Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!donald
From: donald@utcsrgv.UUCP (Don Chan)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Flame on people who can't read
Message-ID: <1819@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Jul-83 11:20:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.1819
Posted: Fri Jul 22 11:20:35 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Jul-83 14:25:13 EDT
Organization: CSRG, University of Toronto
Lines: 32
<>
Apparently people who subscribe to net.religion don't read what is actually
posted; they just flame at random. A while ago I posted an article entitled
"Abortion: a plea for reason". After a short absence I read in the backlog
of followups an article from Ken Cochran (hou5d!kwmc), which is quoted in part:
On the subject of abortion it was said in one article that
"People who argue vehemently against abortion seem to have already made up
their minds" ... and that only people who had had abortions were qualified
to speak on the subject.
RUBBISH ! ..... do I need to kill someone before I can argue that murder
is wrong. Also is it not possible that people who have had abortions are
more interested in justifying their guilty consciences than people who have
taken a responsible attitude to sexual activity ?
<>
Well, re-reading my article I'm wondering what the hell Mr. Cochran is talking
about. Nowhere did I say that "only people who had had abortions were quali-
fied to speak", nor did I even remotely imply that.
<>
Is Mr. Cochran fluent in the use of the English language at all, like, can
he read? This forum is damn hard to follow as it is. We don't need gorns
wildly misinterpreting (deliberately?) what we say.
Mr. Cochran is free to disagree with me, but at least he might have the
common courtesy to read correctly before gracing us with his dribbles of
wisdom.
Nasty when misquoted,
Don Chan