Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site rabbit.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!alice!rabbit!jj From: jj@rabbit.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: The Draft, suicidal arguments, Alan, and misplaced trust. Message-ID: <1826@rabbit.UUCP> Date: Sat, 20-Aug-83 18:08:02 EDT Article-I.D.: rabbit.1826 Posted: Sat Aug 20 18:08:02 1983 Date-Received: Sun, 21-Aug-83 02:38:56 EDT References: <1824@rabbit.UUCP>, <1767@allegra.UUCP> Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill Lines: 33 Well, I wasn't the one proposing the non-viable alternative, you were. Furthermore, I wasn't the one complaining, you were. I suggest that until you learn the difference between Reagan and Watt, and Andropov and Kohmeni you stop suggesting suicide. While it's satisfying to rail at the national leaders, it doesn't do any good if you kill the nation in the process, and it REALLY doesn't do any good when you use emotionally loaded and indeterminate terms like "not playing with a full deck" which I take in your case to mean that you don't agree with them. I also think it's a bit arrogant to assume that anyone who doesn't do what you want isn't playing with a full deck, but that's another argument that I don't plan on restarting. While suicide may be a viable alternative for one person (I'll concede the point, but I don't necessarily agree), it's not (by its very definition) a policy that you can enforce on others. Then it's called homicide, and THAT'S not OK. I notice that you are afraid of Reagan and Watt, and that you feel completely free to say so. I suggest that you consider what you would think about Andorpov and/or Kohmeni if you lived in the appropriate place, and how free you would feel to criticize them. Perhaps Reagan and Watt aren't so bad after all? rabbit!jj O bean a ti cen busirt sin ort?