Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site shark.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!shark!hutch
From: hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Hutch Re: Hutch on Tom Condon on....
Message-ID: <881@shark.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Jul-84 17:39:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: shark.881
Posted: Wed Jul 11 17:39:39 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Jul-84 03:06:53 EDT
References: <2567@harpo.UUCP>, <415@teldata.UUCP>, <876@shark.UUCP>, <422@teldata.UUCP>
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 60

<Is it getting warmer in here or is it just me?>

| The last I heard, Planned Parenthood and Family Planning agencies make
| information on birth control available *FREE* to anyone who asks, and I
| have the impression that they provide the materials at the same cost.
| Even if there is a cost involved, it can't be very great.  I (and I
| think a couple of others) just don't want to pay for other people's
| children.  It is my business when she asks me to pay for it.  Snide
| aside:  We always accuse others of what we ourselves do.  I *KNOW* that
| I have no children.  Remember the first paragraph?

Unfortunately your impressions are wrong.  Neither Family Planning nor
Planned Parenthood gives birth control materials away free.  A diaphragm
properly fitted, with spermicide, cost around 35 dollars in 1981.  This
is beyond the means of many people on Welfare.

To add insult to insult, thanks to Regressive Ronnie and Falwell the
Fanatic, most states have enacted laws requiring any such agency, or
doctor, to report to parents when a minor obtains birth control
information from them, and especially when the minor gets birth control
implements from them.

Smug rebuttal:  Maybe YOU always accuse others of what YOU do, but that
is not one of my vices.  I was a virgin until I was 25, when I got married.
I have remained faithful to my wife, and we have had no children.  So,
I am in fact making the innuendo (no direct accusation) that you might
be one of those types who spawns on the one hand and complains about the
women's lack of control on the other.

What first paragraph?

| And all that I said was wait until they had finished appealing their
| innocence or guilt before executing them.

This is NOT what you said.  You said they committed crimes without concern
for the consequences, and that they should be allowed to appeal based
ONLY on innocence or guilt, and that after failing all their appeals
they should be speedily executed.

I merely asserted that most "pathological criminals" do know what they
are doing, and do know the consequences, and don't care at the time.

| All in all, Hutch, your response reminds me of a sea shanty entitled
| "With My Eighteen Pounder".  In the song the fellow who claims to be
| soooo well endowed enumerates a series of sexual interludes in which he
| fails to take proper aim (or just doesn't have control) and never hits
| the spot, as it were.  And that is about the politest flame you will
| ever hear.

What?  Huh?  What ARE you talking about?

Oh, I see.  Attempting to increase reader interest by throwing in
some unnecessary sexual innuendo.  Tom, this is network flames, not
network television.  You won't get higher ratings for throwing in
sex (well, maybe you will but nobody is rating the flames!)

Hutch

This has been a flame.  Any attempt to take it seriously is a sign
of a dangerously weak sense of proportion.