turner@ucbesvax.UUCP (02/03/84)
Count one "yes" vote here for net.abortion, and idea whose time has come, gone, come, gone and arrived yet again. Those of us with deplorably knee- jerk responses to this issue (regardless of which side) would certainly welcome a separate newgroup, for two reasons: 1. If we wish to indulge, we can be subscribers. 2. If we do not wish to indulge, we can unsubscribe, and thereafter direct all abortion flamers to an appropriate existing newsgroup. Personally, I would appreciate having net.abortion around as a layer of insulation. The "no abortion flaming" taboo has had a positive regulatory effect for some (dare I say it) nine months now, but this is evidently only the gestation period for renewal of the discussion. So let's do it right this time: net.abortion on demand! --- Michael Turner (ucbesvax.turner)
bstempleton@watmath.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (02/27/84)
Yes, it is here again - the dreaded abortion topic, for the 4th or 5th time. Every time this comes up somebody suggests net.abortion, and others say it is not worth it since the discussion will wind down. It's clear now that it won't. So let's create it and have done with. Unless somebody can send me a really convincing mail message soon, I will do it. Later we can discuss if we need net.abortion.legal and net.abortion.moral so that we can discuss the two fairly seperate issues in different groups. (And don't tell me it's not unique to 13 characters. If you are still running that software, I don't care a great deal about your complaint, since it is your fault your system can't handle it and not the net's) -- Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ont. (519) 886-7304
bch@unc.UUCP (Byron Howes ) (03/01/84)
Please! Let's create net.abortion (or whatever) and put this discussion
somewhere where it can boil quietly to itself. The abortion debate (to
use a polite word) has cropped up about once every 6-9 months for the
past four years (well, as long as I have been on the net) and the same
old arguments pro and con get trotted out. I agree, there is no use
discouraging those kinds of self-indulgences that insist on bringing it
up in the face of informal network sanction. Let's create a newsgroup
so the people who insist they have something new to say about it can
get it out of their systems.
--
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"
Byron Howes
UNC - Chapel Hill
({decvax,akgua}!mcnc!unc!bch)honey@down.UUCP (code 101) (03/01/84)
professor x and i want to thank you all for providing more evidence in support of the north/honey thesis: netnews is a slow-moving parody of itself. peter honeyman
rees@apollo.uucp (Jim Rees) (03/02/84)
Yes to both net.abortion and net.creation. I really would like to subscribe to net.misc again.
mat@hou5d.UUCP (M Terribile) (03/02/84)
Perhaps it shold be net.flame.abortion? Mark Terribile
phil@amd70.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (03/02/84)
I would like to say I applaud the creation of net.abortion. We have
been patient and long suffering only to see discussions of abortion come
up again and again.
Please keep discussions of abortion in net.abortion. Thank you.
--
Phil Ngai (408) 988-7777 {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amd70!philjack@hp-dcde.UUCP (03/18/84)
re: net.abortion Wouldn't net.kids.abortion be better? -Jack Applin (hplabs!hp-dcd!jack)