From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:27:11 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <17j6c0INNkav@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com writes:

> In article <1992Aug27.141622.22014@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> >In <17gnj8INN3v9@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com writes:
> >  I recall it well.  And another study by Elise Jones and Darroch Forrest of
> >the Guttmacher Institute (in Family Planning Perspectives, January 1992; pg 12)
> >"suggesting the extent to which failure results from improper and irregular use
> >rather than from the inherent limitations of the method."  I can post some of
> >this if there is interest.
> 
> It would be of interest to me.

  Perhaps tommorrow.  If not then it won't be till Monday -- I have to go out of
town.

> >> The information is
> >> >> freely available in our society.
> >Why don't you help?  I certainly don't expect you
> >to completely trust my own judgement.
> 
> Jim, I'm beginning to think you can't read.  Take a look at the words,
> above: "The information is freely available in our society."  Those are
> my words, and that's why I'm not too interested in helping *you* on *your*
> little crusade to packege it all neatly.  I have better ways to spend my
> time.

  Well, that's your get out.  I'm still surprised (rather, dissapointed) you
seem to think its a lousy idea.

> >  You are still a fool to not care if someone makes a choice based on in-
> >complete or inaccurate information.  No, worse than a fool, you're bloody
> >callous towards these these women you're trying to defend.
> 
> Typify it as you like.  I happen to think that, rather than callousness,
> I am exhibiting a RESPECT for others that obviously evades you.  I RESPECT
> other people to make decisions for themselves based upon the depth and
> breadth of knowledge THEY deem to be appropriate. 

  Then you have an odd brand of respect.  I cannot respect someone who does not
make an important decision based on as much info as they can reasonably get.

  One question for you:  Do you RESPECT Nyikos, Holtzinger, and some others
you feel have made judgements based upon certain data, data THEY have found 
sufficient for themselves?  

  Think about it.  Carefully.  Based on the criteria you yourself presented.
And remember, I asked you first.  IF you hold to your criteria, I doubt you
will find the answer appealing.

> It turns my stomach to see arrogant nosiness thinly disguised as 'compassion',
> frankly.  And it's a completely avoidable arrogance, too.

  Wondering how I can be nosy when not prying into someone's private life...

> >> Well, we are talking about legally imposed 'education' here, Jim.
> >  NO WE ARE NOT! 
> 
> Look, Jim, 
> You are having some trouble here.

  Wrong.  No, scratch that, true.  Trouble with your talking to someone besides
the one you're debating, yeah, I've had that problem.
 
> DID I start this string of events by posting a question to you?  DID I
> personally invite you into this commentary?  DID either Roy or I ask you
> what *you* wanted to talk about?

  Well, you could have said, "Get lost, this is not your argument."

> No.  I commented on ROY's statement (at least, I think it was Roy. Ray wrote
> me a note to say it wasn't him).  You jumped in.  I don't think it's polite
> for *you* to now tell use what we are talking about.

  Oh my.  An etiquette lecture.  Listen, deary, unless you've missed something,
you are not talking to Roy.  You are talking to me, Jim.

  You and he are perfectly free to continue on your own version of the thread,
in case you don't know.

> >  "Forced"  You love that word, despite the fact it doesn't apply to me.  STOP
> >using it in reference to me.  
> 
> What an egotistical little person you are, to be sure!  Since *I've* also
> said in this very forum, that I'm speaking only to those who have a legis-
> lative agenda, I'd expect you 'should' already know that I'm not off busily
> maligning you just for the hell of it.  I'm not exactly sure why we are all
> supposed to be so careful of you, but you don't need to return the favor...
> 
> Jim, if the shoe doesn't fit, don't try so very hard to cram it on, OK?
> Adrienne Regard

  No Adreinne, you are trying to fit the shoe on me.  If you use my name and
respond directly to my post you are referring to me unless you say you are not
specifically in the post.  Ego has little to do with it.  It is, in fact, your
handy-dandy little way of making someone out to be what they are not.  I find
your little disclaimer "but I'm NOT talking about you, really!"  about as con-
vincing as you find my "I'm not legislating, REALLY."  Given that, there is
little point in us continuing.

  All I ever wanted was to make things better and easier for as many people
as I could, if they would have it.  If that makes me arrogant, egotistical,
and nosy, then I shall strive to as arrogant, egotistical, and nosy as I can.

  And since this is no longer a debate on abortion, but a discussion of net-
etiquette, I will bow out, unless Ms. Regard can do a really good job on
the question I asked her.


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.abortion