Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-ngp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm
From: kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Re. Anti-abortion for men only?
Message-ID: <889@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 30-Aug-84 18:10:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.889
Posted: Thu Aug 30 18:10:52 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Sep-84 13:45:25 EDT
References: <3455@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: Comp. Center, Univ. of Texas at Austin
Lines: 68

[]

  > lymph!arndt (formerly smurf!arndt, I presume):

  > The two
  > Ken's (Perlow/ "smurf-shredder"Montgomery - they ARE a matched pair)
  > can only think in slogans.  But there is still hope for them.  Perhaps
  > sometime soon they'll get mugged by an idea.

Hmm. Rampant personification -- being "mugged by an idea".  Will this
idea/criminal take my wallet, or just my "In Russia I couldn't wear
this button" button? :-)  Slogans are merely expressions of ideas.
(You'll tell me next that people don't think ideas? :-))

  > I mean, how dumb can you get to say that unless you have or can experience
  > something you have no right to a judgement on the issue!  Ans.: as dumb as
  > the two Kens!  (By now he's about to become a lymph-shredder - how clever,
  > I should move to a node named cheeze)

It's interesting that your only rebuttal is character assassination.
So much for ideas.

FYI, "smurf-shredder" refers to the nasty little blue cartoon characters;
not to what some wierdo :-) chose for a site name.

  > I mean these guys spray forth on every subject under the sun!  But
  > Perlow was a psych major so perhaps that helps explain him. 

Oh.

  > I wonder what expains the other guy?

Very little pains (or "expains") me more than dogmatism -- such as the hokey 
superstition that some man-written book is the Absolute Truth.

(BTW, "dogmatism", noun, 1: positiveness in assertion of opinion especially
when unwarranted or arrogant, 2: a viewpoint or system of ideas based on
insufficiently examined premises.  From \Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary/,
copyright 1979 by G. & C. Merriam Co.)

  > The diatribes from the left, particularly from NOW and all it's women
  > screamers and male hangers-on, as they raise their "brass breasted Baal"
  > on high and turn left out to sea because the country and women at large
  > have rejected them and their ideas (ERA) will become more and more shrill.

I'm a leftist?  Sure guy, and the Pope's name is George Ringo too! :-)
I advocate non-coercion; leftist positions (as we see them implemented in
the real world) typically require rampant coercion.  BTW, do you have any
support for your claim about the people at large?  And even if they do 
believe what you think they do, what right have they to coerce even one
person who disagrees with them but does not harm them?

  > Well, remember there is always a place for court jesters.

Sure.  The king is bored -- send in the fundamentalists. :-)

  > Keep casting those pearls.
  >
  > Ken Arndt

--
Continuing to take Ken Arndt and company with a large grain of ":-)",
I remain the

"Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs"
(Ken Montgomery)
...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm  [Usenet, when working]
kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA  [for Arpanauts only]