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