Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: "Secular Humanism" banned in the US Schools.
Message-ID: <1768@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 22-Sep-85 20:17:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1768
Posted: Sun Sep 22 20:17:03 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 23-Sep-85 02:58:47 EDT
References: <11463@rochester.UUCP> <620@hou2g.UUCP> <11616@rochester.UUCP> <1710@pyuxd.UUCP> <11706@rochester.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 55
Xref: watmath net.politics:11130 net.religion:7742

>>> Look, it's about time you and everyone else stop thinking of PP as an
>>> information center on sex.  They give out pills and abortions and a little
>>> bullshit.  Their main objective is not information, it is 'safe sex' and
>>> 'safe abortions.'

>>Ray, it's about time you STARTED thinking, and presenting facts.  I have yet
>>to see a single solitary one fact from you in all your articles.  Do you have
>>any to offer?  I think dispensing data about making sex safe and describing
>>alternatives to people IS the very purpose of an information center on sex,
>>and I for one am glad they do it.  Tell me, are you Ken Arndt in a new
>>location?  Or did Ken just give you lessons on how a rampant know-nothing
>>can disrupt a discussion forum?

> Rich, you've done it again, you 'HACKED' off the end of my posting seemingly  
> to help in substantiating your point of view.  This is nothing short of
> censorship.  If your argument cannot bear up under it's own weight, then
> re-think your argument and present it in such a way that by it's own merits
> the crutch of censorship is eliminated. [more RAY FRANK]

You're so right, Ray, I'll now re-include that all important section I
deliberately left out so as to "censor" you.

> It doesn't take much time in terms of counseling to give these things out.
> I could do it and so could you, especially if I was receiving several hundred
> thousands of dollors a year to do it.

Now, if you can explain how that added anything to your position, please
let me know.  The "excised" sentences offered nothing in the way of information
(except to claim that you could do what PP does, which you can't in any case
being as unobjective about these things as you are.  The first section
contained most of the lies you told, I didn't think it necessary to add in
your other sentences.

> This is a lively topic open to much disention.  To dimiss as rampant a view
> you disagree with is nothing short of emotional tyranny which in turn degen-
> erates into salvos of name calling and character assination which in turn does
> more to disrupt a discussion than all the contrasting points of view
> the world has to offer.  You cannot say this is my ball and if you don't
> play by my rules I'm taking it home and we won't play at all.  This is not
> YOUR net, you can't take it home, I will play and not necessarily by your  
> definitions and if you don't agree than YOU can indeed go home, but not 
> with the ball.

I'm deeply sorry that I left out the fact that you feel you could do as good
a job as PP in counseling people.  And to accuse me of that which you are
guilty of sounds awful weird to me.  I might ask you to tell everyone how,
by including the section I left out, your position has been enhanced or
altered in the perception of readers, but I don't want to ask the impossible.
Furthermore, when asked for facts, all you can do is accuse me of "censorship".
Gee, if I had a penny for every character in a responded-to article that
you left out for sheer convenience, I'd be a rich man.
-- 
Meanwhile, the Germans were engaging in their heavy cream experiments in
Finland, where the results kept coming out like Swiss cheese...
				Rich Rosen 	ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr	


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com