

If appropriate to the situation, each counselor also suggested strongly that
the person consult his or her parents about the decision.  The law in the
state said that parents had a right to the information if they chose to
investigate after their children's behavior.  We also explained the law to
those who came in for counseling. 

It was best to keep the person's decisions private, in order for Planned
Parenthood to be non-threatening to young people making very difficult
decisions or in very difficult positions.

>Planned Parenthood has a $204 million budget of which more than half comes
>from the taxpayers.  They have become a rich organization.  Sort of like the
>tobacco industry.  The tobacco industry does not acknowlege the health
>hazards of tobacco, this would hurt revenues.  Similarly, PP does not
>acknowlege the health hazards of 10, 11, 12, etc year olds ingaging in
>sexual relations, this would hurt revenues and put them out of business
>where they belong.  

First, very little revenue comes in from 10, 11, and 12 year olds.  In fact,
they very rarely have the money to pay for their examinations or birth
control.  The health risks for these youngsters, both physical and mental,
are definitely acknowledged by Planned Parenthood.  That is one of the
reasons why the organization exists in the first place.

>Oh I  
>know, they usually counsel the children first, usually for about 5 or 10
>minutes before giving them pills and later an abortion when the child
>naturally forgets to take one daily, ever try to get a child to remember
>to take their vitimins daily.

Actually counseling in some cases lasted for weeks, with the person coming
in repeatedly just to talk.  This is often when the true problems would be
revealed.

>Any responsible parent would definitely tell their children not to have sex.

Guess some are just not cutting the mustard...


ka:ren

csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (08/18/85)

In article <932@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes:
>Teen-agers definitely need guidance.  Ideally, this guidance is
>supposed to come from their parents.  The world is sometimes less
>than ideal,

I'm glad to hear that you are aware that the world is less than ideal.
Your arguments, however are based on the following assertion:

	"Teenagers are reckless and irresponsible,
	 so their parents should guide them."

How could anyone argue with this idea? You can't. Unfortunately, it is
not working and had not been working for years. Years, Gary. For YEARS
parents have been fucking up their job of guiding the young. You can
tell the parents of America to start doing their jobs until your blue in
the face, but it won't work.

And what if it did? What if the parents became ideal? Obviously, the
reckless and irresponsible teenagers wouldn't listen to them, right?
Right.

Did you ever read Romeo and Juliet? I'm sure their parents were highly
responsible...

I've inferred (I could be wrong) that your children have not reached
their teenage years. When they do, how will you know whether or not they
are having sex? A lot of parents wouldn't suspect their children ("We
didn't bring them up that way.") Here at MIT, I have an even better
perspective. All of the girls (read "young women") here were the "best
of the class -- all around good little girls." Now they are in college.
It's interesting to see how many "never-been-kissed" types just hop in
the sack when they are free of oppressive parents (I know countless of
such types). It's also interesting to see how many of these girls, who
can run circles around me on the subject of math or physics, have only a
vague idea of what birth control is. All of them, luckily enough, are
well-versed in biology and are not likely to do anything stupid.

>I didn't know you were a teen-ager.  That might explain some things.

This is typical of your judgmental attitude. Now that you know my age,
you can label me as "too young to know" and throw away my arguments.
I'll have you know that everything I say is based on experience and
observation -- not what the Bible says or what my parents told me or
what the Moral Majority (which is neither) puts in it's pamphlets.

>After all, I am not a teen-ager anymore; I am a parent.  So, my ideas
>must be silly and out-dated, even though they are the same ideas (to a
>large degree) my parents had when *I* was a teen-ager and thought that
>the same ideas were silly and out-dated.
....
>And they think they know better than their elders, until years
>later, when they (we) finally figure out that their (our) elders
>weren't so dumb after all.

This just proves my point. I never said teenagers had the right answers,
but your are right -- they do think they know better. You seem aware of
the teenage mindset, so why don't you act with it instead of against it?
If a teenager won't listen to his or her parents, he will learn only from
experience, friends or AN IMPARTIAL THIRD PARTY.

"Don't trust anyone over thirty." Teenagers don't trust older people.
They are having too much fun discovering what life is like. If you tell
them what to do -- they'll get mad. If you tell them WHY to do
something, they might think about it. 

On the other hand, teenagers are not interested in philosophy. "It's a
sin" carries NO weight whatsoever with most teenagers. Value judgments
don't mean anything to a person who is FORMING their values. Teenagers
are not acting on presuppositions, they are TESTING them. Typical
exchange:
Kid:"Should I try pot?"
Authority:"No it's wrong."
Kid:"I know that, but should I try it."
Authority:"It's bad for you?"
Kid:"I know that, but how bad -- can I die?"
Authority:"No, but..."
In fact, faced with HONEST reports of the health hazards, rather than
biased rhetoric, many teens are staying away from pot. 

>...and so the guidance does not always come from the right
>place and/or is faulty.  The guidance that says that it's OK to have sex
>with anyone at any time for any reason, as long as one takes
>"precautions," is faulty.

This is just the kind of value-judgments that teenagers hate. Anyway,
who says the advice is faulty? The Bible? Society? These sources mean
NOTHING, to the average teen. NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING. 

>> >Groin control works if you try it.

So does LSD. Does that mean it's good?

>> [Groin Control] is a silly idea that was out of date a long time ago.
>First, the age of an idea, per se, has nothing to do with its validity.

Yes, but "Groin Control" is passe. I'm not talking philosophy, I'm
talking fashion. Maybe you can do a rock video or something and make
celabacy fashionable again, but I really doubt it.

I know, I know:
>Sad, isn't it?
But, as you said, the world isn't ideal.

>How unfortunate that her parents didn't teach her [birth control], as is
>their responsibility.

They did teach her not to have sex (a nice Catholic Family). Funny how
these things just never work.
>Sad, isn't it?
But, as you said, the world isn't ideal.

>"Smartness" has little to do with the facts available to you.

Which is why even the brightest of teenagers needs the option of birth
control counseling.
 
>> The "confused children" who go to PP are PLANNING TO HAVE SEX. That's
>> right.
>
>All of them?  How do you know?

Because a teenagers that had decided not to have sex (for sure) would
not venture into a Planned Parenthood office. I'm sure, every now and
then, one does, but that's a fluke. If they had decided to "abstain",
they wouldn't look into birth control. You are a man who, I assume, does
not cross-dress; do you go into womens' clothing stores?

>Ray says he knows some who visited PP because they were curious. Do you
>say that he is lying, or that the kids he knows lied to him?

No, but I ask: were they curious about birth control or sexual activity?
If it was the former, then I was right -- they were probably planning to
have sex. If it is the latter -- that is a value judgment that they
will make by themselves.

Studies show, by the way, that the majority of teenagers who seek birth
control do so at least a month AFTER they become active [Source: Ask
Beth syndicated column]. I wonder how many (or how few) virgins walk
into a PP office.

>I don't think Ray would say that.  Putting words into someone's
>mouth is not very nice.  I imagine that Ray would say, "It only
>takes once to become pregnant."

Unless, of course, you use birth control. In that case, you merely risk
being a statistic (a LOW statistic). I'm sure Ray could conveniently
forget that fact.
>There you go again, putting words in someone else's mouth.
True enough, but this is hypothetical.

>I'm all for telling teen-agers the "no-nonsense" (is there another
>kind?) truth about birth control.  I'm also for telling them about
>the risks of VD.  And *all* the facts about abortion, like the
>problems it can cause later (increased chance of miscarriage for
>future pregnancies, etc.), and the developmental stages of the
>fetus.  They should know exactly what it is that's being aborted.

Then why don't you work part time at Planned Parenthood? That's what
they do.

>> I happened to have liked, and respected, my parents during high-school.
>> If, however, I told anyone this, I was immediately put on the defensive
>> wherein I'd have to illustrate some "cool" behavior they'd exhibited in
>> order to win the respect.
>
>That may be the saddest thing you have said.  You didn't have a whole
>lot of respect for your parents, if you were ashamed to admit it.  Nor
>did you have a lot of respect for yourself, if you felt you had to
>give in to others' demands that you be "cool."

I wish you would read what I write (your just like a typical parent :-),
I said I was put in the defensive BY THEM. 

You have clearly demonstrated an incredible lack of understanding of the
teenage mind.

>Far from not accounting for it, that scenario is exactly the thing
>Ray's suggestion is supposed to deal with.  Remember talking about
>"getting some no-nonsense advice"?  This is where it should come in
>(actually, it should come in earlier).  Ray says teen-agers are
>impulsive, and suggests that they should be advised to take time
>to reconsider.  You're saying that that won't work, because they
>are impulsive.  I.e., the solution won't work, because the problem
>exists.

Wha...? Read what you said, Gary. Teenagers are too impulsive. Granted.
They should take more time to think things over. Fine. Unfortunately,
this "solution" fails BECAUSE THEY ARE IMPULSIVE. The solution won't
work because it won't work. An analogous set of arguments:
Man A:I hate my C compiler. I could write better code in LISP.
Man B:Then write in LISP!
Unfortunately, as we all know, you can't compile LISP with a C compiler...

Also, if you don't give them birth control, will that make them less
impulsive?

>> If I may be so bold, Ray: when were you a teenager? 50's? 60's? (I'd be
>> hard pressed to believe 70's).
>
>What makes you think that ten or twenty years make so much difference?

Remember 1965? (I must admit that I don't!) There was no MTV. "Prince"
was not singing "Little Red Corvette". The Pill was new. The sexual
revolution was STARTING. People who wanted to assert their sexual
freedom had the support of a vocal counter-culture.
Remember 1985? (I do.) MTV sells sex (50% off :-), Maddonna shows us
that a woman (and a girl) can have power through sex. The sexual
revolution is taken for granted. People who want to assert their sexual
freedom are given conflicting signals in an increasingly conservative
atmosphere.

Is that enough difference?

>> Maybe the kids of today have problems (I've sure seen enough), but as
>> engineers (for the most part), we all know that you can't solve todays
>> problems with yesterdays solutions.
>What makes you think that today's problems are so much different
>from yesterday's?  I guess every generation thinks that they're
>the first.

That's right. So some smart people learned from the past: kids will have
sex. Parents will not prepare their kids for this. Something must be
done. Thus we have Planned Parenthood.

>> You say, "the kids just shouldn't have sex, don't encourage them." They
>> ARE having sex (a lot, too). The DON'T need any encouragement.
>
>Ray is simply saying that they need *less* encouragement (to be
>promiscuous), which comes from the TV, the radio, the movies, peers;
>why should it come from PP also?

Planned Parenthood is the only positive thing going. It gives answers
which you call encouragement. Sex is fun -- nobody needs to be told
that. Planned Parenthood mentions pregnancy -- and how to avoid it. If I
saw and advertisement that mentioned birth control as well as casual
sex, I would faint.

>> The difference between a child and an adolescent is that a child can be
>> told what to do and an adolescent must be helped to make the right
>> decisions -- for him/herself!
>
>But the adolescent often doesn't think he needs any help, except from
>other adolescents.  Thus, one of the things a child needs to be taught
>is how to make decisions, so he will be ready for adolescence.

My parents taught me how to make those decisions, so I breezed through
life. Maybe you will teach your kids how to make decisions. Most
parents don't.

Also, would you make a decision if you didn't have all the facts? A lot
of parents hide the facts about birth control from their children. The
children, not having a firm understanding of pregnancy, go on to have
sex. If they'd known the facts... 

Also, I have seen that many parents who say "NO SEX" don't get around to
birth control. "I told my daughter not to have sex -- this is all the
birth control she needs to know." 
>Sad, isn't it?
Yes, it is.

From personal experience: I once turned down an offer because there was
not proper "protection." The girl was stunned, the idea that she could
become pregnant had never occurred to her.

I'm not arguing ideas. I'm talking facts. 
>Ideally,
Ideally, I can assert anything. I can say that pigs fly. I'd doesn't
change the truth.
-- 
Charles Forsythe
CSDF@MIT-VAX
"We pray to Fred for the Hopelessly Normal
	Have they not suffered enough?"

from _The_Nth_Psalm_ in _The_Book_of_Fred_

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/20/85)

>>> Any responsible parent would definitely tell their children not to have sex.

>>Any sensible American child would definitely ignore that "responsible" (and
>>I most certainly question the use of the word) parent.  Which is precisely
>>why real information should be passed on to kids, precisely because of
>>parents whose sex education for their child consists of that responsible
>>statement "Thou shalt not have sex".

> I seem to have touched a raw nerve with Rich concering parents.  He is having
> a great deal of trouble remaining objective. [RAY]

Where do you see that?  What's non-objective about it?  The fact that it's
at odds with your opinion?

> Why would a sensible American child or any child for that matter ignore his
> parents?

Because the parents are incompetent, or teaching them poorly.  Such as parents
who teach hypocrisy to their children as a way of life ("Tell them you're
only two years old.").  Some kids are smart enough to realize what dolts their
parents are.  Mind you, this surely doesn't apply to all parents.  Just to
those who make "responsible" statements like the one Ray made above.

> So you want to pass on "real information to kids"?  Who are you going to elect
> to do this?  At what age are they going to receive this information?
> Let's see, we can start with Santa Clause.  People can come around the home
> and convince 3 year olds that Santa doesn't exist.  To hell with the joys of
> Christmas and the wonderful imagination of a child.  How about pictures 
> graphically depicting death camps during WW2.  Why should a child be told that
> the the world is a pretty and safe place to be alive.  C'mon folks let's here
> it for 'real information'.

The fact that you choose deliberately to hide such real information from
children clues me in on the fact that you wouldn't make a very good parent.
I knew about the non-existence of Santa Claus at a rather early age.  I
also knew about death camps around the same time.  So did most people in my
peer group.  So do most of my friends' kids.  What are you trying to hide
from your kids?  And why?  Real information about the real world teaches you
to be a realist.  Maybe you just wouldn't want your kids to be realists.
That might get them thinking.

> To blazes with the petty concern of parents wishing
> to buffer their children from the horrors of the real world till their old
> enough to understand.

Hear, hear!  (Oh, you meant this sarcastically?)  I think your version of
"old enough to understand" is roughly equivalent to "too late to understand".
Would you delay sex education the same way?  Is puberty "old enough"?
No?  Guess what?  You're already five or six years too late!!!

> I will agree that some parents are only that in name alone, and don't deserve 
> the responsibility of raising kids and perhaps are not capable of properly
> raising children.  Let's face it, almost anyone can be a parent, it doesn't
> take any special education or intelligence, just doing what comes natural
> causes parents to exist fortunately or unfortunately depending on how their
> children affect society.

Sad but true.

> But on the whole, the responsibility of children rests on the parents, it
> has always worked just fine that way.  If, as of late, it is not working out
> so well, then not only are some parents to blame, but also the interference
> outside the home.

It hasn't always worked just fine that way for the very reasons you mention.
It's too bad there is no parenting education required before becoming a
parent.  If a parent hasn't taught the child how to relate to and understand
the world "outside the home" ("We'll wait till she's old enough to
understand..."), then indeed the parents are very much to "blame", for not
teaching their kids how to cope.  That's their job.

> Someone said, I don't remember who, but I agree whole heartedly, "The way
> to destroy a society is to erode its base, which in essence is the family."
> I don't give a crap what you or anyone else on the net thinks,

I can tell.

> but I personally believe that this very erosion is going on all around us
> all the time right now.  Nothing could make us weaker than 250 million
> alienated estranged Americans.

The erosion of the family isn't coming from outside, it's coming from
within:  from parents who fail to take responsibility for the proper
raising of their children to think for themselves and become adults,
by being so strict as to restrict independent thought processes, making
them dependent on sticking to established conventions rather than seeking
their own way.  By sheltering their children from the real world because
they think it's best for them, only to find that the kids can't cope once
they get out there with real people (and real influences, bad and good).
By leaving a television set in charge of the kids as their babysitters,
and then wondering where they got all these strange ideas from.

This has nothing to do with abortion, Ray.  Offline, please.
-- 
Life is complex.  It has real and imaginary parts.
					Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/20/85)

>>>To blazes with the petty concern of parents wishing to buffer their
>>>children from the horrors of the real world till their old enough to
>>>understand. [RAY]

>>Case in point:
>>	When I was little, my parents said,"Stay away from the deep end,
>>	until you know how to swim! You might drown!" (Horrid parents!)
>>
>>	My neighbor's parents would get the Ray Seal of Approval. They
>>	told their kids,"Don't go to the deep end! There are monsters
>>	in it!" [FORSYTHE]

> Hopefully in either case, no kid drowned.  BECAUSE they believed what their
> parents. [RAY]

You didn't listen to a word he said, did you?  Why may I ask, did you
leave out the important lines that followed:

>> 	I learned to swim early. My neighbors were always afraid of the
>> 	water. Hmmmm. At least they never had a chance to drown...

You don't seem to care at all about the quality of the child's life and of
his/her upbringing.  Just the parent's rights to do what they want.  Even
if kids grow up afraid of the water.  Or uninformed about how to think
for themselves.  I think that speaks for itself.

>>>But on the whole, the responsibility of children rests on the parents,
>>>it has always worked just fine that way.

>>Oh really? Then how come we have so many messed up kids in this world?
>>They didn't start out that way -- it can't be their fault. What about
>>the kids of the strictest parents who get pregnant or into drug habits?

> Ask Osie the crazy rock star who eats bats on stage, or all the other crazy
> lunatic acid rock that promotes crazed sex, orgies, drugs, violence, murder,  
> etc.

It's clear that this man is concerned about his children's upbringing.  He
has made up stories about "acid rock" (there has been no such thing as "acid
rock" for well over a decade), about advocating orgies and murder, to 
convince himself that he should be sure to prevent them in any way from
ever hearing any of it.  Wanna bet his kids grow up to be metalheads, and
thus great consumers?  It's people like you who play right into the hands
of music industry moguls who could care less about sex or drugs, but who
sleep at night secure in knowing that some parents are going to forbid their
kids from listening to that "vile garbage", thus assuring them of making
a mint on it.  Congratulations.

> Ask the drug dealers who slime around playgrounds giving drugs to 4th
> graders.  Or ask the adults who do drugs in front of children.

Ask the parents why they never bothered to teach their kids how to make their
own judgments about such things, choosing instead to shelter them from the
"real world", thus making them all the more susceptible to the con.  It's
called shirking responsibility.

> Ask the senile justices on the Supreme Court about the effect of porno
> shops on every street corner in just about any neighborhood.  Their
> response:"snoor."

Since "every street corner in just about any neighborhood" is clearly
a hallucinatory exaggeration, I'll pass on commenting.

>>Ray is telling us: PP exists, therefore teenage sexual activity
>>increases. Had control back to the parents and everything will be "just
>>fine." I reiterate: If kids didn't need guidance, there wouldn't be a
>>planned parenthood!

> If kids didn't need guidance, there would't be a need for parents. 

Then why is it that the kids have to go to Planned Parenthood for information?
Because they know they won't get it from parents like you.  Because they're
afraid to ask questions like that of you.  No wonder.

>>>I don't give a crap what you or anyone else on the net thinks, but I
>>>personally believe...

>>To use a favorite Kenny Arndt expression: this is the credo of the
>>"willfully stupid."

> I said that to indicate that my position is cast in cement and it is.

Since evidence to the contrary, logical reasoning, and even (most important
of all) the best interests of your (future?) children apparently won't
break this cement, there is little point in arguing.  It is clear,
however, that the welfare of your kids is not your concern here.  And that
is truly sad.
-- 
"to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day
 to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human
 being can fight and never stop fighting."  - e. e. cummings
	Rich Rosen	ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr

garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (08/20/85)

> In article <932@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes:
> >Teen-agers definitely need guidance.  Ideally, this guidance is
> >supposed to come from their parents.  The world is sometimes less
> >than ideal,
> 
> I'm glad to hear that you are aware that the world is less than ideal.
> Your arguments, however are based on the following assertion:
> 
> 	"Teenagers are reckless and irresponsible,
> 	 so their parents should guide them."

That's not how I would have put it, but you seem to have no qualms
about putting words in other peoples' mouths (see below), so I see
no point in arguing the point.

> How could anyone argue with this idea? You can't. Unfortunately, it is
> not working and had not been working for years. Years, Gary. For YEARS
> parents have been ....ing up their job of guiding the young. You can
> tell the parents of America to start doing their jobs until you're blue in
> the face, but it won't work.

At least you agree that it is the parents' job. Parents' job, Charles.
PARENTS' job.  (Does repeating it really make it more persuasive?)
So, I will continue to attempt to persuade parents to do a better job.
Some may listen to me; maybe I will do a better job by continually
reminding myself of my responsibilities.

> And what if it did? What if the parents became ideal? Obviously, the
> reckless and irresponsible teenagers wouldn't listen to them, right?
> Right.

Do you enjoy arguing with yourself?  You obviously don't need me,
as skilled as you are at making up answers on my behalf.

> Did you ever read Romeo and Juliet? I'm sure their parents were highly
> responsible...

Yes, I have read several of Shakespeare's works.  But they are, after
all, fiction, so their conclusions (if any) are not necessarily valid
in the real world.

> I've inferred (I could be wrong) that your children have not reached
> their teenage years.

You infer correctly; we have only one child, a daughter, who will
be 3 in December.

>  When they do, how will you know whether or not they
> are having sex?

Oh, I thought I would just ask them, straight out.  I will try
to let my children (assuming we have more later) know that there
isn't anything they can't talk to me about.

> A lot of parents wouldn't suspect their children ("We
> didn't bring them up that way.") Here at MIT, I have an even better
> perspective. All of the girls (read "young women") here were the "best
> of the class -- all around good little girls." Now they are in college.
> It's interesting to see how many "never-been-kissed" types just hop in
> the sack when they are free of oppressive parents (I know countless of
> such types). It's also interesting to see how many of these girls, who
> can run circles around me on the subject of math or physics, have only a
> vague idea of what birth control is. All of them, luckily enough, are
> well-versed in biology and are not likely to do anything stupid.
> 
> >I didn't know you were a teen-ager.  That might explain some things.
> 
> This is typical of your judgmental attitude. Now that you know my age,
> you can label me as "too young to know" and throw away my arguments.

You have it backwards; I had been throwing away your arguments before
I knew your age, because your arguments were not persuasive.  Knowing
your age helps to explain why you have been using such weak arguments;
you need more practice.

> I'll have you know that everything I say is based on experience and
> observation -- not what the Bible says or what my parents told me or
> what the Moral Majority (which is neither) puts in it's pamphlets.

But I have more experience and more observation than you do, as did
your parents and the writers of the Bible.  So why do these other
sources have no value for you?  (If *everything* you say is based
on (your?) experience and observation, then *nothing* is based on
the what anybody else says.)

(Actually, I don't believe for a moment that "everything you say
is based on experience and observation" -- you never learned anything
from anyone else?)

> >After all, I am not a teen-ager anymore; I am a parent.  So, my ideas
> >must be silly and out-dated, even though they are the same ideas (to a
> >large degree) my parents had when *I* was a teen-ager and thought that
> >the same ideas were silly and out-dated.
> ....
> >And they think they know better than their elders, until years
> >later, when they (we) finally figure out that their (our) elders
> >weren't so dumb after all.

> This just proves my point. I never said teenagers had the right answers,
> but you are right -- they do think they know better.

But you said that the answers being suggested were "silly" and
"out-dated," implying that the answers you have are better.

And you object to anyone trying to tell them otherwise.

> You seem aware of
> the teenage mindset, so why don't you act with it instead of against it?
> If a teenager won't listen to his or her parents, he will learn only from
> experience, friends or AN IMPARTIAL THIRD PARTY.

So you would like me to believe that Planned Parenthood is impartial?

> "Don't trust anyone over thirty." Teenagers don't trust older people.
> They are having too much fun discovering what life is like. If you tell
> them what to do -- they'll get mad. If you tell them WHY to do
> something, they might think about it. 

I don't recall saying that teenagers shouldn't be told the reasons
why they should or should not do certain things -- putting words in
my mouth again?

> On the other hand, teenagers are not interested in philosophy.

Really?  It was a pretty popular subject when I was in school, back
in the dark ages.

> "It's a
> sin" carries NO weight whatsoever with most teenagers. Value judgments
> don't mean anything to a person who is FORMING their values. Teenagers
> are not acting on presuppositions, they are TESTING them. Typical
> exchange:
> Kid:"Should I try pot?"
> Authority:"No it's wrong."
> Kid:"I know that, but should I try it?"
> Authority:"It's bad for you."
> Kid:"I know that, but how bad -- can I die?"
> Authority:"No, but..."
> In fact, faced with HONEST reports of the health hazards, rather than
> biased rhetoric, many teens are staying away from pot. 
> 
> >...and so the guidance does not always come from the right
> >place and/or is faulty.  The guidance that says that it's OK to have sex
> >with anyone at any time for any reason, as long as one takes
> >"precautions," is faulty.
> 
> This is just the kind of value-judgments that teenagers hate. Anyway,
> who says the advice is faulty? The Bible? Society? These sources mean
> NOTHING, to the average teen. NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING. 

You know NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING about what my statements are
based on.  The epidemic of various kinds of sexually transmitted disease
and unwanted pregnancies say that the advice is faulty.  The psychological
harm which can result from an intimate relationship with a relative
stranger says that the advice is faulty.

> >> >Groin control works if you try it.

> So does LSD. Does that mean it's good?

LSD has a number of nasty side effects (not that its main effect
is particularly desirable, either, but I suppose you would say
that that was a matter of taste).  If you are suggesting that
groin control has similarly nasty side effects, state them.  If you
are not suggesting that, your reference to LSD is worthless.

> >> [Groin Control] is a silly idea that was out of date a long time ago.
> >First, the age of an idea, per se, has nothing to do with its validity.
> 
> Yes, but "Groin Control" is passe.

Another way of saying you don't like the idea because of its age.

> I'm not talking philosophy, I'm talking fashion.

I hope you are not seriously saying that "fashion" is a good measure
of, well, goodness.

> Maybe you can do a rock video or something and make
> celibacy fashionable again, but I really doubt it.

> >How unfortunate that her parents didn't teach her [birth control], as is
> >their responsibility.

The above is a misquote.  I was not referring to birth control exclusively,
or even primarily.  Another example of putting words in my mouth,
though this instance may have been accidental.

> They did teach her not to have sex (a nice Catholic Family). Funny how
> these things just never work.

"Never?"  "Never" is too strong a word; I never say "never."

> >"Smartness" has little to do with the facts available to you.

> Which is why even the brightest of teenagers needs the option of birth
> control counseling.

> >> The "confused children" who go to PP are PLANNING TO HAVE SEX. That's
> >> right.

> >All of them?  How do you know?
> 
> Because a teenager that had decided not to have sex (for sure) would
> not venture into a Planned Parenthood office. I'm sure, every now and
> then, one does, but that's a fluke. If they had decided to "abstain",
> they wouldn't look into birth control.

And what about the teenagers who haven't decided one way or the other?
Mightn't they venture into a PP office?  You have apparently overlooked
them.  You continue to overlook them, even though Ray and I have both
explicitly pointed out this group.

> You are a man who, I assume, does
> not cross-dress; do you go into womens' clothing stores?

Occassionally.  (Another analogy shot to pieces.)  Sometimes I
go into such a store to buy a present for my wife; sometimes I
accompany her on her shopping trips.

> >Ray says he knows some who visited PP because they were curious. Do you
> >say that he is lying, or that the kids he knows lied to him?

> No, but I ask: were they curious about birth control or sexual activity?
> If it was the former, then I was right -- they were probably planning to
> have sex. If it is the latter -- that is a value judgment that they
> will make by themselves.

You say that teens need information and guidance with respect to
birth control, but deny that they need information and guidance
with respect to the larger issue of whether to have sex in the
first place.  This is inconsistent.

> Studies show, by the way, that the majority of teenagers who seek birth
> control do so at least a month AFTER they become active [Source: Ask
> Beth syndicated column].

> I wonder how many (or how few) virgins walk into a PP office.

> >I don't think Ray would say that.  Putting words into someone's
> >mouth is not very nice.  I imagine that Ray would say, "It only
> >takes once to become pregnant."

> Unless, of course, you use birth control.

No, it only takes once to become pregnant even if you use birth control.
Contraceptives lower the risk; they do not eliminate it.

> In that case, you merely risk
> being a statistic (a LOW statistic). I'm sure Ray could conveniently
> forget that fact.

> >There you go again, putting words in someone else's mouth.

> True enough, but this is hypothetical.

Pardon me?  Putting words in someone else's mouth is OK if it's
hypothetical?

> >I'm all for telling teen-agers the "no-nonsense" (is there another
> >kind?) truth about birth control.  I'm also for telling them about
> >the risks of VD.  And *all* the facts about abortion, like the
> >problems it can cause later (increased chance of miscarriage for
> >future pregnancies, etc.), and the developmental stages of the
> >fetus.  They should know exactly what it is that's being aborted.

> Then why don't you work part time at Planned Parenthood? That's what
> they do.

> >> I happened to have liked, and respected, my parents during high-school.
> >> If, however, I told anyone this, I was immediately put on the defensive
> >> wherein I'd have to illustrate some "cool" behavior they'd exhibited in
> >> order to win the respect.

> >That may be the saddest thing you have said.  You didn't have a whole
> >lot of respect for your parents, if you were ashamed to admit it.  Nor
> >did you have a lot of respect for yourself, if you felt you had to
> >give in to others' demands that you be "cool."
> 
> I wish you would read what I write (you're just like a typical parent :-),
> I said I was put in the defensive BY THEM. 

You also said that you had to "illustrate some 'cool' behavior" to win
the respect of your peers.  That shows me that your respect was shallow.
(I am inferring that the "cool" behavior was something that either you
or your peers thought your parents would disapprove of -- otherwise,
it wouldn't have restore your reputation after it had been tarnished
by your admission that you liked and respected your parents.)  But,
perhaps more important is the lack of self-respect it shows.

> You have clearly demonstrated an incredible lack of understanding of the
> teenage mind.

Are you recanting your earlier statement that I seemed aware of the
teenage mindset?  And what were you saying about judgmental attitudes?

> >Far from not accounting for it, that scenario is exactly the thing
> >Ray's suggestion is supposed to deal with.  Remember talking about
> >"getting some no-nonsense advice"?  This is where it should come in
> >(actually, it should come in earlier).  Ray says teen-agers are
> >impulsive, and suggests that they should be advised to take time
> >to reconsider.  You're saying that that won't work, because they
> >are impulsive.  I.e., the solution won't work, because the problem
> >exists.
> 
> Wha...? Read what you said, Gary. Teenagers are too impulsive. Granted.
> They should take more time to think things over. Fine. Unfortunately,
> this "solution" fails BECAUSE THEY ARE IMPULSIVE. The solution won't
> work because it won't work. An analogous set of arguments:
> Man A:I hate my C compiler. I could write better code in LISP.
> Man B:Then write in LISP!
> Unfortunately, as we all know, you can't compile LISP with a C compiler...

I propose a better analogy:
Programmer A is only half as productive as Programmer B, and
therefore has to work late at night to accomplish the same
thing B accomplishes during a normal 8 hour day.
Programmer B suggests taking a course in structured programming
techniques, to which B attributes his higher productivity.
Programmer A says he doesn't have time to take such a course.

> Also, if you don't give them birth control, will that make them less
> impulsive?

Never said it would.  If they are given *all* of the facts, they
might be less impulsive.  If *all* you do is give them contraceptives,
that will probably encourage impulsiveness.

> >> If I may be so bold, Ray: when were you a teenager? 50's? 60's? (I'd be
> >> hard pressed to believe 70's).
> >
> >What makes you think that ten or twenty years make so much difference?

> Remember 1965? (I must admit that I don't!) There was no MTV. "Prince"
> was not singing "Little Red Corvette". The Pill was new. The sexual
> revolution was STARTING. People who wanted to assert their sexual
> freedom had the support of a vocal counter-culture.

> Remember 1985? (I do.) MTV sells sex (50% off :-), Maddonna shows us
> that a woman (and a girl) can have power through sex. The sexual
> revolution is taken for granted. People who want to assert their sexual
> freedom are given conflicting signals in an increasingly conservative
> atmosphere.

> Is that enough difference?

Nope.  Sex was being sold before MTV; perhaps the medium has changed
(slightly), but the message hasn't.  Power through sex existed before
Madonna.  The "sexual revolution" is hardly original with 20th century
America.  People who want to assert their sexual license have the
support of some groups and the not of others (which is all you have
said in mentioning a "counter-culture" and "conflicting signals").

> >> Maybe the kids of today have problems (I've sure seen enough), but as
> >> engineers (for the most part), we all know that you can't solve todays
> >> problems with yesterdays solutions.
> >What makes you think that today's problems are so much different
> >from yesterday's?  I guess every generation thinks that they're
> >the first.
> 
> That's right. So some smart people learned from the past: kids will have
> sex. Parents will not prepare their kids for this. Something must be
> done. Thus we have Planned Parenthood.

Well, if you admit that the problem has existed for a long time,
what did you mean by calling it "today's" problem, as if it were
new?  Just more empty rhetoric, I guess.  And, of course, you are
again dismissing ideas simply on account of their age ("yesterday's"
solutions).

> >> You say, "the kids just shouldn't have sex, don't encourage them." They
> >> ARE having sex (a lot, too). The DON'T need any encouragement.
> >
> >Ray is simply saying that they need *less* encouragement (to be
> >promiscuous), which comes from the TV, the radio, the movies, peers;
> >why should it come from PP also?
> 
> Planned Parenthood is the only positive thing going.

"All," "never," "only" -- don't you get tired of overgeneralizing?

> It gives answers which you call encouragement.
> Sex is fun -- nobody needs to be told
> that.

Correction: Sex CAN BE fun.  It can be disastrous, if mishandled.

> Planned Parenthood mentions pregnancy -- and how to avoid it.

Correction: they mention SOME of the ways to ATTEMPT to avoid it.
A question which I think has been asked before but not answered
yet:  Does Planned Parenthood ever recommend abstinence?  If so,
under what circumstances?  If not, why not?

> If I
> saw an advertisement that mentioned birth control as well as casual
> sex, I would faint.

The point being?

> >> The difference between a child and an adolescent is that a child can be
> >> told what to do and an adolescent must be helped to make the right
> >> decisions -- for him/herself!

> >But the adolescent often doesn't think he needs any help, except from
> >other adolescents.  Thus, one of the things a child needs to be taught
> >is how to make decisions, so he will be ready for adolescence.

> My parents taught me how to make those decisions, so I breezed through
> life.

You "breezed through life"??  You think you're done, that you have
arrived?  That you aren't going to have to face any more tough
decisions?  You are in for a rude awakening.

> Maybe you will teach your kids how to make decisions. Most parents don't.

> Also, would you make a decision if you didn't have all the facts?
> A lot of parents hide the facts about birth control from their
> children. The children, not having a firm understanding of pregnancy,
> go on to have sex. If they'd known the facts... 

This is getting so repetitive.  Have I not said several times that I
am in favor of giving teens the facts?

> I'm not arguing ideas. I'm talking facts. 
> >Ideally,
> Ideally, I can assert anything. I can say that pigs fly. I'd doesn't
> change the truth.

I talk about ideals because that's what I think we should strive
for.  "Pigs fly" is a fabrication, or a fantasy; an ideal is a goal,
something which is not, but may be.  I am not satisfied with the
way the world is; I think it can be improved, and want to help with
such improvement.  You don't think it can be improved, as so are
content with stopgaps and workarounds.

> -- 
> Charles Forsythe
> CSDF@MIT-VAX

Gary Samuelson

ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (08/21/85)

> > I seem to have touched a raw nerve with Rich concering parents.  He is having
> > a great deal of trouble remaining objective. [RAY]
> 
> Where do you see that?  What's non-objective about it?  The fact that it's
> at odds with your opinion?
> 
No.  It is obvious by your over generalization of your attack on parents.

> The fact that you choose deliberately to hide such real information from
> children clues me in on the fact that you wouldn't make a very good parent.
> I knew about the non-existence of Santa Claus at a rather early age.  I
> also knew about death camps around the same time.  So did most people in my
> peer group.  So do most of my friends' kids.  What are you trying to hide
> from your kids?  And why?  Real information about the real world teaches you
> to be a realist.  Maybe you just wouldn't want your kids to be realists.
> That might get them thinking.
> 
What you appear to be saying is exactly what I am saying.  Give kids real
information.   WHERE you I and whole heartedly disagree is when!
You give generalizations but no answers.  Why do you think movies have
ratings?  Would you read your 2 yr old a nursery rhyme at bed time or the
life and times of Idi Amin?  
I've noticed several references on the net to your habit of putting words
in other people's mouths.  Your holding true to form.  I never once mentioned
anything about hiding information from children, I merely stated that it is 
the rights of parents to give out that information and to decide when.
You say you knew at an 'early age' blah blah blah. Ambiguous.  Again, no
concrete information, just vague generalizations.  You also knew other 'real
information' about the same time as 'early age'.  Huh?
It is perhaps true that to some kids who insist on having a mind of their own
and feel 'all grown up' and ready to make important decisions before they
even know how to properly use toilet paper, it would be nearly imposible to
make a good parent.  I believe from what I've observed of your postings that
you fit the above description (mild flame intended).

> > To blazes with the petty concern of parents wishing
> > to buffer their children from the horrors of the real world till their old
> > enough to understand.
> 
> Hear, hear!  (Oh, you meant this sarcastically?)  I think your version of
> "old enough to understand" is roughly equivalent to "too late to understand".
> Would you delay sex education the same way?  Is puberty "old enough"?
> No?  Guess what?  You're already five or six years too late!!!
> 

Again putting words in other people's mouths.  Do your own words and thoughts 
escape you?  Are you asking me something or telling me something?

> > Someone said, I don't remember who, but I agree whole heartedly, "The way
> > to destroy a society is to erode its base, which in essence is the family."

> > I don't give a crap what you or anyone else on the net thinks,
> > but I personally believe that this very erosion is going on all around us
> > all the time right now.  Nothing could make us weaker than 250 million
> > alienated estranged Americans.
> 
> The erosion of the family isn't coming from outside, it's coming from
> within:  from parents who fail to take responsibility for the proper
> raising of their children to think for themselves and become adults,
> by being so strict as to restrict independent thought processes, making
> them dependent on sticking to established conventions rather than seeking
> their own way.  By sheltering their children from the real world because
> they think it's best for them, only to find that the kids can't cope once
> they get out there with real people (and real influences, bad and good).
> By leaving a television set in charge of the kids as their babysitters,
> and then wondering where they got all these strange ideas from.
> 

Perhaps you're living proof.  But I seriously doubt that your situation can be
representative of the institution of parenting.

> -- 
> Life is complex.  It has real and imaginary parts.
> 					Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr

What's important is knowing the difference.  Do you?

foy@aero.ARPA (Richard Foy) (08/21/85)

In article <11092@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes:
>
>I said that to indicate that my position is cast in cement and it is.

If this is so, what is your purpose in participating in this net.

richard foy

csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (08/22/85)

In article <944@bunker.UUCP> Gary M. Samuelson wastes a lot of disc
space on a lot of computers by pointing out all of the places where my
article "put words in other people's mouths." He also spends a lot of
memory saying "this argument is wrong" and "you overgeneralize too
much." I'm sure you have read all that, so I am going to respond to the
actual ARGUMENTS he made, and let you make your own decisions about what
Gary has to say about me personally.

>> Did you ever read Romeo and Juliet? I'm sure their parents were highly
>> responsible...
>
>Yes, I have read several of Shakespeare's works.  But they are, after
>all, fiction, so their conclusions (if any) are not necessarily valid
>in the real world.

But Romeo and Juliet is not science fiction, Gary. I was trying to
illustrate that the idea that teenagers won't pay any attention to their
parents is too old to argue against. Until some kind of "brainwashing"
technique is developed, one must accept the fact that teenagers are
prone to be rebellious and impulsive and deal with it, rather than
trying to argue it away.


>> I've inferred (I could be wrong) that your children have not reached
>> their teenage years.
>
>You infer correctly; we have only one child, a daughter, who will
>be 3 in December.

So what do you know about being a parent of a teenager? At least I can
claim that I know what it's like to be a teenager in the 80's!

>Oh, I thought I would just ask them, straight out.  I will try
>to let my children (assuming we have more later) know that there
>isn't anything they can't talk to me about.

Perfect example of your ignorance of parenting. I've seen this before.
Your daughter, if you do what you say, may come and talk to you about
your feelings on her becoming sexually active. I'm inferring that you
will let her know you disapprove. Then what? She might go out and do it
anyway. She wouldn't be the first to have done so against her parents
wishes. Do you think that she will continue to discuss it with you?
Maybe, but if she follows the pattern that I have hypothesized, then it
is not likely. She will know (or believe) that since you look down on
the behavior, she will be punished. If she said,"Daddy, I've been
sleeping with my boyfriend for the past three months." Would you wisk
her down to the gynocologist and have her fitted for a diaphragm? From
what you've said, I have reason to believe the answer is "no". If this
is the answer, then you will probably do something to stop her... the
saga continues and you end up as another estranged parent.

But that's only if she tells you. Face it Gary, unless you keep her on a
leash, you will never REALLY know whether or she's sexually active. 

Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong. Make my day. (By the way, I was
hypothesizing. I don't mean to claim your three year old daughter is
actually going to grow up to be a slut.)

>> I'll have you know that everything I say is based on experience and
>> observation -- not what the Bible says or what my parents told me or
>> what the Moral Majority (which is neither) puts in it's pamphlets.
>
>But I have more experience and more observation than you do, as did
>your parents and the writers of the Bible.  So why do these other
>sources have no value for you?  (If *everything* you say is based
>on (your?) experience and observation, then *nothing* is based on
>the what anybody else says.)

"Everything I say" referred to assertions I had made about teenage
behavior. These, apparently, have not been questioned. Also, where in the
Bible does it mention birth control (explicitly). I think you'll find
that women are only mentioned when they are being raped, murdered, or
giving birth to a male. As for what you say, talk to me again in ten or
eleven years when you have had the experience of being a parent of a
teenager.

>(Actually, I don't believe for a moment that "everything you say
>is based on experience and observation" -- you never learned anything
>from anyone else?)

"Observation" is the "art" of learning from other people.

>But you said that the answers being suggested were "silly" and
>"out-dated," implying that the answers you have are better.

I think they are.

>And you object to anyone trying to tell them otherwise.

I would like to see some "arguing them otherwise" you have spent a lot
disc space "telling" a lot of things. I countered with arguments and you
proceed to "tell" me otherwise. 

>So you would like me to believe that Planned Parenthood is impartial?

It would be nice. At least they are consistent.

>> On the other hand, teenagers are not interested in philosophy.
>
>Really?  It was a pretty popular subject when I was in school, back
>in the dark ages.

I'm not talking about Socrates, I was talking about morals.

>> This is just the kind of value-judgments that teenagers hate. Anyway,
>> who says the advice is faulty? The Bible? Society? These sources mean
>> NOTHING, to the average teen. NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING. 
>
>You know NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING about what my statements are
>based on.  The epidemic of various kinds of sexually transmitted disease
>and unwanted pregnancies say that the advice is faulty.  The psychological
>harm which can result from an intimate relationship with a relative
>stranger says that the advice is faulty.

You know NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING about what my statements are
based on.  PP is not advising kids to have sex, they are trying to
protect them from being harmed by it.

>> >> >Groin control works if you try it.
>> So does LSD. Does that mean it's good?
>LSD has a number of nasty side effects (not that its main effect
>is particularly desirable, either, but I suppose you would say
>that that was a matter of taste).  If you are suggesting that
>groin control has similarly nasty side effects, state them.  If you
>are not suggesting that, your reference to LSD is worthless.

How about "an inability to veiw sexual congress as a positive
experience?" This "Groin Control" insinuates that sex is bad. Well,
Gary, a lot of people believe that sex is NOT bad. A lot of these people
are teenagers. 

>> I'm not talking philosophy, I'm talking fashion.
>
>I hope you are not seriously saying that "fashion" is a good measure
>of, well, goodness.

I AM serious. Teenagers are very much driven by fashion. The industry
knows that. Example: a couple years ago, cocaine was all the rage. I've
spoken to so many "class of '82" and "class of '83" people who went to
their senior prom coked out of their minds, it makes me ill. Well, this
year it's MDMA (known as XTC, or Ecstasy). Now, go down to your local
high school next time a prom comes around and look at all the faces with
unusually broad smiles; look at all the kids who seem to be dancing a
little bit hyperactively, and start wondering how many are X'ed-out.

There are many more benign examples: clothes, music, ect., but I chose
the last one to show that no amount of parental pressure can completely
overcome peer pressure. "Groin Control" is just not fashionable!

>> Maybe you can do a rock video or something and make
>> celibacy fashionable again, but I really doubt it.

I'll say it again, if I have to.

>> Because a teenager that had decided not to have sex (for sure) would
>> not venture into a Planned Parenthood office. I'm sure, every now and
>> then, one does, but that's a fluke. If they had decided to "abstain",
>> they wouldn't look into birth control.
>
>And what about the teenagers who haven't decided one way or the other?
>Mightn't they venture into a PP office?  You have apparently overlooked
>them.  You continue to overlook them, even though Ray and I have both
>explicitly pointed out this group.
>.................
>No, it only takes once to become pregnant even if you use birth control.
>Contraceptives lower the risk; they do not eliminate it.

You can take the above two arguments to net.math.stat. They don't seem
to be based very well in reality. The chance of getting pregnant using
birth control is VERY small. Also, I think I have argued successfully
that the number of "undecided" or "virgin" people who go to PP is also
VERY small. You have not rebutted that.

>> No, but I ask: were they curious about birth control or sexual activity?
>> If it was the former, then I was right -- they were probably planning to
>> have sex. If it is the latter -- that is a value judgment that they
>> will make by themselves.
>
>You say that teens need information and guidance with respect to
>birth control, but deny that they need information and guidance
>with respect to the larger issue of whether to have sex in the
>first place.  This is inconsistent.

No, I say that they need that advice. I also say that any quantity of
advice is not going to stop (all of) them. Thus, they need some "if you
do" kind of advice.

>> You have clearly demonstrated an incredible lack of understanding of the
>> teenage mind.
>
>Are you recanting your earlier statement that I seemed aware of the
>teenage mindset?  And what were you saying about judgmental attitudes?

Are you aware of nuclear physics? Do you UNDERSTAND it? (excuse me if
you do, but I'm sure I could find an example of something you don't)
Now, you can behave using the fact that you are aware of nuclear
physics, but you can't claim to understand it. (like avoiding large
piles of exposed plutonium because you are aware that they are harmful.)

>> Wha...? Read what you said, Gary. Teenagers are too impulsive. Granted.
>> They should take more time to think things over. Fine. Unfortunately,
>> this "solution" fails BECAUSE THEY ARE IMPULSIVE. The solution won't
>> work because it won't work. An analogous set of arguments:
>> Man A:I hate my C compiler. I could write better code in LISP.
>> Man B:Then write in LISP!
>> Unfortunately, as we all know, you can't compile LISP with a C compiler...
>
>I propose a better analogy:
>Programmer A is only half as productive as Programmer B, and
>therefore has to work late at night to accomplish the same
>thing B accomplishes during a normal 8 hour day.
>Programmer B suggests taking a course in structured programming
>techniques, to which B attributes his higher productivity.
>Programmer A says he doesn't have time to take such a course.

Substituting back into your analogy:
Teenager A is only half as informed as Teenager B, and
therefore has to risk pregnancy while Teenager B does not.
Programmer B suggests taking a course in birth control
techniques, to which B attributes her higher safty.
Programmer A says her parents won't let her.

>> Also, if you don't give them birth control, will that make them less
>> impulsive?
>
>Never said it would.  If they are given *all* of the facts, they
>might be less impulsive.  If *all* you do is give them contraceptives,
>that will probably encourage impulsiveness.

Good for you! But, remember, you said *all* the facts, that includes
accurate data about those nasty pills and such.

>Nope.  Sex was being sold before MTV; perhaps the medium has changed
>(slightly), but the message hasn't.

Slightly? <Gasp, Choke> If you had described cable TV to somebody in the
mid-60's they would have been blown away. The popularity of VCRs is only
about five years old. If I'd asked my parents for a VTR in 1975, they
would have said, "too expensive". 20 years ago a good microphone was the
size of an eggplant. Nowadays, you can sneak a good digital recording
unit past concert security. I thought you worked with technology...

>Power through sex existed before Madonna.

Yeah, but Horatio Alger would have never written a story about it. Power
through sex used to be a sleazy thing to do, but thanks to Madonna, it's
fashionable (therefore acceptable). Read her lyrics. They would never
have been played in to sixties.

>The "sexual revolution" is hardly original with 20th century
>America.

Neither is democracy, but it's only 200+ years old here. "Free love" was
actually a favorite idea of George Wells, but it didn't really catch on
here until the sixties.

>> If I
>> saw an advertisement that mentioned birth control as well as casual
>> sex, I would faint.
>
>The point being?

Because sex, as long as it's not blatent, is acceptable to us. Everyone
loves it. Watch a soap opera. Watch a commercial, or any TV show
(non-religious :-). Listen to a rock song. Sex sells. Birth control,
however, is unacceptable. Recently a TV commercial was submitted to all
three of the major networks. It did not mention sex per se, just birth
control. All it said was "there are ways to prevent unwanted
prenancies." It didn't show any teenagers in it, actually older women.
It was rejected by all three. I wonder why?

>This is getting so repetitive.  Have I not said several times that I
>am in favor of giving teens the facts?

No, you are in favor of giving YOUR teens the facts. Teens with
negligent parents are left to fend for themselves. Planned Parenthood
gives facts to teenagers who need them.



----------------------------------------------------------------
Now, to finally clear up this bullshit:
>> >> I happened to have liked, and respected, my parents during high-school.
>> >> If, however, I told anyone this, I was immediately put on the defensive
>> >> wherein I'd have to illustrate some "cool" behavior they'd exhibited in
>> >> order to win the respect.
>
>> >That may be the saddest thing you have said.  You didn't have a whole
>> >lot of respect for your parents, if you were ashamed to admit it.  Nor
>> >did you have a lot of respect for yourself, if you felt you had to
>> >give in to others' demands that you be "cool."
>> 
>> I wish you would read what I write (you're just like a typical parent :-),
>> I said I was put in the defensive BY THEM. 
>
>You also said that you had to "illustrate some 'cool' behavior" to win
>the respect of your peers.  That shows me that your respect was shallow.

I said I was "expected to" why do you think I did? You seem to think
that all teenagers do what is expected of them. Well I never did. So
there. Now if you keep insulting my relationship with my parents, which
happens to be very close to ideal, I will follow you home and beat you
senseless with a kosher salami.

>I think it can be improved, and want to help with such improvement.  You
>don't think it can be improved, as so are content with stopgaps and
>workarounds.

Oh, Gary, stop putting words in my mouth.
-- 
Charles Forsythe
CSDF@MIT-VAX
"We pray to Fred for the Hopelessly Normal
	Have they not suffered enough?"

from _The_Nth_Psalm_ in _The_Book_of_Fred_

barb@oliven.UUCP (Barbara Jernigan) (08/22/85)

> 
> >> If I may be so bold, Ray: when were you a teenager? 50's? 60's? (I'd be
> >> hard pressed to believe 70's).
> >
> >What makes you think that ten or twenty years make so much difference?
> 
> Remember 1965? (I must admit that I don't!) There was no MTV. "Prince"
> was not singing "Little Red Corvette". The Pill was new. The sexual
> revolution was STARTING. People who wanted to assert their sexual
> freedom had the support of a vocal counter-culture.
> Remember 1985? (I do.) MTV sells sex (50% off :-), Maddonna shows us
> that a woman (and a girl) can have power through sex. The sexual
> revolution is taken for granted. People who want to assert their sexual
> freedom are given conflicting signals in an increasingly conservative
> atmosphere.
> 
> Is that enough difference?

  Am I reading into the meaning of many postings here, or are many netters
  suggesting that teenage (and otherwise out of wedlock) promiscuity is a new
  development?  I realize the following is a bit off the subject of abortion,
  *per se*, but I would like to relate a conversation had with a marvellous
  woman, Mimi, who happens to be at least 85.  (There was conversation last
  year about an upcoming 90th birthday, but I can't remember the exact 
  figures.)  Now, with Mimi, it's any guess where the lively conversation
  will go, and this time, to my husband and my suprise (and delight) we
  touched on the sexual revolution.  Mimi is nothing if not frank, and I
  quote:

       "I MUCH prefer a time of liberation to a time of [sexual] 
       supression [read, 'Victorian morals'] . . . although," she 
       said wistfully, "there was something to be said for having
       to scurry back to your room before breakfast call."

  Ergo, although they did NOT talk about sex -- and the moral literature
  certainly spoke to the contrary -- sex was certainly going on between
  young (and not so young) unmarried people.  If you think bawdiness is
  new, I suggest you take a course in English Literature -- and Shakespeare
  is not the only example.  The DIFFERENCE (and there is one) is that,
  in years past, ADULTNESS -- and it's responsibilities -- came at a
  MUCH earlier age.  My parents, for example (and no, I, typically of my
  society, have NOT inquired as to their premarital sexual habits, if
  any), were married as teenagers (my father was 18, my mother was 17).
  BOTH had been supporting themselves for several years.  There are tales
  of field commanders as young as 15, or younger . . . And, let's face
  it, in many cultures unmarried at 20 (at least for women) meant you
  were an old maid!
> 
> Did you ever read Romeo and Juliet? I'm sure their parents were highly
> responsible...
> 
  Juliet was what, say, 13?  And if Romeo weren't enough encouragement,
  her PARENTS were seeking suitors -- by the end of the play she was to
  MARRY Paris.

  Today, teenagers are given the bodies (and urges) of adults by Nature
  (and you can't reset Her time), but are often treated like children --
  so how can we expect them to make adult decisions about something as
  seemingly innocuous (I said SEEMINGLY, so flame off) as sex?  They don't
  have the perspective.  And some don't have the nerve to discuss it with
  their parents.  MOST probably don't have the nerve to discuss it with
  their parents -- although the external stimuli (commercials, MTV, movies
  -- I've been watching BOND films since I was five -- popular music, etc.) 
  say 'yes' to sex, SEX is still a taboo subject in the home.  Dragon Flame!  
  I had, like Charles, a great relationship with my parents -- and I knew where,
  and how, babies come at a very early age -- but I will always remember
  my mother's advice before I left for college:  "If a boy tells you, if
  you love him you'll go to bed with him, tell him, 'hold that thought a
  month,' and get on the pill."  It knocked my socks off, for it was THE
  FIRST TIME we'd dicussed the possibility of MY having sex!  And I come
  from what I consider a pretty 'liberated' family!

  So, yes, it IS the parents' responsibility to educate their offspring
  about the 'dangers' of sex -- but very few are able to handle it 
  objectively enough to, as Charles so aptly stated,
  
> ... tell them WHY to do [or not do] something, [so] they might think about 
> it. 

  Is there an answer?  The obvious one is to teach the Parents how to
  talk about sex with their children beyond, "DON'T DO IT BECAUSE I
  [or the Bible] SAYS SO!"  Few of us are ever satisfied with that line 
  of reasoning -- indeed, there is a perverse nature (sometimes tempered
  by time, but not always) that tempts us to do the opposite, just to
  assert our independence.

  So, if parents can't talk about sex -- and birth control -- where can
  the teenagers go?  Their peers?  As Charles so aptly pointed out, that
  is a WONDERFUL source of misinformation.  That leaves finding another
  third party -- ah, Planned Parenthood -- its title suggests they should 
  know the facts, and the teenager can maintain his/her anonymity (I know, 
  we WISH they wouldn't need to do that -- but if they *thought* their 
  parents understood, they wouldn't be there, anyway); and, HOPEFULLY (it 
  being an imperfect world, alas) the teenager will get some objective answers.

  Rather than abolish PP -- those of you who advocate that -- why don't
  you volunteer to work for it????  Then you have a possible medium
  to get your pro-life message to the teenagers.  (And PP isn't JUST for
  teenagers, by the way -- it is PLANNED PARENTHOOD not TEENAGE BIRTH
  CONTROL.)  Rather than talking ideas -- which is good exercise for the
  fingers, but not necessarily for the facts (please, no offense intended,
  I point the finger at myself as well) -- get out in the trenches.  See
  what is *REALLY* happening, why it is really happening, from the 
  *perspective* of those to whom it's happening, and perhaps,
  unlike the many minds before you, come up with a solution.

  I would really love to see abortion abolished -- BECAUSE IT IS NO LONGER
  NEEDED.  (I know, I'm opening myself to napalm here.)  But it is not a
  perfect world -- sadly.

  So what is the answer?  I'm sure many of you will tell me.  Me, I'm
  not so sure.  Except that I believe as much objective information as
  possible should be available -- which means it is OUR responsibility
  (pro-lifer and pro-choicer, alike) to see that it IS.  If you think
  that your local PP is advocating abortions as birth control -- DO SOMETHING
  ABOUT IT!  Talk to the management first hand and find out the facts!
  Don't berate us with it, we're easy (unless you wear your ego on your
  keyboard).  If you are doing something, more power to you.

  And now I've said more than I've intended -- you should never place
  keyboards in the hands of a writer, we don't know when to stop :-).
  To quote an art teacher of mine (who was standing on a desk and wondering
  how he got there)(exciteable fellow):

         GET DOWN, YOU PROTESTANT FOOL!  YOU'RE BLOCKING TRAFFIC!

  Adieu.

         ___________________
              ______________\ 
                 ___________ |
         	    ______  /
	       .	 / /	  o 
	     .ooo.     ./ /.	. o@ooo0
	    .ooooo.   .ooooo.  .oooo                 Barb
        oo..oo	 oo...ooo ooo..ooo  \ 
     .oo  oo	  oooooo   oooooo   
		    ooo	     ooo

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/24/85)

>>> I seem to have touched a raw nerve with Rich concering parents.  He is
>>> having a great deal of trouble remaining objective. [RAY]

>>Where do you see that?  What's non-objective about it?  The fact that it's
>>at odds with your opinion? [ROSEN]

> No.  It is obvious by your over generalization of your attack on parents.

Obviously an attack on SOME parents, specifically parents who give their
children misinformation or none at all, or who teach by edict and not by
example, is an overgeneralization to Ray.  It would only be so if I made the
remark about all parents.  Ray must have taken it to heart that I was talking
about him or something.  Why?

>>The fact that you choose deliberately to hide such real information from
>>children clues me in on the fact that you wouldn't make a very good parent.
>>I knew about the non-existence of Santa Claus at a rather early age.  I
>>also knew about death camps around the same time.  So did most people in my
>>peer group.  So do most of my friends' kids.  What are you trying to hide
>>from your kids?  And why?  Real information about the real world teaches you
>>to be a realist.  Maybe you just wouldn't want your kids to be realists.
>>That might get them thinking.

> What you appear to be saying is exactly what I am saying.  Give kids real
> information.   WHERE you I and whole heartedly disagree is when!
> You give generalizations but no answers.  Why do you think movies have
> ratings?  Would you read your 2 yr old a nursery rhyme at bed time or the
> life and times of Idi Amin?  

Then what is your point of demarcation?  From your postings, from your
pronouncements that the way to get kids not to have sex is to tell them
not to, that point is obviously far too late.

> I've noticed several references on the net to your habit of putting words
> in other people's mouths.  Your holding true to form.  I never once mentioned
> anything about hiding information from children, I merely stated that it is 
> the rights of parents to give out that information and to decide when.

When you do so too late, you have kept it from them, thus you have attempted
to hide it (they'll get it anway, and probably get it wrong, but ...)
If *I* have a habit of putting words into other people's mouths, it would
seem that you owe me a tutor's fee because you've learned your lessons well.

> You say you knew at an 'early age' blah blah blah. Ambiguous.

So much for my argument.  It was "ambiguous" because Ray says so.  Because
it provides a counterexample to his "in cement" attitudes, it MUST be wrong.

> Again, no
> concrete information, just vague generalizations.  You also knew other 'real
> information' about the same time as 'early age'.  Huh?

Yes, indeed.  I think the Santa Claus example and the death camp example
(both of which were YOURS) are quite concrete.  After all, they came from
your mind, which is set in cement, as you said... :-?

> It is perhaps true that to some kids who insist on having a mind of their own
> and feel 'all grown up' and ready to make important decisions before they
> even know how to properly use toilet paper, it would be nearly imposible to
> make a good parent.

What a horrible thing, insisting on having a mind of their own rather than
listening to you.  God, I hope you never become a parent, and if you already
are I'm tempted to get religion just to pray for your kids.

> I believe from what I've observed of your postings that you fit the above
> description (mild flame intended).

The description of insisting on having a mind of my own?  Why, thank you!
(I know how to use toilet paper, so I guess I don't fit in to the other
criteria for the category.  At what age do YOU deem a child capable of using
toilet paper, anyways?)

>>> To blazes with the petty concern of parents wishing
>>> to buffer their children from the horrors of the real world till their old
>>> enough to understand.

>>Hear, hear!  (Oh, you meant this sarcastically?)  I think your version of
>>"old enough to understand" is roughly equivalent to "too late to understand".
>>Would you delay sex education the same way?  Is puberty "old enough"?
>>No?  Guess what?  You're already five or six years too late!!!

> Again putting words in other people's mouths.  Do your own words and thoughts 
> escape you?  Are you asking me something or telling me something?

I'll ask you what's "old enough to understand".  (In fact, I did!!!)  And I'll
ask what information they would get other than "don't do it" from the likes
of you.  (I did that too.)  Putting words in other people's mouths?  Or
trying to pull teeth to get information?

>>> Someone said, I don't remember who, but I agree whole heartedly, "The way
>>> to destroy a society is to erode its base, which in essence is the family."

>>> I don't give a crap what you or anyone else on the net thinks,
>>> but I personally believe that this very erosion is going on all around us
>>> all the time right now.  Nothing could make us weaker than 250 million
>>> alienated estranged Americans.

>>The erosion of the family isn't coming from outside, it's coming from
>>within:  from parents who fail to take responsibility for the proper
>>raising of their children to think for themselves and become adults,
>>by being so strict as to restrict independent thought processes, making
>>them dependent on sticking to established conventions rather than seeking
>>their own way.  By sheltering their children from the real world because
>>they think it's best for them, only to find that the kids can't cope once
>>they get out there with real people (and real influences, bad and good).
>>By leaving a television set in charge of the kids as their babysitters,
>>and then wondering where they got all these strange ideas from.

> Perhaps you're living proof.  But I seriously doubt that your situation can
> be representative of the institution of parenting.

That's funny, I had a pretty solid family life.  Are you simply trying to
slander anyone who disagrees with you, Ray, or do you have something to say?
... ... ... I thought not.

>>Life is complex.  It has real and imaginary parts.

> What's important is knowing the difference.  Do you?

Since apparently you ARE a parent, I must ask if you do, too.  I like to
think that I do.  Why don't you delineate to us all what is "imaginary"
about what I said above.  It's apparent that you have some imaginary thoughts
of your own.
-- 
"Meanwhile, I was still thinking..."
				Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr

ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (08/27/85)

> 
> > What you appear to be saying is exactly what I am saying.  Give kids real
> > information.   WHERE you I and whole heartedly disagree is when!
> > You give generalizations but no answers.  Why do you think movies have
> > ratings?  Would you read your 2 yr old a nursery rhyme at bed time or the
> > life and times of Idi Amin?  
> 
> Then what is your point of demarcation?  From your postings, from your
> pronouncements that the way to get kids not to have sex is to tell them
> not to, that point is obviously far too late.
> 
Ah, I can see that from your question that you are not yet fully developed in
the area of intuitive reasoning.

> > I've noticed several references on the net to your habit of putting words
> > in other people's mouths.  Your holding true to form.  I never once mentioned
> > anything about hiding information from children, I merely stated that it is 
> > the rights of parents to give out that information and to decide when.
> 
> When you do so too late, you have kept it from them, thus you have attempted
> to hide it (they'll get it anway, and probably get it wrong, but ...)
> If *I* have a habit of putting words into other people's mouths, it would
> seem that you owe me a tutor's fee because you've learned your lessons well.
> 
Who said it was too late?  YOU, that's who.  Again showing a lack of wisdom 
that comes not easy in one's life, it can't be taught in universities, or 
obtained through surface thinking.  You must always be open to all the facts
and lean away from tunnel vision that is bred from inexperience in dealing 
with all of lifes complexities.

> > You say you knew at an 'early age' blah blah blah. Ambiguous.
> 
> So much for my argument.  It was "ambiguous" because Ray says so.  Because
> it provides a counterexample to his "in cement" attitudes, it MUST be wrong.
> 
Look up ambiguous.

> > Again, no
> > concrete information, just vague generalizations.  You also knew other 'real
> > information' about the same time as 'early age'.  Huh?
> 
> Yes, indeed.  I think the Santa Claus example and the death camp example
> (both of which were YOURS) are quite concrete.  After all, they came from
> your mind, which is set in cement, as you said... :-?
> 
Your missing the point.  Not surprising.

> > It is perhaps true that to some kids who insist on having a mind of their own
> > and feel 'all grown up' and ready to make important decisions before they
> > even know how to properly use toilet paper, it would be nearly imposible to
> > make a good parent.
> 
> What a horrible thing, insisting on having a mind of their own rather than
> listening to you.  God, I hope you never become a parent, and if you already
> are I'm tempted to get religion just to pray for your kids.
> 
Everyone needs prayers.  Thanks.

> > I believe from what I've observed of your postings that you fit the above
> > description (mild flame intended).
> 
> The description of insisting on having a mind of my own?  Why, thank you!
> (I know how to use toilet paper, so I guess I don't fit in to the other
> criteria for the category.  At what age do YOU deem a child capable of using
> toilet paper, anyways?)
> 
Ah, analogies, fruit for some, poision for others.

> >>> To blazes with the petty concern of parents wishing
> >>> to buffer their children from the horrors of the real world till their old
> >>> enough to understand.
> 
> >>Hear, hear!  (Oh, you meant this sarcastically?)  I think your version of
> >>"old enough to understand" is roughly equivalent to "too late to understand".
> >>Would you delay sex education the same way?  Is puberty "old enough"?
> >>No?  Guess what?  You're already five or six years too late!!!
> 
> > Again putting words in other people's mouths.  Do your own words and thoughts 
> > escape you?  Are you asking me something or telling me something?
> 
> I'll ask you what's "old enough to understand".  (In fact, I did!!!)  And I'll
> ask what information they would get other than "don't do it" from the likes
> of you.  (I did that too.)  Putting words in other people's mouths?  Or
> trying to pull teeth to get information?
> 
You seem to have this black and white image of the world.  At such and such an
age, I'll take the baby doll from my little girl, and tell her all about sex.
Substituting dildos for baby dolls would be disasterous.
I would start telling her things from the moment she was born.  She would have
continual guidance in all important areas.  I would try to maintain a good 
example, I would not leave the garage dirty and tell her to clean her room for
example.  There would be a continual increase of knowledge of the real world in
such doses that she would be capable of digesting it.  No meat before milk.
By the time of puberty or when ever she deemed it time to make decisions, I 
would expect her decisions to be grounded in wisdom and knowledge.  But what
is important here is that they would be her decisions, not some punk rock groupsadvocating kinky sex, violence, drugs and so forth.  Not some Hugh Hefner type
who could easily steal her principles that had been instilled in her since 
birth.  
You see, life is not to be taken casually.  It is extremely complex with no
simple minded black and white answers.  Asking at what age a child begins to
walk is meaningless.  Everyone is different.  What's important is that they
learn to walk tall, proud, straight, and strong.  And the first time some
wierdo comes along and says walk like this, I would expect her to walk right
over the jerk and keep on going, because she would be proud of her walk.
 
> >>> Someone said, I don't remember who, but I agree whole heartedly, "The way
> >>> to destroy a society is to erode its base, which in essence is the family."
> 
> >>> I don't give a crap what you or anyone else on the net thinks,
> >>> but I personally believe that this very erosion is going on all around us
> >>> all the time right now.  Nothing could make us weaker than 250 million
> >>> alienated estranged Americans.
> 
> >>The erosion of the family isn't coming from outside, it's coming from
> >>within:  from parents who fail to take responsibility for the proper
> >>raising of their children to think for themselves and become adults,
> >>by being so strict as to restrict independent thought processes, making
> >>them dependent on sticking to established conventions rather than seeking
> >>their own way.  By sheltering their children from the real world because
> >>they think it's best for them, only to find that the kids can't cope once
> >>they get out there with real people (and real influences, bad and good).
> >>By leaving a television set in charge of the kids as their babysitters,
> >>and then wondering where they got all these strange ideas from.
> 
> > Perhaps you're living proof.  But I seriously doubt that your situation can
> > be representative of the institution of parenting.
> 
> That's funny, I had a pretty solid family life.  Are you simply trying to
> slander anyone who disagrees with you, Ray, or do you have something to say?
> ... ... ... I thought not.
> 
Answering your own questions perhaps reflects your fear of the real answers.
But seriously, I can't agree with you more that a lot parents are destroying
the lives of their children.  And society will untimately take the brunt of the
errors of parents.  What we are seeing in parents could get worse or better.
If it gets worse, then more misfits are dumped into the stream of society, whichin turn, turn out more misfits and so on.   But may I be so bold in stating 
that I believe that good parents hold the edge over not so good parents in
numbers.  And while I believe this is true, then I must also hold to my
beliefs that the main responsiblity of raising children must remain in the
hands of the parents, not schools, or any other outside organization.  And
I will attempt to defeat anything that trys to undermine the authority of
the parents or to destroy the family unit of America.

> "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..."
> 				Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr

Bravo, exercise is good for the mind.

garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (08/27/85)

> In article <944@bunker.UUCP> Gary M. Samuelson wastes a lot of disc
> space on a lot of computers by pointing out all of the places where my
> article "put words in other people's mouths." He also spends a lot of
> memory saying "this argument is wrong" and "you overgeneralize too
> much." I'm sure you have read all that, so I am going to respond to the
> actual ARGUMENTS he made, and let you make your own decisions about what
> Gary has to say about me personally.

Which wastes more disk space:  Making faulty arguments, or pointing out
the faultiness of the arguments?

(I guess to stop wasting disk space I'll have to delete more of Mr.
Forsythe's text.)  Seriously, we probably are wasting disk space, and
I for one am going to drop this particular discussion.  Mr. Forsythe
may have the last word.

Are you saying that pointing out faults in someone's arguments is saying
something against the person?

> >> Did you ever read Romeo and Juliet? I'm sure their parents were highly
> >> responsible...

[I do not agree that their parents were "highly responsible," by the way,
but I am not going to argue literary interpretation with you.]

> But Romeo and Juliet is not science fiction, Gary. I was trying to
> illustrate that the idea that teenagers won't pay any attention to their
> parents is too old to argue against. Until some kind of "brainwashing"
> technique is developed, one must accept the fact that teenagers are
> prone to be rebellious and impulsive and deal with it, rather than
> trying to argue it away.

I am not trying to argue it away; 
> >> I've inferred (I could be wrong) that your children have not reached
> >> their teenage years.
> >
> >You infer correctly; we have only one child, a daughter, who will
> >be 3 in December.

> So what do you know about being a parent of a teenager? At least I can
> claim that I know what it's like to be a teenager in the 80's!

And I still claim that being a teenager in the 80's is not significantly
different from being a teenager at any other time, an assertion which
you agree with when it suits you (see your above comment about Romeo
and Juliet), and disagree with when that suits you (your claim that
the 80's are so much different from the 70's or 60's).

> >Oh, I thought I would just ask them, straight out.  I will try
> >to let my children (assuming we have more later) know that there
> >isn't anything they can't talk to me about.

> Perfect example of your ignorance of parenting. I've seen this before.

Pfui.  To want to keep the lines of communication with my children
open is ignorance.  And if I don't know enough about parenting,
because I don't have teenage children, you know less about it.

> Your daughter, if you do what you say, may come and talk to you about
> your feelings on her becoming sexually active. I'm inferring that you
> will let her know you disapprove. Then what? She might go out and do it
> anyway. She wouldn't be the first to have done so against her parents
> wishes. Do you think that she will continue to discuss it with you?
> Maybe, but if she follows the pattern that I have hypothesized, then it
> is not likely. She will know (or believe) that since you look down on
> the behavior, she will be punished. If she said,"Daddy, I've been
> sleeping with my boyfriend for the past three months." Would you wisk
> her down to the gynocologist and have her fitted for a diaphragm? From
> what you've said, I have reason to believe the answer is "no". If this
> is the answer, then you will probably do something to stop her... the
> saga continues and you end up as another estranged parent.

Hypothesize all you want; it proves nothing.  You don't know that I
would do what you hypothesize (Greek word for "guess," anyway).  I
won't know for sure, either, until it happens.

> But that's only if she tells you. Face it Gary, unless you keep her on a
> leash, you will never REALLY know whether she's sexually active. 

> Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong. Make my day. (By the way, I was
> hypothesizing. I don't mean to claim your three year old daughter is
> actually going to grow up to be a slut.)

I didn't think you were claiming that; in fact, it hadn't occurred to
me to think that my daughter, if she were sexually active, was therefore
necessarily a slut.

> ... These, apparently, have not been questioned.

Well, I have neither the time nor the inclincation to pick on
every detail.  It would be useless for me to even discuss your
assertions, since it seems I have zero credibility in your eyes.
A lot of what I have been writing, I wrote to try to establish
that what I had to say was worth considering.  I seem to have
failed, at least as far as you are concerned.

> Also, where in the
> Bible does it mention birth control (explicitly).

I never said the Bible discusses birth control.  I don't even recall
saying that I was categorically opposed to birth control (I'm not).
What we used to be discussing is whether abortion was an acceptable
form of birth control, and whether the ease of obtaining an abortion
encouraged casual sex.  I apologize for getting so far off the subject.

> I think you'll find
> that women are only mentioned when they are being raped, murdered, or
> giving birth to a male.

Shows what you know about the Bible. Read about Ruth, Deborah (in Judges),
and Esther for starters.  See also the second half of Proverbs 31.
Amazing how people who know so little about the Bible reject it out
of hand.

> As for what you say, talk to me again in ten or
> eleven years when you have had the experience of being a parent of a
> teenager.

But my daughter will be a teenager in the 90's, and so, by your reasoning,
I still just won't understand.

> >So you would like me to believe that Planned Parenthood is impartial?

> It would be nice. At least they are consistent.

> >> On the other hand, teenagers are not interested in philosophy.
> >
> >Really?  It was a pretty popular subject when I was in school, back
> >in the dark ages.

> I'm not talking about Socrates, I was talking about morals.

But you said "philosophy."  And the moral code one adheres to is
a function of, or at least tightly coupled to, one's philosophy.

> How about "an inability to veiw sexual congress as a positive
> experience?"
> This "Groin Control" insinuates that sex is bad.

No, it doesn't.  It "insinuates" that sex, like everything else,
can be misused, overdone, etc.  Food is good.  Gluttony is not so
good; it leads to various health problems, both physical and mental.
Likewise, sex is good.  But casual sex leads to various health problems.

> Well, Gary, a lot of people believe that sex is NOT bad.
> A lot of these people are teenagers. 

Another example of putting words in my mouth, or setting up a straw
man (whichever way you want to express it).  But you consider it
a waster of disk space to point out that I never said that sex was
bad.

> >> I'm not talking philosophy, I'm talking fashion.

> >I hope you are not seriously saying that "fashion" is a good measure
> >of, well, goodness.

> I AM serious. Teenagers are very much driven by fashion.

What I wanted to know is if you thought fashion *should* be used
as a moral guide, not whether some people actually use it that way.

> >> Also, if you don't give them birth control, will that make them less
> >> impulsive?

> >Never said it would.  If they are given *all* of the facts, they
> >might be less impulsive.  If *all* you do is give them contraceptives,
> >that will probably encourage impulsiveness.

> Good for you! But, remember, you said *all* the facts, that includes
> accurate data about those nasty pills and such.

Yes, I said *all* the facts.

> >Nope.  Sex was being sold before MTV; perhaps the medium has changed
> >(slightly), but the message hasn't.

> Slightly? <Gasp, Choke> If you had described cable TV... [wonders
> of modern technology deleted].

But the *message* hasn't changed.

> >This is getting so repetitive.  Have I not said several times that I
> >am in favor of giving teens the facts?

> No, you are in favor of giving YOUR teens the facts.  Teens with
> negligent parents are left to fend for themselves. Planned Parenthood
> gives facts to teenagers who need them.

But PP leaves out a few things.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Now, to finally clear up this bullshit:
> >> >> I happened to have liked, and respected, my parents during high-school.
> >> >> If, however, I told anyone this, I was immediately put on the defensive
> >> >> wherein I'd have to illustrate some "cool" behavior they'd exhibited in
> >> >> order to win the respect.

> >> >That may be the saddest thing you have said.  You didn't have a whole
> >> >lot of respect for your parents, if you were ashamed to admit it.  Nor
> >> >did you have a lot of respect for yourself, if you felt you had to
> >> >give in to others' demands that you be "cool."

> >> I wish you would read what I write (you're just like a typical parent :-),
> >> I said I was put in the defensive BY THEM. 

> >You also said that you had to "illustrate some 'cool' behavior" to win
> >the respect of your peers.  That shows me that your respect was shallow.

> I said I was "expected to" why do you think I did?

Because you said "I'd have to illustrate some 'cool' behavior."
If I say, "I had to do X," that would imply that I had *done* X.

> You seem to think
> that all teenagers do what is expected of them. Well I never did.

Well, good, but you certainly had not made that clear until now.

> Now if you keep insulting my relationship with my parents, which
> happens to be very close to ideal, I will follow you home and beat you
> senseless with a kosher salami.

I apologize; I really thought that the way you phrased your statement,
and the fact that you never explicitly denied doing what your peers
expected, implied that you had done it.  I also considered your
statement that they put you on the defensive; in my opinion one cannot
be "put on the defensive" except by those whose opinions are valued.
E.g., if I don't care what you think of me, you can't put me on the
defensive.

I said all that to explain why I thought you did what your peers
wanted you to, not to say that I still think so.

> >I think it can be improved, and want to help with such improvement.  You
> >don't think it can be improved, as so are content with stopgaps and
> >workarounds.

> Oh, Gary, stop putting words in my mouth.

I'm not; we both agree that teenagers are impulsive.  You keep saying
that it's a fact of life which cannot be changed, and I (sometimes
a bit of an idealist) think that it is a situation which can be improved.
And if it can't be improved universally (which we won't know without
trying), it still can be improved in specific instances.  But you
keep saying, in effect, "Don't try to tell them there's a better way;
they won't listen."

One last thing; a question that has been asked at least twice,
and still not answered:  Does Planned Parenthood, in their counseling,
*ever* recommend abstinence?  Never mind; I expect you'll just say
that no one who visits Planned Parenthood is undecided.  Supposing,
for the sake of argument, that that is true, where do the undecideds
go for advice on matters sexual?  Where, in your opinion, should they go?

Gary Samuelson
ittvax!bunker!garys

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/28/85)

> Which wastes more disk space:  Making faulty arguments, or pointing out
> the faultiness of the arguments?
> 
> Are you saying that pointing out faults in someone's arguments is saying
> something against the person?  [GARY SAMUELSON]

I find it very humorous that Gary Samuelson, whose arguments I have often
pointed out faultiness in, and who repeatedly has stated that he would
never reply to a Rich Rosen article ever again because I say so many
things against him (i.e., pointing out faults in his arguments), would ask
the above questions.
-- 
Life is complex.  It has real and imaginary parts.
					Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/28/85)

>>> What you appear to be saying is exactly what I am saying.  Give kids real
>>> information.   WHERE you I and whole heartedly disagree is when!
>>> You give generalizations but no answers.  Why do you think movies have
>>> ratings?  Would you read your 2 yr old a nursery rhyme at bed time or the
>>> life and times of Idi Amin?  

>>Then what is your point of demarcation?  From your postings, from your
>>pronouncements that the way to get kids not to have sex is to tell them
>>not to, that point is obviously far too late.

> Ah, I can see that from your question that you are not yet fully developed in
> the area of intuitive reasoning.

Yes, of course.  You can tell this from the fact that I disagree with you.

>>> I've noticed several references on the net to your habit of putting words
>>> in other people's mouths.  Your holding true to form.  I never mentioned
>>> anything about hiding information from children, I merely stated that it is 
>>> the rights of parents to give out that information and to decide when.

>>When you do so too late, you have kept it from them, thus you have attempted
>>to hide it (they'll get it anyway, and probably get it wrong, but ...)
>>If *I* have a habit of putting words into other people's mouths, it would
>>seem that you owe me a tutor's fee because you've learned your lessons well.

> Who said it was too late?  YOU, that's who.  Again showing a lack of wisdom 
> that comes not easy in one's life, it can't be taught in universities, or 
> obtained through surface thinking.  You must always be open to all the facts
> and lean away from tunnel vision that is bred from inexperience in dealing 
> with all of lifes complexities.

Who says it is too late?  Experience tells us that it is too late.  Because
hiding the information until they are already able and willing and eager to
have sex means that they will leap ahead and do so in the absence of
information or in the presence of MISinformation.  The only two ways of
avoiding that are (1) provide the information early (despite the fact that
you seem to think that kids are unable to understand it before puberty) or
(2) keep tight controls on your children at all times to ensure "proper"
behavior.  Despite your apparent wishes to engage in the latter, it doesn't
work in the real world.

>>> You say you knew at an 'early age' blah blah blah. Ambiguous.

>>So much for my argument.  It was "ambiguous" because Ray says so.  Because
>>it provides a counterexample to his "in cement" attitudes, it MUST be wrong.

> Look up ambiguous.

You mean "susceptible to multiple interpretation"?  "Doubtful or uncertain"?
I gave very concrete answers to your nebulous questions.  I stated that, yes,
I and many people my own age (and their children today) are taught about
the non-existence of Santa Claus AND the existence of death camps at what you
consider an early age.  In what way is that ambiguous?  Look up "non sequitur".

>>> Again, no
>>> concrete information, just vague generalizations.  You also knew other 'real
>>> information' about the same time as 'early age'.  Huh?

>>Yes, indeed.  I think the Santa Claus example and the death camp example
>>(both of which were YOURS) are quite concrete.  After all, they came from
>>your mind, which is set in cement, as you said... :-?

> Your missing the point.  Not surprising.

You're not making a point.  Not surprising at all.  What IS your point?
In what way are we talking about "vague generalizations" when specific
examples were offered?  What kind of nonsense are you trying to pull?

>>> It's perhaps true that to some kids who insist on having a mind of their own
>>> and feel 'all grown up' and ready to make important decisions before they
>>> even know how to properly use toilet paper, it would be nearly imposible to
>>> make a good parent.

>>What a horrible thing, insisting on having a mind of their own rather than
>>listening to you.  God, I hope you never become a parent, and if you already
>>are I'm tempted to get religion just to pray for your kids.

> Everyone needs prayers.  Thanks.

Not believing in a god, I sure don't.  But it makes me wish that there were
a just god of some sort to take care of your kids in light of what you might
be doing to them.  You, my friend, seem to be beyond both hope and prayer,
set in cement as you are.

>>> I believe from what I've observed of your postings that you fit the above
>>> description (mild flame intended).

>>The description of insisting on having a mind of my own?  Why, thank you!
>>(I know how to use toilet paper, so I guess I don't fit in to the other
>>criteria for the category.  At what age do YOU deem a child capable of using
>>toilet paper, anyways?)

> Ah, analogies, fruit for some, poision for others.

Ah, answers.  Substantial from some, non-existent from others.

>>>>> To blazes with the petty concern of parents wishing
>>>>> to buffer their children from the horrors of the real world till their old
>>>>> enough to understand.

>>>>Hear, hear!  (Oh, you meant this sarcastically?)  I think your version of
>>>>"old enough to understand" is roughly equivalent to "too late to understand"
>>>>Would you delay sex education the same way?  Is puberty "old enough"?
>>>>No?  Guess what?  You're already five or six years too late!!!

>>>Again putting words in other people's mouths.  Do your own words and
>>>thoughts escape you?  Are you asking me something or telling me something?

>>I'll ask you what's "old enough to understand".  (In fact, I did!!!)  And I'll
>>ask what information they would get other than "don't do it" from the likes
>>of you.  (I did that too.)  Putting words in other people's mouths?  Or
>>trying to pull teeth to get information?

> You seem to have this black and white image of the world.  At such and such an
> age, I'll take the baby doll from my little girl, and tell her all about sex.
> Substituting dildos for baby dolls would be disasterous.

You really are a sick puppy, my friend.  *I* have the "black and white image"?
You are the one who says teaching your kids about sex is equivalent to
"substituting dildos for baby dolls".  If you don't feel the need to offer
any information to her about the truth, she may well be substituting real
babies for baby dolls before you know it.  Because of your failure to give
her the information.

> I would start telling her things from the moment she was born.  She would have
> continual guidance in all important areas.  I would try to maintain a good 
> example, I would not leave the garage dirty and tell her to clean her room for
> example.  There would be a continual increase of knowledge of the real world
> in such doses that she would be capable of digesting it.  No meat before milk.
> By the time of puberty or when ever she deemed it time to make decisions, I 
> would expect her decisions to be grounded in wisdom and knowledge.  But what
> is important here is that they would be her decisions, not some punk rock
> groups advocating kinky sex, violence, drugs and so forth.  Not some Hugh
> Hefner type who could easily steal her principles that had been instilled in
> her since birth.  

And, hopefully, not her parents' biased standards either.  (Punk rock groups
advocating kinky sex?  I have to wonder what your definition of kinky is,
and whether this means you would restrict listening of anything you just happen
not to like.  Nice to see you looked up the words "punk rock" to replace "acid
rock".  You'll make a real "hep" parent.  :-)

>>>>The erosion of the family isn't coming from outside, it's coming from
>>>>within:  from parents who fail to take responsibility for the proper
>>>>raising of their children to think for themselves and become adults,
>>>>by being so strict as to restrict independent thought processes, making
>>>>them dependent on sticking to established conventions rather than seeking
>>>>their own way.  By sheltering their children from the real world because
>>>>they think it's best for them, only to find that the kids can't cope once
>>>>they get out there with real people (and real influences, bad and good).
>>>>By leaving a television set in charge of the kids as their babysitters,
>>>>and then wondering where they got all these strange ideas from.

>>> Perhaps you're living proof.  But I seriously doubt that your situation can
>>> be representative of the institution of parenting.

>>That's funny, I had a pretty solid family life.  Are you simply trying to
>>slander anyone who disagrees with you, Ray, or do you have something to say?
>>... ... ... I thought not.

> Answering your own questions perhaps reflects your fear of the real answers.

Since you haven't offered any answers, I apparently have nothing to fear.

> But seriously, I can't agree with you more that a lot parents are destroying
> the lives of their children.  And society will untimately take the brunt of
> the errors of parents.  What we are seeing in parents could get worse or
> better.  If it gets worse, then more misfits are dumped into the stream of
> society, which in turn, turn out more misfits and so on.   But may I be so
> bold in stating that I believe that good parents hold the edge over not so
> good parents in numbers.

Yet you seem to be living proof AGAINST this...  Of course, you have a very
different definition of "good".

> And while I believe this is true, then I must also
> hold to my beliefs that the main responsiblity of raising children must
> remain in the hands of the parents, not schools, or any other outside
> organization.  And I will attempt to defeat anything that trys to undermine
> the authority of the parents or to destroy the family unit of America.

(Someone play the Stars and Stripes Forever and wave the flag.)  You have
a built-in contradiction there.  It is precisely miserable parents like you
would apparently be who are in fact willfully destroying the "family unit"
of America.
-- 
Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus.
						Rich Rosen   pyuxd!rlr

pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) (08/30/85)

You ask if PP does discuss absinence as a method of
birth control -- the one I went to did discuss it
along with a host of others. (Suprise!)
				P.M.Pincha-Wagener

pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) (08/30/85)

In article <11210@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes:
>> 
>You seem to have this black and white image of the world.  At such and such an
>age, I'll take the baby doll from my little girl, and tell her all about sex.
>Substituting dildos for baby dolls would be disasterous.
>I would start telling her things from the moment she was born.  She would have
>continual guidance in all important areas.  I would try to maintain a good 
>example, I would not leave the garage dirty and tell her to clean her room for
>example.  There would be a continual increase of knowledge of the real world in
>such doses that she would be capable of digesting it.  No meat before milk.
>By the time of puberty or when ever she deemed it time to make decisions, I 
>would expect her decisions to be grounded in wisdom and knowledge.  But what
>is important here is that they would be her decisions, not some punk rock groupsadvocating kinky sex, violence, drugs and so forth.  Not some Hugh Hefner type
>who could easily steal her principles that had been instilled in her since 
>birth.  

Sigh.
Again we get back to "how dare my child get information from the outside
world against my wishes" argument.
First off, let us remember we are dealing with the real world. In the
real world, NOT ALL PARENTS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING! It's not
necessarily all their fault. What is true is that they exit.  A result
of this is that there are a large portion of kids with little or no
guidence,or trust,in their parents. These kids need somewhere to find
information. Planned parenthood had as one of its tennants to provide
such info -- info from a NON-THREATENING SOURCE! LOTS of parents will
not OR cannot provide any information on sex,birth control,pregnancy
or such. PPclinics provide this in addition to possibly performing 
abortions.

No one stated you family was such a case , or could be. The 
suggestions were that you put yourself in the place of such a
person and see thing from that viewpoint.

(Sorry.I had more to say,but have to go.Maybe more later.)
						P.M.Pincha-Wagener

 

ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (08/30/85)

> > Ah, I can see that from your question that you are not yet fully developed in
> > the area of intuitive reasoning.
> 
> Yes, of course.  You can tell this from the fact that I disagree with you.
> 
No, how about just disagreeable.
> 
> Not believing in a god, I sure don't.  But it makes me wish that there were
> a just god of some sort to take care of your kids in light of what you might
> be doing to them.  You, my friend, seem to be beyond both hope and prayer,
> set in cement as you are.
> 
Did your parents tell you at an 'early age' that there is no God or did you just
deduce this yourself at an 'early age'.

> 
> 
> >>I'll ask you what's "old enough to understand".  (In fact, I did!!!)  And I'll
> >>ask what information they would get other than "don't do it" from the likes
> >>of you.  (I did that too.)  Putting words in other people's mouths?  Or
> >>trying to pull teeth to get information?
> 
> Nice to see you looked up the words "punk rock" to replace "acid
> rock".  You'll make a real "hep" parent.  :-)
> 
Good of you to realize that punk rock replaced acid rock.  But unfortunately
'punk' and its like is even more decadent than its predecessor.
 
> >>>>The erosion of the family isn't coming from outside, it's coming from
> >>>>within:  from parents who fail to take responsibility for the proper
> >>>>raising of their children to think for themselves and become adults,
> >>>>by being so strict as to restrict independent thought processes, making
> >>>>them dependent on sticking to established conventions rather than seeking
> >>>>their own way.  By sheltering their children from the real world because
> >>>>they think it's best for them, only to find that the kids can't cope once
> >>>>they get out there with real people (and real influences, bad and good).
> >>>>By leaving a television set in charge of the kids as their babysitters,
> >>>>and then wondering where they got all these strange ideas from.
> 
> 
> > But seriously, I can't agree with you more that a lot parents are destroying
> > the lives of their children.  And society will untimately take the brunt of
> > the errors of parents.  What we are seeing in parents could get worse or
> > better.  If it gets worse, then more misfits are dumped into the stream of
> > society, which in turn, turn out more misfits and so on.   But may I be so
> > bold in stating that I believe that good parents hold the edge over not so
> > good parents in numbers.
> 
> > And while I believe this is true, then I must also
> > hold to my beliefs that the main responsiblity of raising children must
> > remain in the hands of the parents, not schools, or any other outside
> > organization.  And I will attempt to defeat anything that trys to undermine
> > the authority of the parents or to destroy the family unit of America.
> 
> (Someone play the Stars and Stripes Forever and wave the flag.)  You have
> a built-in contradiction there.  It is precisely miserable parents like you
> would apparently be who are in fact willfully destroying the "family unit"
> of America.

Thank you. In the remark above, you have helped my point tremendously.  
You exhibit the twisted logic that is very much evident in today's youth. 
Turn up your headphones, and learn from the 'logic' of some heavy metal (brain
damaged) rock group.  Even the albumn cover I saw with a bloodied chain saw 
being extracted from someone's groin must have some social redeeming value
when examined with the 'logic' of the illogical.
> -- 
PS.  You asked what kinky sex was,  well it's this way, normal sex is when you
rub your lover with a feather, kinky is when the chicken is still attached.
> 						Rich Rosen   pyuxd!rlr

ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/02/85)

> 
> You ask if PP does discuss absinence as a method of
> birth control -- the one I went to did discuss it
> along with a host of others. (Suprise!)
> 				P.M.Pincha-Wagener

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
PP:   So you want to have sex?

Girl: Yes.

PP:   Ever think of abstinence?

Girl: No.

PP:   Ok.  Over here we have a variety of contraceptive devices..........

No, not suprised at all.

ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/02/85)

> 
> Sigh.
> Again we get back to "how dare my child get information from the outside
> world against my wishes" argument.
> First off, let us remember we are dealing with the real world. In the
> real world, NOT ALL PARENTS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING! It's not
> necessarily all their fault. What is true is that they exit.  A result
> of this is that there are a large portion of kids with little or no
> guidence,or trust,in their parents. These kids need somewhere to find
> information. Planned parenthood had as one of its tennants to provide
> such info -- info from a NON-THREATENING SOURCE! LOTS of parents will
> not OR cannot provide any information on sex,birth control,pregnancy
> or such. PPclinics provide this in addition to possibly performing 
> abortions.
> 
> No one stated you family was such a case , or could be. The 
> suggestions were that you put yourself in the place of such a
> person and see thing from that viewpoint.
> 
> (Sorry.I had more to say,but have to go.Maybe more later.)
> 						P.M.Pincha-Wagener
> 
>  


NOT ALL PP COUNSELORS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING.  It's not necessarily all their 
fault.  What is true is that they exist.  A result of this is that there
are a large portion of kids who are misguided.

My juxtaposition.
Sound familiar?

csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (09/03/85)

In article <11314@rochester.UUCP> version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mit-vax.UUCP version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rochester.UUCP mit-vax!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!rochester!ray ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes:
>> 
>> You ask if PP does discuss absinence as a method of
>> birth control -- the one I went to did discuss it
>> along with a host of others. (Suprise!)
>> 				P.M.Pincha-Wagener
>
>*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
>PP:   So you want to have sex?
>
>Girl: Yes.
>
>PP:   Ever think of abstinence?
>
>Girl: No.
>
>PP:   Ok.  Over here we have a variety of contraceptive devices..........
>
>No, not suprised at all.

I suppose you would fix the last line:

PP: Sorry, we can't help you.

What good is that?

-- 
Charles Forsythe
CSDF@MIT-VAX
"We pray to Fred for the Hopelessly Normal
	Have they not suffered enough?"

from _The_Nth_Psalm_ in _The_Book_of_Fred_

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/03/85)

>>> I can see that from your question that you are not yet fully developed in
>>> the area of intuitive reasoning.

>>Yes, of course.  You can tell this from the fact that I disagree with you.

> No, how about just disagreeable.

Anyone who disagrees with you is disagreeable?  In your last article to
someone else, you said "Experts?  Well that rules you out?" to someone
else you disagreed with.

>>Not believing in a god, I sure don't.  But it makes me wish that there were
>>a just god of some sort to take care of your kids in light of what you might
>>be doing to them.  You, my friend, seem to be beyond both hope and prayer,
>>set in cement as you are.

> Did your parents tell you at an 'early age' that there is no God or did you
> just deduce this yourself at an 'early age'.

Given that my parents believe in God, I learned this on my own.  At what some
may consider an early age.

>>Nice to see you looked up the words "punk rock" to replace "acid
>>rock".  You'll make a real "hep" parent.  :-)

> Good of you to realize that punk rock replaced acid rock.  But unfortunately
> 'punk' and its like is even more decadent than its predecessor.
 
Care to explain that?  With examples?  And clarifications on how "decadent"
and dangerous it is?  From the man who brought us the dangers of "acid rock"?

>>> But seriously, I can't agree with you more that a lot parents are destroying
>>> the lives of their children.  And society will untimately take the brunt of
>>> the errors of parents.  What we are seeing in parents could get worse or
>>> better.  If it gets worse, then more misfits are dumped into the stream of
>>> society, which in turn, turn out more misfits and so on.   But may I be so
>>> bold in stating that I believe that good parents hold the edge over not so
>>> good parents in numbers.  And while I believe this is true, then I must also
>>> hold to my beliefs that the main responsiblity of raising children must
>>> remain in the hands of the parents, not schools, or any other outside
>>> organization.  And I will attempt to defeat anything that trys to undermine
>>> the authority of the parents or to destroy the family unit of America.

>>(Someone play the Stars and Stripes Forever and wave the flag.)  You have
>>a built-in contradiction there.  It is precisely miserable parents like you
>>would apparently be who are in fact willfully destroying the "family unit"
>>of America.

> Thank you. In the remark above, you have helped my point tremendously.  
> You exhibit the twisted logic that is very much evident in today's youth. 
> Turn up your headphones, and learn from the 'logic' of some heavy metal (brain
> damaged) rock group.  Even the albumn cover I saw with a bloodied chain saw 
> being extracted from someone's groin must have some social redeeming value
> when examined with the 'logic' of the illogical.

I have "helped your point"?  Why not tell us what is twisted about my logic?
(I'll tell you why not:  inability.)  So now you've also picked up the term
"heavy metal".  Bra-vo!  Doing research!  Watching MTV?  Which album was this,
I'd like to get a copy, after all, people buy albums based on their attraction
to the album cover, not the music inside...

> PS.  You asked what kinky sex was,  well it's this way, normal sex is when
> you rub your lover with a feather, kinky is when the chicken is still
> attached.

Whew!  I'm so relieved.  By Ray's standards, my sex life does not qualify as
kinky.  (Actually I was kind of hoping that it would.)
-- 
Life is complex.  It has real and imaginary parts.
					Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr

tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/04/85)

> > [Pam Pincha-Wagener - Responding to Ray Frank]
> > Sigh.
> > Again we get back to "how dare my child get information from the outside
> > world against my wishes" argument.
> > First off, let us remember we are dealing with the real world. In the
> > real world, NOT ALL PARENTS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING! It's not
> > necessarily all their fault. What is true is that they exit.  A result
> > of this is that there are a large portion of kids with little or no
> > guidence,or trust,in their parents. These kids need somewhere to find
> > information. Planned parenthood had as one of its tennants to provide
							^tenets
> > such info -- info from a NON-THREATENING SOURCE! LOTS of parents will
> > not OR cannot provide any information on sex,birth control,pregnancy
> > or such. PPclinics provide this in addition to possibly performing 
> > abortions.
> > 
> > No one stated you family was such a case , or could be. The 
> > suggestions were that you put yourself in the place of such a
> > person and see thing from that viewpoint.
--------
> [Ray Frank]
> NOT ALL PP COUNSELORS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING.  It's not necessarily all their 
> fault.  What is true is that they exist.  A result of this is that there
> are a large portion of kids who are misguided.
> 
> My juxtaposition.
> Sound familiar?
-------
No.  What are you trying to say, Ray?  All kids (except orphans) have
parents.  Only a very small fraction ever talk to PP, and then only for a short
time.  Even if I thought teen-aged use of contraceptives was wrong, I would
still be far off the mark blaming PP for all of this.
 So Ray, you have taken Pam's words, (accurate ones, in my opinion), and
by "clever" (to an eight year old, maybe) word substitution, have come up
with nonsense, thereby in your own mind discrediting Pam's arguments.

Please forgive a slight digression---
 Also, I am tired of hearing you blame "acid | punk | whatever" rock for
whatever it is you don't like.  I can't stand the music either, but the
only teen-age problem it is primarily responsible for is DEAFNESS.
-- 
Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan

michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) (09/05/85)

[Chomp, chew, munch!]  

> > Sigh.
> > Again we get back to "how dare my child get information from the outside
> > world against my wishes" argument.
> > First off, let us remember we are dealing with the real world. In the
> > real world, NOT ALL PARENTS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING! It's not
> > necessarily all their fault. What is true is that they exit.  A result
> > of this is that there are a large portion of kids with little or no
> > guidence,or trust,in their parents. These kids need somewhere to find
> > information. Planned parenthood had as one of its tennants to provide
> > such info -- info from a NON-THREATENING SOURCE! LOTS of parents will
> > not OR cannot provide any information on sex,birth control,pregnancy
> > or such. PPclinics provide this in addition to possibly performing 
> > abortions.
> > 
> > No one stated you family was such a case , or could be. The 
> > suggestions were that you put yourself in the place of such a
> > person and see thing from that viewpoint.
> > 
> > (Sorry.I had more to say,but have to go.Maybe more later.)
> > 						P.M.Pincha-Wagener
> 
> NOT ALL PP COUNSELORS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING.  It's not necessarily
> all their fault.  What is true is that they exist.  A result of this
> is that there are a large portion of kids who are misguided.
> 
> My juxtaposition.
> Sound familiar?  [FRANK RAY]

I don't believe anyone in this group is arguing that *parents*
should not exist, misguided though many are, or that they should
not exert influence on their children.  Why then should Planned
Parenthood not exist, even if imperfect?  Since many parents *are*
misguided, why shouldn't there exist other sources of information,
admittedly also imperfect, to compensate?  No one can provide
perfect advice, but given a spectrum of ideas, kids *can* choose.  

----------------
Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation
(415) 960-9367
..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm

ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/05/85)

> 
> >>Nice to see you looked up the words "punk rock" to replace "acid
> >>rock".  You'll make a real "hep" parent.  :-)
> 
> > Good of you to realize that punk rock replaced acid rock.  But unfortunately
> > 'punk' and its like is even more decadent than its predecessor.
>  
> Care to explain that?  With examples?  And clarifications on how "decadent"
> and dangerous it is?  From the man who brought us the dangers of "acid rock"?
> 
Helter Skelter inspired Manson.  The night stalker in L.A. said he got his ideas
from a popular rock group.  Ten youths in Texas last year copied Ozzie by bitinginto dead bats they found on their way home from school, they all had to recieve
rabie treatments.  Satanic cults have been on the increase due to cult worship
music.  What young people must realize is this; these satanic, distorted, 
geeks, are playing for keeps.  They believe what they sing about, or rather
preach about in what they call music.  They ARE praticing what they advocate,
i.e. drugs, violence, sex, santanic cult worship.  I'm afraid the youth
following these groups believe they are watching just some actors performing
and at the end of the performance they become 'real, everyday, normal' people.
According to interviews done with heavy metal and their like in Rolling
Stone, they are crazy like that 24 hours a day.  These geek rock groups are
playing for real, they are not acting.  When have you ever heard a geek group
say at the end of their performance; 'Listen kids, this was just an act, don't
ever try this at home, you know, biting heads off bats, and we don't really
mean you should turn on with drugs, sex, and violence as our lyrics advocate.
We are normal, we have kids of our own whom we love and don't want them doing
these things we sing about.  And by the way kids, we don't really believe that
God is bad and satan is good.  And finally kids, those animals we tossed around
on stage, those are trained kittens and puppys, we didn't really hurt them.'
You will hear the above about as often as you would have heard Hitler apoligize
to the Jews.  
 

> > Turn up your headphones, and learn from the 'logic' of some heavy metal (brain
> > damaged) rock group.  Even the albumn cover I saw with a bloodied chain saw 
> > being extracted from someone's groin must have some social redeeming value
> > when examined with the 'logic' of the illogical.
> 
> I have "helped your point"?  Why not tell us what is twisted about my logic?
> (I'll tell you why not:  inability.)  So now you've also picked up the term
> "heavy metal".  Bra-vo!  Doing research!  Watching MTV?  Which album was this,
> I'd like to get a copy, after all, people buy albums based on their attraction
> to the album cover, not the music inside...
> 
Again, you've helped my point along.  These youth are purchasing the albums
based on some picture depicting the theme of the 'music', but not on the merit
of the group as musical entertainers.  I don't know what age you are Rich, but 
if you are still buying albums based on the covers, then you've been success-
fully indoctrinated by these geek groups.   

garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (09/05/85)

> You ask if PP does discuss absinence as a method of
> birth control -- the one I went to did discuss it
> along with a host of others. (Suprise!)
> 				P.M.Pincha-Wagener

I'm glad to hear that; could you be a little more specific?

Gary Samuelson
ittatc!bunker!garys

vch@rruxo.UUCP (Kerro Panille) (09/05/85)

>> You ask if PP does discuss absinence as a method of
>> birth control -- the one I went to did discuss it
>> along with a host of others. (Suprise!)
>> 				P.M.Pincha-Wagener
>PP:   So you want to have sex?
>Girl: Yes.
>PP:   Ever think of abstinence?
>Girl: No.
>PP:   Ok.  Over here we have a variety of contraceptive devices..........
>No, not suprised at all.

Well, What do you expect?? The "Girl" wants to have sex! PP isn't there to
talk you out of it. They are there to help any way they can. They don't
force anyone into anything, all they do is suggest what they think will help.

-- 
Vince Hatem          	               ----------------		           A
Bell Communications Research           | UZI          |----------|_ _ _\/  T
Raritan River Software Systems Center  |              |----------|     /\  &
444 Hoes Lane                          ----------------  ROGER GUTS 	   T 
4D-360                                   /     /\  DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' 
Piscataway, NJ 08854                    /     /          TIES
(201) 699-4869                         /-----/
...ihnp4!rruxo!vch
   TRUE GRIT MYSTERIES - The detective series for those who NEVER eat quiche!
         (WARNING - MAY BE EMOTIONALLY DISTURBING TO HAMSTER LOVERS)

ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/06/85)

> I don't believe anyone in this group is arguing that *parents*
> should not exist, misguided though many are, or that they should
> not exert influence on their children.  Why then should Planned
> Parenthood not exist, even if imperfect?  Since many parents *are*
> misguided, why shouldn't there exist other sources of information,
> admittedly also imperfect, to compensate?  No one can provide
> perfect advice, but given a spectrum of ideas, kids *can* choose.  
> 
> ----------------
> Michael McNeil
> 3Com Corporation
> (415) 960-9367
> ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
Since you seem to believe that many parents are misguided, does that mean
that PP counselors are single people, because if they are parents themselves,
then they must fall into your clasification of parents who are misguiding kids.
Or, perhaps you mean that PP counselors who are themselves parents are the
cream of the crop of parents and are not full of the same misgivings as
'ordinary' parents.

Also, how can a misguided kid be compensated by more misguided information?

One more thing, I wish you would not over simplify PP's position with respect
to their dealings with kids, in addition to guided and misguided info, they
also cut babies out of kids bellies, after the birth control methods they
provided failed.

ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/06/85)

> > [Ray Frank]
> > NOT ALL PP COUNSELORS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING.  It's not necessarily all their 
> > fault.  What is true is that they exist.  A result of this is that there
> > are a large portion of kids who are misguided.
> > 
> -------
> No.  What are you trying to say, Ray?  All kids (except orphans) have
> parents.  Only a very small fraction ever talk to PP, and then only for a short
When I said 'a large portion of kids', I was refering to those kids who are
visiting PP, not kids at large. 
> 
> Please forgive a slight digression---
>  Also, I am tired of hearing you blame "acid | punk | whatever" rock for
> whatever it is you don't like.  I can't stand the music either, but the
> only teen-age problem it is primarily responsible for is DEAFNESS.
> -- 
> Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
HUH!  What makes you an authority on the effects of decadent music on youths.
Please give examples of how it is not adversely affecting our youth.
It is as though you were saying we don't need ratings on movies because
movies don't affect anyone, except in the cases of failing vision.

pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) (09/06/85)

In article <748@mit-vax.UUCP> csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) writes:
>In article <11314@rochester.UUCP> version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mit-vax.UUCP version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rochester.UUCP mit-vax!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!rochester!ray ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes:
>>> 
>>> You ask if PP does discuss absinence as a method of
>>> birth control -- the one I went to did discuss it
>>> along with a host of others. (Suprise!)
>>> 				P.M.Pincha-Wagener
>>
>>PP:   So you want to have sex?
>>Girl: Yes.
>>PP:   Ever think of abstinence?
>>Girl: No.
>>PP:   Ok.  Over here we have a variety of contraceptive devices..........
>>No, not suprised at all.
>I suppose you would fix the last line:
>PP: Sorry, we can't help you.
>What good is that?
>-- 
Sigh.
I think that that was a very simplistic idea of a counciling
session. (Granted I was well out of adolescence when I went...)
What I remember was that sex was not to be taken lightly and
that abstinence was a better alternative to "jumping into
bed" with any guy, in that the complications of getting pregnant
and the hassles of the birth control methods could be avoided.
The atmosphere was one oriented towards taking responsibility
for ones own actions, and that they were there to provide
help and counciling in a NON-THEATENING OR PATRONIZING WAY!

There was peer group counciling for the teenagers to help them
make decisions - their own decisions! There was careful avoidance
of pressure towards one thing or the other. The councilers
were there to help and give information - what one decided was
ones own choice. 

That is completely different from the example shown above. All
that that example showed was a lack of information about what 
goes on in a counciling session, or in a PP office in general.
I suggest you go to one and find out. (Just remember that one
has to have an open mind, else one will see only what one
wants to see.)

				P.M.Pincha-Wagener
-----------------------------------------------------------

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/07/85)

>>>>Nice to see you looked up the words "punk rock" to replace "acid
>>>>rock".  You'll make a real "hep" parent.  :-)

>>> Good of you to realize that punk rock replaced acid rock.  But unfortunately
>>> 'punk' and its like is even more decadent than its predecessor.

>>Care to explain that?  With examples?  And clarifications on how "decadent"
>>and dangerous it is?  From the man who brought us the dangers of "acid rock"?

> Helter Skelter inspired Manson.  The night stalker in L.A. said he got his
> ideas from a popular rock group.  Ten youths in Texas last year copied Ozzie
> by bitinginto dead bats they found on their way home from school, they all had
> to recieve rabie treatments.  Satanic cults have been on the increase due to
> cult worship music. ... ... ... ... ... [who else? -- RAY]

This is perhaps the most revealing item about Ray ever posted.  When asked to
describe why punk rock is more decadent than "acid rock", the examples he
gives have nothing to do with punk rock.  Helter Skelter was written by
Paul McCartney, the most saccharine musical sap of the 70s, writer of music
any yuppie "parent" would go gaga over.  What Ray has never bothered to notice
(too busy calling Ozzie Osbourne a punk rocker) is that this so-called punk
rock (none of which he has referred to) was a rebellion AGAINST the saccharine
droll boring music that once was acid rock (e.g., Jefferson Airplane) and is
now commercial schlock (Jefferson Starship).  Some things are worth rebelling
against.  But, tell that to Ray, who thinks preservation of the status quo is
the will of god.

>>> Turn up your headphones, and learn from the 'logic' of some heavy metal
>>> (brain damaged) rock group.  Even the albumn cover I saw with a bloodied
>>> chain saw being extracted from someone's groin must have some social
>>> redeeming value when examined with the 'logic' of the illogical.

>>I have "helped your point"?  Why not tell us what is twisted about my logic?
>>(I'll tell you why not:  inability.)  So now you've also picked up the term
>>"heavy metal".  Bra-vo!  Doing research!  Watching MTV?  Which album was this,
>>I'd like to get a copy, after all, people buy albums based on their attraction
>>to the album cover, not the music inside...

> Again, you've helped my point along.  These youth are purchasing the albums
> based on some picture depicting the theme of the 'music', but not on the
> merit of the group as musical entertainers.  I don't know what age you are
> Rich, but if you are still buying albums based on the covers, then you've been
> successfully indoctrinated by these geek groups.   

(Sarcasm indicators are often necessary in the most obvious of places for the
most obtuse of people.)  Note that Ray "forgot" to mention the name of the
album he claims to have seen.  Hmmm...
-- 
Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus.
						Rich Rosen   pyuxd!rlr

csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (09/08/85)

A statement such as "PP stops more teenage pregnancies with birth control than
an army of parents advocating `groin control'" can clearly be demonstrated
to be a logical conclusion: kids will always defy their parents and those that
do it "with protection" have only a slight chance of pregnancy. Simple huh?

In article <11409@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes:
>One more thing, I wish you would not over simplify PP's position with respect
>to their dealings with kids, in addition to guided and misguided info, they
>also cut babies out of kids bellies, after the birth control methods they
>provided failed.

Why are facts from pro-choicers almost always met with ad-hoc value judgements
from pro-lifers?
 
-- 
Charles Forsythe
CSDF@MIT-VAX
"We pray to Fred for the Hopelessly Normal
	Have they not suffered enough?"

from _The_Nth_Psalm_ in _The_Book_of_Fred_

csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (09/08/85)

In article <11411@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes:
>>  Also, I am tired of hearing you blame "acid | punk | whatever" rock for
>> whatever it is you don't like.  I can't stand the music either, but the
>> only teen-age problem it is primarily responsible for is DEAFNESS.
>> -- 
>> Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
>
>HUH!  What makes you an authority on the effects of decadent music on youths.

What made YOU an authority?

>Please give examples of how it is not adversely affecting our youth.

It's entertaining. It gives kids something to talk about. It's fun to dance
to. Maybe you're talking about "backward masking?" I finally got a chance to
ask the world's leading linguist, Noam Chomsky, if "backward masking" actually
worked. He just laughed. 

In the late 50's, a lot of Klan-types tried to assert that rock music was a
Negro plot to destroy the good White kids. Maybe you still believe that.

>It is as though you were saying we don't need ratings on movies because
>movies don't affect anyone, except in the cases of failing vision.

Ratings are seldom enforced except in the case of "X" and "XXX".

The suggestion of a "Music Ratings" system has been laughed out of the FCC
a dozen times by now.

Get a clue, Ray.

-- 
Charles Forsythe
CSDF@MIT-VAX
"We pray to Fred for the Hopelessly Normal
	Have they not suffered enough?"

from _The_Nth_Psalm_ in _The_Book_of_Fred_

john@gcc-bill.ARPA (John Allred) (09/09/85)

In article <11411@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes:


>>  Also, I am tired of hearing you blame "acid | punk | whatever" rock for
>> whatever it is you don't like.  I can't stand the music either, but the
>> only teen-age problem it is primarily responsible for is DEAFNESS.
>> -- 
>> Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
>
>*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
>HUH!  What makes you an authority on the effects of decadent music on youths.
>Please give examples of how it is not adversely affecting our youth.

Sorry, Mr. Frank.  YOU asserted that various "evil" rock music is "corrupting"
our youth.  The burden of proof is on you.


-- 
John Allred
General Computer Company 
uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!john

ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/09/85)

> In the late 50's, a lot of Klan-types tried to assert that rock music was a
> Negro plot to destroy the good White kids. Maybe you still believe that.
> 
No I don't believe that, I never even heard that theme before, sounds like
maybe you're the only one who did hear it.  By the way Charlie, Elvis was 
white.

> >It is as though you were saying we don't need ratings on movies because
> >movies don't affect anyone, except in the cases of failing vision.
> 
> Ratings are seldom enforced except in the case of "X" and "XXX".
> 
Well, again, what are you saying, that we don't need ratings on movies?  This 
time, please don't answer the question with a non-answer.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Charles Forsythe

tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/10/85)

> > Please forgive a slight digression---
> >  Also, I am tired of hearing you blame "acid | punk | whatever" rock for
> > whatever it is you don't like.  I can't stand the music either, but the
> > only teen-age problem it is primarily responsible for is DEAFNESS.
> > -- 
> > Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
> 
> [Ray Frank]
> HUH!  What makes you an authority on the effects of decadent music on youths.
> Please give examples of how it is not adversely affecting our youth.
> It is as though you were saying we don't need ratings on movies because
> movies don't affect anyone, except in the cases of failing vision.
-----
I'm sorry, Ray.  I forgot that you are the ultimate expert on rock music,
planned parenthood, secular humanism, evolution, God, man, life, and death.
I will never again state an opinion on anything without getting a certificate
of expertise from you.
By the way, I contend that teen-age suicide and delinquency stems from
eating french fried potatoes.  Every delinquent and moral degenerate
has eaten them.  Please give examples of how they do not adversely
affect our youth.
-- 
Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan

vch@rruxo.UUCP (Kerro Panille) (09/11/85)

>> Michael McNeil
>> 3Com Corporation
>> (415) 960-9367
>> ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
>
>*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
>Since you seem to believe that many parents are misguided, does that mean
>that PP counselors are single people, because if they are parents themselves,
>then they must fall into your clasification of parents who are misguiding kids.
>Or, perhaps you mean that PP counselors who are themselves parents are the
>cream of the crop of parents and are not full of the same misgivings as
>'ordinary' parents.

You missed the point - PP counselors are TRAINED PROFESSIONALS. They ARE 
better than normal, untrained parents.

-- 
Vince Hatem          	               ----------------		           A
Bell Communications Research           | UZI          |----------|_ _ _\/  T
Raritan River Software Systems Center  |              |----------|     /\  &
444 Hoes Lane                          ----------------  ROGER GUTS 	   T 
4D-360                                   /     /\  DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' 
Piscataway, NJ 08854                    /     /          TIES
(201) 699-4869                         /-----/
...ihnp4!rruxo!vch
   TRUE GRIT MYSTERIES - The detective series for those who NEVER eat quiche!
         (WARNING - MAY BE EMOTIONALLY DISTURBING TO HAMSTER LOVERS)

csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (09/11/85)

In article <11483@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes:
>By the way Charlie, Elvis was white.

Honest?

>> Ratings are seldom enforced except in the case of "X" and "XXX".
>> 
>Well, again, what are you saying, that we don't need ratings on movies?  This 
>time, please don't answer the question with a non-answer.

Maybe we do, maybe we don't. If it makes you feel better to have ratings, I
don't see why we shouldn't.

I hope it doesn't bother you that they are, in general, ignored.

Sorry, Ray.

-- 
Charles Forsythe
CSDF@MIT-VAX
"We pray to Fred for the Hopelessly Normal
	Have they not suffered enough?"

from _The_Nth_Psalm_ in _The_Book_of_Fred_

goodrum@unc.UUCP (Cloyd Goodrum) (09/11/85)

	Rich & Ray are havin' it out:

>>>>>Nice to see you looked up the words "punk rock" to replace "acid
>>>>>rock".  You'll make a real "hep" parent.  :-)
>
>>>> Good of you to realize that punk rock replaced acid rock.  But unfortunately
>>>> 'punk' and its like is even more decadent than its predecessor.
>
>>>Care to explain that?  With examples?  And clarifications on how "decadent"
>>>and dangerous it is?  From the man who brought us the dangers of "acid rock"?
>
>> Helter Skelter inspired Manson.  The night stalker in L.A. said he got his
>> ......
And so forth.

	Guys,guys,guys. This is an interesting topic, well worth all the
attention you are giving it, but WHAT DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH ABORTION???

						Cloyd Goodrum III

tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/11/85)

> 
> > [Charles Forsythe]
> > In the late 50's, a lot of Klan-types tried to assert that rock music was a
> > Negro plot to destroy the good White kids. Maybe you still believe that.
> > 
-----
> [Ray Frank]
> No I don't believe that, I never even heard that theme before, sounds like
> maybe you're the only one who did hear it.  By the way Charlie, Elvis was 
> white.
--
Sorry to tell you, Ray, Mr. Forsythe is right.  I am old enough to remember
the 50's first hand.  A lot of White Citizen Council types said exactly
that.  Of course, if you, the ultimate authority on everyting, don't
remember it, it didn't happen.  Elvis's skin color is irrelevent.
-- 
Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/12/85)

>>> In the late 50's, a lot of Klan-types tried to assert that rock music was a
>>> Negro plot to destroy the good White kids. Maybe you still believe that.
>>> [Charles Forsythe]

>>No I don't believe that, I never even heard that theme before, sounds like
>>maybe you're the only one who did hear it.  By the way Charlie, Elvis was 
>>white.  [Ray Frank]

> Sorry to tell you, Ray, Mr. Forsythe is right.  I am old enough to remember
> the 50's first hand.  A lot of White Citizen Council types said exactly
> that.  Of course, if you, the ultimate authority on everyting, don't
> remember it, it didn't happen.  Elvis's skin color is irrelevent. [TANENBAUM]

Well, it is relevant in a roundabout sort of way.  When Elvis' music was first
breaking, Colonel Tom Parker (his manager) had to physically take him around
to many radio stations, because they were convinced he was black, and they
wouldn't play "black music" (or "race music", as it was called).  I think we've
seen enough examples of Ray's illiteracy when it comes to the issues (in
net.religion, he claimed that the USA was founded as a Christian country and
that we should "return" to that).  What scares me is not that he is a standout
crackpot.  What scares me is that I fear he is typical.  Isn't Marcel Simon
having it out with someone else in this newsgroup who claims "sex outside
marriage is wrong regardless of religion, because ... uh ..."?  This is what
is scary.  This sort of "thinking" is the status quo.
-- 
Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
-- 
"iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!"
	Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr

ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/12/85)

> >> Michael McNeil
> >> 3Com Corporation
> >> (415) 960-9367
> >> ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
> >
> 
> You missed the point - PP counselors are TRAINED PROFESSIONALS. They ARE 
> better than normal, untrained parents.
> 
> -- 
TRAINED PROFESSIONAL what?  Do they hold degress in child psychology?  I doubt
it.  Who counsels the counselors?  What does this crash course in counseling
consist of, most likely spoon fed predjudices biased toward PP's views?

ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/13/85)

> 
> Well, it is relevant in a roundabout sort of way.  When Elvis' music was first
> breaking, Colonel Tom Parker (his manager) had to physically take him around
> to many radio stations, because they were convinced he was black, and they
> wouldn't play "black music" (or "race music", as it was called).  I think we've
> seen enough examples of Ray's illiteracy when it comes to the issues (in
> net.religion, he claimed that the USA was founded as a Christian country and
> that we should "return" to that).  What scares me is not that he is a standout
> crackpot.  What scares me is that I fear he is typical.  Isn't Marcel Simon
> having it out with someone else in this newsgroup who claims "sex outside
> marriage is wrong regardless of religion, because ... uh ..."?  This is what
> is scary.  This sort of "thinking" is the status quo.
> -- 
> Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
> -- 
> "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!"
> 	Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
You've stated a contradiction here.  How can I be a standout crackpot if as you
say I am typical?  Typical in terms of representing the nation's people as a 
whole?  If I am the status quo, then it is you and your cronies such as the
likes of Charlie and Richie that stand out.  As usual, the central topic
has been avoided and side issues focused upon.  

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/16/85)

>>I think we've
>>seen enough examples of Ray's illiteracy when it comes to the issues (in
>>net.religion, he claimed that the USA was founded as a Christian country and
>>that we should "return" to that).  What scares me is not that he is a standout
>>crackpot.  What scares me is that I fear he is typical.  Isn't Marcel Simon
>>having it out with someone else in this newsgroup who claims "sex outside
>>marriage is wrong regardless of religion, because ... uh ..."?  This is what
>>is scary.  This sort of "thinking" is the status quo. [ROSEN]

> You've stated a contradiction here.  How can I be a standout crackpot if as
> you say I am typical? [RAY]

Are you out to prove me right?  I said rather clearly that what scares me is
NOT your being a standout crackpot, but rather your being quite typical. And
you later said that you knew this, so whom are you kidding?  I'm beginning
to think that perhaps you are just trying to make people who who hold positions
such as the ones you have described look foolish.  Don't bother.  It's easy
enough to show the flaws in such beliefs without lampooning them.

> Typical in terms of representing the nation's people as a whole?  If I am the
> status quo, then it is you and your cronies such as the likes of Charlie and
> Richie that stand out.

(Charlie?  Richie?)  Status quo's have been wrong before.  And they will
continue to be wrong in the future.  It is blind acceptance that the status
quo is "right" that destroys civilizations in the long run.

> As usual, the central topic has been avoided and side issues focused upon.  

Of course.  We WERE talking about an article of yours, weren't we?  When
was the last time an article of yours came anywhere near discussing abortion
at all?
-- 
"to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day
 to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human
 being can fight and never stop fighting."  - e. e. cummings
	Rich Rosen	ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr

tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/17/85)

> > 
> > Well, it is relevant in a roundabout sort of way.  When Elvis' music was first
> > breaking, Colonel Tom Parker (his manager) had to physically take him around
> > to many radio stations, because they were convinced he was black, and they
> > wouldn't play "black music" (or "race music", as it was called).  I think we've
> > seen enough examples of Ray's illiteracy when it comes to the issues (in
> > net.religion, he claimed that the USA was founded as a Christian country and
> > that we should "return" to that).  What scares me is not that he is a standout
> > crackpot.  What scares me is that I fear he is typical.  Isn't Marcel Simon
> > having it out with someone else in this newsgroup who claims "sex outside
> > marriage is wrong regardless of religion, because ... uh ..."?  This is what
> > is scary.  This sort of "thinking" is the status quo.
> > -- 
(THE ABOVE REMARKS ARE FROM Rich Rosen, NOT FROM ME!!!! [Bill T.])
> >Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
> > -- 
> > "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!"
> > 	Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
------
[Ray Frank]
> You've stated a contradiction here.  How can I be a standout crackpot if as you
> say I am typical?  Typical in terms of representing the nation's people as a 
> whole?  If I am the status quo, then it is you and your cronies such as the
> likes of Charlie and Richie that stand out.  As usual, the central topic
> has been avoided and side issues focused upon.  
----
Ray,
 Please do not put my name on Rich Rosen's postings.  You replied to a Rich
Rosen posting calling you a crackpot, and edited the posting to put my name
at the bottom instead of Rich's.   I did not call you a crackpot, he did.
See, you are not infallible.  You can make honest mistakes.  Will you finally
admit it, and apologise to me for insulting me for remarks that someone
else made.
-- 
Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan

ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/24/85)

> ----
> Ray,
>  Please do not put my name on Rich Rosen's postings.  You replied to a Rich
> Rosen posting calling you a crackpot, and edited the posting to put my name
> at the bottom instead of Rich's.   I did not call you a crackpot, he did.
> See, you are not infallible.  You can make honest mistakes.  Will you finally
> admit it, and apologise to me for insulting me for remarks that someone
> else made.
> -- 
> Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***

I apologise Bill, it was an honest mistake.  I will try to be more careful
in the future.