Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sdccsu3.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!kenn From: kenn@sdccsu3.UUCP Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Re: Just replying to an idle offensive comment [reply to flame] Message-ID: <1796@sdccsu3.UUCP> Date: Fri, 4-May-84 17:07:46 EDT Article-I.D.: sdccsu3.1796 Posted: Fri May 4 17:07:46 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 6-May-84 00:52:50 EDT References: <694@bbncca.ARPA>, <1786@sdccsu3.UUCP>, <19473@wivax.UUCP> Organization: Hacker's Haven, U.C. San Diego Lines: 39 [] From: ..bbncca!sdyer (Steve Dyer) Original comment: ... those who do not recognize the teaching authority of the Church. Me: How about those who are strong enough to form their own system of values, rather than accepting on blind faith a popular attitude? Steve: > This kind of mindless knee-jerk response (one is tempted to classify it as > "spinal" rather than "cortical") is typical of what I have seen from > Kenn in his earlier responses on this newsgroup. If you want to make personal attacks, stick to net.flame or send me mail. I see hiding in a no-flame newsgroup a sign of cowardice. > Please read my article again -- > it was making one point and one point only--that those who don't accept on > faith what the Church teaches aren't going to be convinced by arguments > based on said faith. I agree with that. If you'll read my subject line, you might understand what I was talking about! I agree with your article, about said faith and such. What I didn't like was the way you phrased the teachings of church, you put them as "the correct authority." I find that offense. > Instead, this guy is all ready to make an attack on organized religion and > those who choose to follow it. Defensive, aren't we? No, I'm just ready to make an attack on anyone who says that religion is the best thing for me. Your phrasing insinuates that. Kenn the Kenf ...!sdcsvax!kenn ...!sdcsvax!sdccs6!ix192 ...!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!kenn