Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!psuvax!psuvm%v6m
From: psuvm%v6m@psuvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: 
Message-ID: <777@psuvm.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Mar-84 13:48:49 EST
Article-I.D.: psuvm.777
Posted: Fri Mar 30 13:48:49 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Mar-84 09:33:42 EST
Lines: 22


Look here Kenn if your baby vs 14 year old were so good and as EXPLICIT as
you seem to think that it was, then the other intelligent netters would not
have criticised the points they did nor would you have to spend multiple
postings castigating us for missing the obvious clarity and wisdom contained
therin.

Say what you mean the next time you give a CONCRETE example or problem.

Criticize not other's perceived limitations in constructing arguments or in
abstract thinking.  Your example has been rightly criticized on its content.

Your example was so constructed and gave such a fundamental ethical problem
that much ethical tradition (for want of a better term) was needed to refute it
.  See my later re-posting.

I apologize for the misplaced flame but too much sarcasm   was heaped on the
repsondees who were in disagreement.  As I said in one of my earlier postings
criticism of the arguments form while valid is not necesarily the best
method of rebuttal since I don't think the netters write multiple drafts
before submitting. I don't and from what I've seen of Kenn the Kenf he doesn't
either.