[net.abortion] Re. Anti-abortion for men only?

arndt@lymph.DEC (08/28/84)

To the two Pauls (Dubuc/Dubois - are you guys a team?)

Here here.  But don't expect any cogent response to your points.  The
only response, if any, you'll get is the standard knee jerk mush you
were questioning in the first place played right back at you.   The two
Ken's (Perlow/ "smurf-shredder"Montgomery - they ARE a matched pair)
can only think in slogans.  But there is still hope for them.  Perhaps
sometime soon they'll get mugged by an idea.

I mean, how dumb can you get to say that unless you have or can experience
something you have no right to a judgement on the issue!  Ans.: as dumb as
the two Kens!  (By now he's about to become a lymph-shredder - how clever,
I should move to a node named cheeze)

I mean these guys spray forth on every subject under the sun!  But Perlow was
a psyh major so perhaps that helps explain him.  I wonder what expains the
other guy?  (You remember psyh majors, they were always swallowing peach pits
just to experience passing them, one at a time, then two, then . . . .  If you
asked them about it they said it had to be experienced to be understood.)

The diatribes from the left, particularly from NOW and all it's women screamers
and male hangers-on, as they raise their "brass breasted Baal" on high and
turn left out to sea because the country and women at large have rejected
them and their ideas (ERA) will become more and more shrill.  "Hell hath
no fury . . . "  The myth that they created that they represent the majority
or anything like a majority of women is now seen, even by the biased media
(who are being forced to tell the truth because of their poor image among
the public for truthfulness and so invoking the ire of advertisers) as not
true.  In fact the real "gender gap" is the one the demos have with men,
not to mention young people and dogs and cats.  (My dog should be able to
vote.  He knows who he likes and who he doesn't.  So what if he uses smell,
is that any worse than the reasons given on this net by PEOPLE who are
against Reagan?)

Well, remember there is always a place for court jesters.  But I wish that
Perlow would think up a new signiture (unless my theory about him is true).

Keep casting those pearls.

Ken Arndt

kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (08/31/84)

[]

  > lymph!arndt (formerly smurf!arndt, I presume):

  > The two
  > Ken's (Perlow/ "smurf-shredder"Montgomery - they ARE a matched pair)
  > can only think in slogans.  But there is still hope for them.  Perhaps
  > sometime soon they'll get mugged by an idea.

Hmm. Rampant personification -- being "mugged by an idea".  Will this
idea/criminal take my wallet, or just my "In Russia I couldn't wear
this button" button? :-)  Slogans are merely expressions of ideas.
(You'll tell me next that people don't think ideas? :-))

  > I mean, how dumb can you get to say that unless you have or can experience
  > something you have no right to a judgement on the issue!  Ans.: as dumb as
  > the two Kens!  (By now he's about to become a lymph-shredder - how clever,
  > I should move to a node named cheeze)

It's interesting that your only rebuttal is character assassination.
So much for ideas.

FYI, "smurf-shredder" refers to the nasty little blue cartoon characters;
not to what some wierdo :-) chose for a site name.

  > I mean these guys spray forth on every subject under the sun!  But
  > Perlow was a psych major so perhaps that helps explain him. 

Oh.

  > I wonder what expains the other guy?

Very little pains (or "expains") me more than dogmatism -- such as the hokey 
superstition that some man-written book is the Absolute Truth.

(BTW, "dogmatism", noun, 1: positiveness in assertion of opinion especially
when unwarranted or arrogant, 2: a viewpoint or system of ideas based on
insufficiently examined premises.  From \Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary/,
copyright 1979 by G. & C. Merriam Co.)

  > The diatribes from the left, particularly from NOW and all it's women
  > screamers and male hangers-on, as they raise their "brass breasted Baal"
  > on high and turn left out to sea because the country and women at large
  > have rejected them and their ideas (ERA) will become more and more shrill.

I'm a leftist?  Sure guy, and the Pope's name is George Ringo too! :-)
I advocate non-coercion; leftist positions (as we see them implemented in
the real world) typically require rampant coercion.  BTW, do you have any
support for your claim about the people at large?  And even if they do 
believe what you think they do, what right have they to coerce even one
person who disagrees with them but does not harm them?

  > Well, remember there is always a place for court jesters.

Sure.  The king is bored -- send in the fundamentalists. :-)

  > Keep casting those pearls.
  >
  > Ken Arndt

--
Continuing to take Ken Arndt and company with a large grain of ":-)",
I remain the

"Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs"
(Ken Montgomery)
...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm  [Usenet, when working]
kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA  [for Arpanauts only]

ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (08/31/84)

--
>> Ken's (Perlow/ "smurf-shredder"Montgomery - they ARE a matched pair)
>> can only think in slogans.  But there is still hope for them.  Perhaps
>> sometime soon they'll get mugged by an idea.

>> I mean, how dumb can you get to say that unless you have or can experience
>> something you have no right to a judgement on the issue!  Ans.: as dumb as
the two Kens! 

You must be referring to my questioning whether most anti-abortionists
were women.  I never jumped to the stupid conclusion you did (thence
attributing it to me).  Experience, or likelihood thereof,  will be a
factor, of course, in one's point of view on any subject.  See how easy
it is to communicate without invective?
But true, Arndt you dumb sh*t, it's not as much fun.

>> I mean these guys spray forth on every subject under the sun!  But
>> Perlow was a psyh major so perhaps that helps explain him.  I wonder
>> what expains the other guy?  (You remember psyh majors, they were
>> always swallowing peach pits just to experience passing them, one at
>> a time, then two, then . . . .  If you asked them about it they said
>> it had to be experienced to be understood.)

Perlow was a physics major, University of Michigan 1970 (honors, of
course).  But so what?  Calling me names--even "psychologist"--does not
invalidate anything I've said.  I guess name-calling is the only thing
you know how to do, Arndt (you disgrace to the name of "Ken" you).
And you're pretty good at it--I give points for exuberance.

>> Well, remember there is always a place for court jesters.  But I wish
>> that Perlow would think up a new signiture (unless my theory about him
>> is true).

>> Ken Arndt

And I wish you knew how to spell, Arndt.  I would have liked to
discuss issues of abortion, you know, when a fetus is what, but
all I got from Arndt here was bad spelling and name-calling.  Oh
well, that's par for the course from an illiterate.
-- 
                    *** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI   ***** *****
                 ****** ******    31 Aug 84 [14 Fructidor An CXCII]
ken perlow       *****   *****
(312)979-7261     ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken   *** ***